• 21 Aug, 2019

• By, Wikipedia

Warning: active arbitration remedies The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article is related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing this article: You must follow the bold-revert-discuss cycle if your change is reverted. You may not reinstate your edit until you post a talk page message discussing your edit and have waited 24 hours from the time of this talk page message Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. Further information Enforcement procedures: Violations of any of these restrictions should be reported immediately to the arbitration enforcement noticeboard. Editors who are aware of this topic being designated a contentious topic and who violate these restrictions may be sanctioned by any uninvolved administrator, even on a first offense. The contentious topics procedure can be used against any editor who repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process. Contentious topics sanctions can include blocks, topic-bans, or other restrictions. If you are unsure if your edit is appropriate, discuss it here on this talk page first. Remember: When in doubt, don't revert!

Want to add new information about Donald Trump? Please consider choosing the most appropriate article, for example: Indictments against Donald Trump Donald Trump 2024 presidential campaign Second presidency of Donald Trump Second presidential transition of Donald Trump ... or dozens of other places, as listed in {{Donald Trump series}}. Thanks!

view · edit Frequently asked questions Q1: This page is biased towards/against Trump because it mentions/doesn't mention x. Why won't you fix it? A1: Having a neutral point of view does not mean giving equal weight to all viewpoints. Rather, it refers to Wikipedia's effort to discuss topics and viewpoints in a roughly equal proportion to the degree that they are discussed in reliable sources, which in political articles is mostly mainstream media, although academic works are also sometimes used. For further information, please read Talk:Donald Trump/Response to claims of bias. Q2: A recent request for comment had X votes for support and Y votes for oppose. Why was it closed as no consensus when one position had more support than the other? A2: Wikipedia is built on consensus, which means that editors and contributors here debate the merits of adding, subtracting, or rearranging the information. Consensus is not a vote, rather it is a discussion among community members over how best to interpret and apply information within the bounds of our policy and guideline infrastructure. Often, but not always, the community finds itself unable to obtain consensus for changes or inclusions to the article. In other cases, the community may decide that consensus exists to add or modify material based on the strength of the arguments made by members citing relevant policy and guideline related material here. This can create confusion for new comers or those unfamiliar with Wikipedia's consensus building processes, especial since consensus can change. While all are welcome to participate in consensus building, keep in mind that the best positions for or against including material are based on policy and guideline pages, so it may be in your best interest to read up on Wikipedia's policies and guidelines before diving into the debates.

This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard. This page is about a politician who is running for office or has recently run for office, is in office and campaigning for re-election, or is involved in some current political conflict or controversy. For that reason, this article is at increased risk of biased editing, talk-page trolling, and simple vandalism. If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.

This  level-4 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.

Biography: Arts and Entertainment / Politics and Government This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography This article is supported by the arts and entertainment work group (assessed as Mid-importance). This article is supported by the politics and government work group (assessed as Top-importance). Business Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Business, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of business articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BusinessWikipedia:WikiProject BusinessTemplate:WikiProject BusinessWikiProject Business Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Climate change High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Climate change, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Climate change on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Climate changeWikipedia:WikiProject Climate changeTemplate:WikiProject Climate changeClimate change High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. If you are looking for ways to improve this article, we recommend checking out our recommended sources and our style guide Conservatism High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Conservatism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of conservatism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ConservatismWikipedia:WikiProject ConservatismTemplate:WikiProject ConservatismConservatism High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Crime and Criminal Biography Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Crime and Criminal Biography articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Crime and Criminal BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyCrime-related Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. New York City High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject New York City, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of New York City-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.New York CityWikipedia:WikiProject New York CityTemplate:WikiProject New York CityNew York City High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Politics: American / Political parties High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by American politics task force (assessed as Top-importance). This article is supported by Political parties task force (assessed as High-importance). Television: American Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to develop and improve Wikipedia articles about television programs. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join the discussion. To improve this article, please refer to the style guidelines for the type of work.TelevisionWikipedia:WikiProject TelevisionTemplate:WikiProject Televisiontelevision Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the American television task force. United States: Television / Presidential elections / Government Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by American television task force (assessed as Mid-importance). This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. presidential elections (assessed as Top-importance). This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. Government (assessed as High-importance). United States Presidents: Donald Trump Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States Presidents, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of United States Presidents on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.United States PresidentsWikipedia:WikiProject United States PresidentsTemplate:WikiProject United States PresidentsUnited States Presidents Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the importance scale. This article is supported by the Donald Trump task force. University of Pennsylvania Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject University of Pennsylvania, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of University of Pennsylvania on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.University of PennsylvaniaWikipedia:WikiProject University of PennsylvaniaTemplate:WikiProject University of PennsylvaniaUniversity of Pennsylvania Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. 2010s Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject 2010s, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of 2010s on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.2010sWikipedia:WikiProject 2010sTemplate:WikiProject 2010s2010s Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the importance scale.

Page history

Donald Trump was a Social sciences and society good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake. Article milestones Date Process Result June 2, 2006 Good article nominee Not listed February 12, 2007 Good article nominee Not listed September 17, 2016 Good article nominee Not listed May 25, 2017 Good article nominee Not listed December 2, 2018 Good article nominee Not listed July 15, 2019 Good article nominee Not listed August 31, 2019 Featured article candidate Not promoted April 29, 2020 Peer review Reviewed Current status: Former good article nominee Health of Donald Trump was nominated for deletion. The discussion was closed on 13 June 2019 with a consensus to merge. Its contents were merged into Donald Trump. The original page is now a redirect to this page. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected article, please see its history; for its talk page, see here. This article has been mentioned by multiple media organizations: Cuozzo, Steve (November 16, 2013). "Don't Trust Anything on Wikipedia". New York Post. Popper, Ben (July 22, 2015). "Someone just deleted Donald Trump's entire Wikipedia page". The Verge. Merrill, Jeremy (February 1, 2016). "On Wikipedia, Donald Trump Reigns and Facts Are Open to Debate". New York Times. Germ, Erik (May 28, 2016). "5 Secretly Bizarre Sections Of Websites You Use Every Day". Cracked.com. Guo, Jeff (October 25, 2016). "Wikipedia is fixing one of the Internet's biggest flaws". The Washington Post. Alcantara, Chris (October 27, 2016). "The most challenging job of the 2016 race: Editing the candidates' Wikipedia pages". The Washington Post. Staff Writer (December 21, 2016). "Most-edited Wikipedia pages of 2016 revealed". BBC News. Gartenberg, Chaim (January 20, 2017). "Wikipedia editors can't decide if Trump is the president yet". The Verge. Wyrich, Andrew (June 5, 2017). "Someone is trying to get Trump's official portrait deleted from Wikipedia". The Daily Dot. Warren, Tom (22 November 2018). "Siri thinks Donald Trump is a penis". The Verge. Blumenthal, Eli (22 November 2018). "Wikipedia vandalizing causes Siri to show a lewd image when asked about Donald Trump". USA Today. Griffin, Andrew (23 November 2018). "Asking Siri for information about Donald Trump shows explicit image after Wikipedia edit". The Independent. Gander, Kashmira (23 November 2018). "Someone hacked Donald Trump's Wikipedia page, replaced photo with image of penis". Newsweek. Martin, Alan (26 November 2018). "The Trump penis Wikipedia war has kicked off again". The Inquirer. Brandom, Russell (December 3, 2018). "Wikipedia engages the 'nuclear option' after Trump penis hack". The Verge. Mak, Aaron (May 28, 2019). "Donald Trump's Wikipedia Entry Is a War Zone". Slate. Pasternack, Alex (March 7, 2020). "How Wikipedia's volunteers became the web's best weapon against misinformation". Fast Company. Flood, Brian (May 21, 2020). "Wikipedia co-founder Larry Sanger says online encyclopedia scrapped neutrality, favors lefty politics". Fox News. Evon, Dan (November 19, 2020). "Does Loser.com Redirect to Trump's Wikipedia Page?". Snopes. Williams, Zoe (October 23, 2023). "Why is Elon Musk attacking Wikipedia? Because its very existence offends him". The Guardian. Hays, Gabriel (May 31, 2024). "CNN host suggests Trump conviction not mentioned prominently enough on former president's Wikipedia page". Fox News. Harrison, Stephen (June 4, 2024). "The Most Heated Debate on Trump's Felony Conviction Is Happening on ... Wikipedia?". Slate. Sam Wineburg and Nadav Ziv (October 17, 2024). "Go ahead and use Wikipedia for research". The Boston Globe. This article has been viewed enough times to make it onto the all-time Top 100 list. It has had 233 million views since December 2007. This article has been viewed enough times in a single year to make it into the Top 50 Report annual list. This happened in 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020, 2021, and 2023. This article has been viewed enough times in a single week to appear in the Top 25 Report 137 times. The weeks in which this happened: June 14 to 20, 2015 June 28 to July 4, 2015 July 19 to 25, 2015 July 26 to August 1, 2015 August 2 to 8, 2015 August 9 to 15, 2015 August 16 to 22, 2015 August 23 to 29, 2015 August 30 to September 5, 2015 September 6 to 12, 2015 September 13 to 19, 2015 September 20 to 26, 2015 September 27 to October 3, 2015 December 6 to 12, 2015 December 13 to 19, 2015 January 3 to 9, 2016 January 10 to 16, 2016 January 17 to 23, 2016 January 24 to 30, 2016 January 31 to February 6, 2016 February 7 to 13, 2016 February 14 to 20, 2016 February 21 to 27, 2016 February 28 to March 5, 2016 March 6 to 12, 2016 March 13 to 19, 2016 March 20 to 26, 2016 March 27 to April 2, 2016 April 3 to 9, 2016 April 10 to 16, 2016 April 17 to 23, 2016 April 24 to 30, 2016 May 1 to 7, 2016 May 8 to 14, 2016 May 15 to 21, 2016 May 22 to 28, 2016 May 29 to June 4, 2016 June 5 to 11, 2016 June 12 to 18, 2016 July 3 to 9, 2016 July 10 to 16, 2016 July 17 to 23, 2016 July 24 to 30, 2016 July 31 to August 6, 2016 August 21 to 27, 2016 August 28 to September 3, 2016 September 4 to 10, 2016 September 11 to 17, 2016 September 18 to 24, 2016 September 25 to October 1, 2016 October 2 to 8, 2016 October 9 to 15, 2016 October 16 to 22, 2016 October 23 to 29, 2016 October 30 to November 5, 2016 November 6 to 12, 2016 November 13 to 19, 2016 November 20 to 26, 2016 November 27 to December 3, 2016 December 4 to 10, 2016 December 11 to 17, 2016 December 18 to 24, 2016 January 1 to 7, 2017 January 8 to 14, 2017 January 15 to 21, 2017 January 22 to 28, 2017 January 29 to February 4, 2017 February 5 to 11, 2017 February 12 to 18, 2017 February 19 to 25, 2017 February 26 to March 4, 2017 March 5 to 11, 2017 March 12 to 18, 2017 March 19 to 25, 2017 March 26 to April 1, 2017 April 2 to 8, 2017 April 23 to 29, 2017 May 14 to 20, 2017 May 21 to 27, 2017 May 28 to June 3, 2017 June 11 to 17, 2017 June 25 to July 1, 2017 October 8 to 14, 2017 October 22 to 28, 2017 November 26 to December 2, 2017 January 14 to 20, 2018 June 10 to 16, 2018 September 30 to October 6, 2018 October 28 to November 3, 2018 November 4 to 10, 2018 November 11 to 17, 2018 November 18 to 24, 2018 November 25 to December 1, 2018 December 9 to 15, 2018 September 22 to 28, 2019 December 15 to 21, 2019 January 5 to 11, 2020 February 23 to 29, 2020 March 1 to 7, 2020 April 12 to 18, 2020 May 31 to June 6, 2020 June 7 to 13, 2020 June 14 to 20, 2020 June 21 to 27, 2020 June 28 to July 4, 2020 August 9 to 15, 2020 August 16 to 22, 2020 August 23 to 29, 2020 September 27 to October 3, 2020 October 4 to 10, 2020 October 11 to 17, 2020 October 18 to 24, 2020 October 25 to 31, 2020 November 1 to 7, 2020 November 8 to 14, 2020 November 15 to 21, 2020 November 22 to 28, 2020 November 29 to December 5, 2020 December 6 to 12, 2020 December 13 to 19, 2020 January 3 to 9, 2021 January 10 to 16, 2021 January 17 to 23, 2021 January 24 to 30, 2021 January 31 to February 6, 2021 July 10 to 16, 2022 June 11 to 17, 2023 May 26 to June 1, 2024 June 23 to 29, 2024 July 14 to 20, 2024 July 21 to 27, 2024 October 20 to 26, 2024 October 27 to November 2, 2024 November 3 to 9, 2024 November 10 to 16, 2024 November 17 to 23, 2024 November 24 to 30, 2024

Other talk page banners

Section sizes Section size for Donald Trump (92 sections) Section name Byte count Section total (Top) 9,144 9,144 Early life and education 3,238 3,238 Personal life 19 5,044 Family 1,340 1,340 Health 3,685 3,685 Business career 149 34,430 Real estate 3,919 14,890 Manhattan and Chicago developments 5,738 5,738 Atlantic City casinos 3,612 3,612 Clubs 1,621 1,621 Side ventures 6,697 6,697 Foundation 5,027 5,027 Trump University 1,282 1,282 Legal affairs and bankruptcies 2,316 2,316 Wealth 4,069 4,069 Media career 3,447 3,447 The Apprentice 1,414 1,414 Licensing the Trump name 2,278 2,278 Early political aspirations (1987–2014) 4,967 4,967 2016 presidential election 32 19,815 Campaign 11,729 19,783 Financial disclosures 3,669 3,669 Results 4,385 4,385 First presidency (2017–2021) 139 177,135 Early actions 2,389 2,389 Conflicts of interest 3,367 3,367 Domestic policy 21,318 21,318 Race relations 6,232 6,232 Pardons and commutations 2,574 2,574 Immigration 3,086 20,346 Travel ban 4,347 4,347 Family separation at the border 6,269 6,269 Trump wall and government shutdown 6,644 6,644 Foreign policy 2,859 35,965 Trade 2,517 2,517 Russia 4,221 4,221 East Asia 21 10,653 China, Hong Kong, Taiwan 4,914 4,914 North Korea 5,718 5,718 Middle East 23 15,715 Afghanistan 3,042 3,042 Israel 2,637 2,637 Saudi Arabia 2,229 2,229 Syria 3,797 3,797 Iran 3,987 3,987 Personnel 8,963 8,963 Judiciary 4,174 4,174 COVID-19 pandemic 291 31,784 Initial response 7,808 7,808 White House Coronavirus Task Force 5,281 5,281 World Health Organization 2,677 2,677 Pressure to abandon pandemic mitigation measures 7,968 7,968 Political pressure on health agencies 2,690 2,690 Outbreak at the White House 2,666 2,666 Effects on the 2020 presidential campaign 2,403 2,403 Investigations 1,079 26,084 Financial 3,111 3,111 Russian election interference 6,491 6,491 FBI Crossfire Hurricane and 2017 counterintelligence investigations 2,573 2,573 Mueller investigation 12,830 12,830 First impeachment 10,402 10,402 Second impeachment 3,398 3,398 2020 presidential election 34 25,702 Defeat to Biden 8,429 17,196 Rejection of results 8,767 8,767 January 6 Capitol attack 8,472 8,472 Post-presidency (2021–present) 5,015 37,339 Business activities 2,382 2,382 Investigations, criminal indictments and convictions, civil lawsuits 1,150 29,942 FBI investigations 5,781 5,781 Criminal referral by the House January 6 Committee 693 693 State criminal indictments 3,176 3,176 Federal criminal indictments 5,743 5,743 Criminal conviction in the 2016 campaign fraud case 7,734 7,734 Civil judgments 5,665 5,665 2024 presidential election 15,411 15,411 Political practice and rhetoric 3,851 46,161 Political views 12,462 12,462 Link to hate crimes 4,757 4,757 Conspiracy theories 3,330 3,330 Truthfulness 10,483 10,483 Social media 5,810 5,810 Relationship with the press 5,468 5,468 Assessments 18 6,911 Public image 4,525 4,525 Scholarly 2,368 2,368 Notes 136 136 References 30 30 Works cited 18 11,572 Books 3,256 3,256 Journals 8,298 8,298 External links 5,431 5,431 Total 409,605 409,605

This section is pinned and will not be automatically archived.

Hello all, I see Consensus #30, based particularly on this Request for Comment says: "The lead includes: "Many of his comments and actions have been characterized as racially charged or racist."" I can also see that this is the only mention of "racially charged" in the article. Would editors here support removal of "racially charged" until such text is supported in the body? Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 04:19, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Would editors here support removal of "racially charged" until such text is supported in the body? Not this one, per process. We're not going to amend #30 until the body is fixed, then reverse the amendment. "Racially charged" appears to have enough RS support, so just find a way to work it into the body. ―Mandruss ☎ 05:54, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What does "reverse the amendment" mean? Go back to Consensus 24? Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 06:07, 12 November 2024 (UTC) I understand. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 06:07, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I see the grammatical ambiguity. :) ―Mandruss ☎ 07:06, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This seems backwards. Lead follows body. We shouldn't treat the consensus list as sacrosanct, it's merely there to keep track of RfCs. If the article has moved on, I'd support a new RfC to challenge the previous one. Riposte97 (talk) 07:32, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Riposte97 I think an RfC should be avoided if it can be. Do you think you could WP:FIXIT? I'll have a go as well in a bit. If we don't have luck we can look at overturning Consensus #30.

Given it's an WP:EXCEPTIONAL claim, high-quality sources will be needed. I wouldn't accept journalists being arbitrators of whether his comments were "racially charged", political scientists will have written on it and we shouldn't accept inferior sourcing. This is the standard that was applied for "cult of personality". Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 07:57, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your reasoning seems consistent with WP:NEWSORG. A departure, probably more impactful (disruptive?) than you realize, but maybe ultimately good for the article. No strong opinion provided we adhere to the established consensus process. If that means revisiting #30, I suppose you pass the "significant new argument(s)" test. ―Mandruss ☎ 08:37, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Rollinginhisgrave, apologies that I've not had the time to properly devote to this. I'll see what I can add to your page in the coming days. Riposte97 (talk) 10:37, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yep definitely. 92.30.105.204 (talk) 19:45, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have created a page User:Rollinginhisgrave/Trump racism descriptor as a space for research on this article. I intended to use academic sources in Racial views of Donald Trump as the basis to follow summary style, but extremely disappointingly, only six of the almost 500 sources are academic.

This is collaborative so please help! If this can be pinned to the top of this page for a short while it would be valuable. Remember, for WP:WEIGHT, we are not merely looking for multiple sources describing him or his comments/actions as racist/racially charged, but for the weighted response of high-quality academic sources to these questions. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 10:21, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

SusanLesch Pinging you in case this effort is of interest. Been working mostly on collating books right now as journals are daunting for finding discussion of general scholarly consensus. If you find other useful texts along the way providing a scholarly retrospective assessment on aspects, I'm currently dropping them in User:Rollinginhisgrave/sandbox_2. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 17:17, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Will do. Sorry if I'm slow today with journals but I will catch up. On this topic per MOS:LEADNO, not everything in the lead must be repeated in the body of the text, however this statement absolutely should be cited per MOS:CITELEAD. Seems like a good place for a perfectly cited footnote. -SusanLesch (talk) 17:42, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks :) Yes the key issue is definitely it being uncited. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 17:48, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support removal. "Racially charged" is nothing but a euphemism for "racist". When you consider that in the same sentence we are saying that Trump's comments and actions have been characterized as outright racist, it makes even less sense to "soften" the characterization with this term. Reading that old discussion, I think the true reason that many editors tended to support the euphemism was because it softens the perception that we are saying he is racist in Wikivoice. "Characterized by some" was rightly rejected by editors as too vague, but perhaps "characterized by critics" could be used to clearly attribute the characterization and prevent reader misunderstanding. — Goszei (talk) 01:34, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

it needs removing for sure. it's against WP:Biographies_of_living_persons on multiple counts, but specially "Remove contentious material that is unsourced or poorly sourced" ~ Smellymoo 18:29, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's sourced in Donald Trump#Views. A citation should be added to the lead per MOS:LEADCITE. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:44, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To be clear, I do not oppose the lead's inclusion of the fact that many characterize Trump as racist. I am only supporting the removal of the term "racially charged", which I feel is redundant. — Goszei (talk) 17:08, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Suggest you look up the meaning of "racially charged". Regards, Bob K31416 (talk) 23:40, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  This comment is going over my head. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 01:19, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Word counts by paragraph and total.

Readable prose size in words – Wiki markup size in bytes – Approximate number of additional citations before exceeding the PEIS limit.

This section is pinned and will not be automatically archived.

Uninvolved closure requested.[1] ―Mandruss ☎ 14:00, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Here's my proposal: that a section be added that reports the public discussion of concerns about his health, which are now a major part of public discourse. It should obviously not itself speculate on Trump's mental fitness, only report on the comments of WP:RS according to the WP:NPOV guidelines. This would not violate WP:MEDRS, because it would not express an opinion on his mental state, only report on the opinions of others. Opinions, please? — The Anome (talk) 11:32, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A consensus/new consensus can be established without an RfC. You've already started the discussion on this page. Opening an RfC at this point would be improper, IMO. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 11:35, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you insist on going that route, this is the procedure: Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 11:40, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Just to start off: support as proposer, per comments above. — The Anome (talk) 11:38, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Anome, I suggest you notify the talk page of the article from which your proposed content originated. That page is 6 years old, so the editors there are likely knowledgeable. SPECIFICO talk 20:57, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Best 'not' to hand out such a notification at another talkpage, Anome. Less that be construed as canvassing for support. GoodDay (talk) 21:02, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• No, it is media speculation, not a clinical diagnosis, and this is a BLP. Slatersteven (talk) 11:39, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• yes it is time, esp after the 39 minute dance this week the topic has received quite a bit of coverage. whether it is a 'diagnosis' or not is not an issue, a encyclopedia is not drawing a medically-based conclusion it is just reflecting the preponderance of the sources. ValarianB (talk) 13:44, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• No or at best, very limited yes. I know we don't cite other wiki pages. But just for comparison, the Joe Biden main page only gives it about a vague sentence or two, and that's for a figure who's cognitive decline has been much more prominent and widely discussed by RS. Also, that section is titled much more neutrally simply as "Age and health." So overall, this is a "no" unless significantly scaled back. Just10A (talk) 13:50, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• No It looks like they are not sincere age and health concerns but political attacks with no consensus of medical professionals. In the last stages of an election campaign, I think it's just part of an expected full court press. Bob K31416 (talk) 14:10, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  That's a straw man. The topic is concerns, which have been found NOTABLE on the abundantly sourced wiki page from which the recent content and deletion originated. If it were a medical diagnosis, the lead of this page would simply state "Donald Trump is the demented former POTUS and the demented candidate for 2024." But it isn't a diagnosis and nobody's suggested it is. There should not be a formal poll of any sort here. It's already under discussion and @GoodDay: has provided no policy or content-based rationale not to include this summary of a relevant article, similar to many others on this page. Lacking any such rationale, the removal appears meddlesome and destructive. SPECIFICO talk 15:11, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Are you suggesting editors who oppose the addition, are disruptive? GoodDay (talk) 15:20, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

SPECIFICO was topic banned from Donald Trump a couple of months ago and their above comment was given as the last example of why.[2] Bob K31416 (talk) 14:26, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• No - as he hasn't been diagnosed with having any such medical issues. GoodDay (talk) 14:23, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• No - We are not going to use non-MEDRS soucres to speculated on someone's mental or physical health. We wouldn't do it with Joe or anyone else. It's also laughable un-encyclopedic. Also it should probably be an RFC to overturn two RFCs and a bunch of previous discussions that all found the same thing. PackMecEng (talk) 14:53, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Kinda seems like we did do that with Joe [3]. DN (talk) 15:56, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Ugh, well we shouldn't. PackMecEng (talk) 16:59, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I don't see a way to "unring" that bell. DN (talk) 20:13, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Not to point fingers or drag this out even further (see below), but this (correction, see comment by Just10A above) seems to be where comparisons to the Biden article actually started. Cheers. DN (talk) 10:35, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes See Joe Biden#2024 presidential campaign. "After the debate raised questions about his health and age, Biden faced calls to withdraw from the race, including from fellow Democrats and the editorial boards of several major news outlets". I understand BLP's require extra care, but "concern" doesn't seem to be weasely enough, as long as it's attributed in a verifiable context outside of VOICE. If the same rules that apply to Biden also apply to Trump, "Refuses to release medical records" with "attributed concerns" is where the bar currently sits. See "More than 230 doctors and health care providers, most of whom are backing Vice President Kamala Harris, call on Trump to release medical records" ABC NYT, Independent, CBS. Also see Age and health concerns about Donald Trump Cheers. DN (talk) 15:05, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  And Biden did step down, is there any indication of similar pressure on Trump from within the GOP? Slatersteven (talk) 15:10, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  It's not a qualifier as far as I know. Was the "raised questions about Biden's health" only allowed to be added AFTER he stepped down? Cheers. DN (talk) 15:21, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Well I recall making the same arguments there as here, and it all changed when it actually had an impact on the election. Slatersteven (talk) 15:23, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Let's look at the tape. Looks like concerns about Biden's health were added on the 4th of July "After the debate raised questions about his health, Biden faced calls to withdraw from the race, including from fellow Democrats and the editorial boards of several major news outlets"[4] and Biden didn't resign until July 21st. Did I miss something? DN (talk) 15:44, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  NO, but I did, as I had opposed that in the past, and did not see the addition. Slatersteven (talk) 15:52, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I can see wanting to err on the side of caution, but the cat is out of the bag and fairness is the name of the game, and other such idioms... DN (talk) 16:04, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  So we could say then "After a series of rallies raised questions about his health, Trump faced calls to withdraw from the race, including from fellow Republicana and the editorial boards of several major news outlets", would this be supported by RS? Slatersteven (talk) 16:10, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  AFAIK There is no policy stipulating the statements must be similar. Only that it must be based on what the sources say. DN (talk) 20:24, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  1.) Do not substantively edit your comments after editors have already replied to them without indicating it. That is against guidelines.

  2.) I don't know how you can argue "There is no policy stipulating the statements must be similar" when just above that you argued "Kinda seems like we did do that with Joe" and "fairness is the name of the game."

  I agree that policy doesn't mandate they match, but you gotta pick a side. You can't argue "Policy says they don't need to be similar" and then simultaneously say "They gotta similar or else it's unfair." Just10A (talk) 20:56, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @Just10A If I acted improperly I apologize, as it wasn't my intent to mislead anyone, hence the clarification. I wasn't aware adding afaik is considered a substantive change.

  I believe my yes vote implies that I have picked a side. TMK I'm allowed to make observations and express views on the appearance of possible inconsistencies in the application of policy in good faith. Cheers. DN (talk) 22:00, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  No problem. I was referring to you adding the ABC source in your earlier comment though just to be clear. I agree that adding AFAIK is more minor. Just10A (talk) 22:03, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Oh, then I was way off on what I thought you were referring to. I was about to start adding TMK and AFAIK to all of my sentences. I meant to add the ABC source in my original edit, but I goofed. Truly sorry if that screwed something up, I've had similar experiences so I empathize. DN (talk) 22:21, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @Just10A I would briefly add that, TMK the application of policy and the substance of the context being proposed do not represent two conflicting interpretations of the same policies AFAIK. DN (talk) 22:08, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  True, but it also means they are not the same situation, which was my point, that they are not analogous. Slatersteven (talk) 10:42, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• (edit conflict) I'd like to see someone confirm what sort of secondary coverage is here, but WP:MEDRS is irrelevant here because biographical information is not biomedical information: we should almost never include things like how a disease works or how it is diagnosed (except insofar to mention the subject isn't, when that's the case) on a biographical article in the first place. That is not to say we should not ask for the absolute best quality sources, but MEDRS is an inappropriate guideline here. Also, discussion on this topic will also need to consider how and where primary sources are used on the subarticle. Due weight concerns don't go away simply because the content happens to be on another article, and not mentioning something we have an entire subarticle on even once in the main article is close to essentially forcing the subarticle to be a POV fork, an outcome I'd expect neither those supporting nor opposing inclusion should want. Alpha3031 (t • c) 22:23, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I also don't see how WP:MEDRS (identifying reliable third-party published secondary sources accurately reflecting current knowledge on biomedical information (information relating to or could reasonably be perceived as relating to human health)) applies. If a majority of reliable sources describes the candidate's speech as increasingly incoherent and his behavior as increasingly bizarre, it's not a medical diagnosis. Consensus 39: This does not prevent inclusion of content about temperamental fitness for office. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 13:33, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No. This is still a BLP. Riposte97 (talk) 22:56, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment For anyone interested in additional details about "Age and health concerns about Joe Biden" being added to the LEAD of Joe Biden's BLP, they appeared about nine days before he bowed out of the 2024 presidential race. It made it onto the LEAD on July 12, [5]. On the 18th a CFN tag was added [6], then removed [7], then re-added and removed again on the 19th [8], back on the 20th [9], removed same day [10], then again re-added by FMSky on the 20th [11], then removed again same day [12], re-added same day [13], and finally within the next 8-24 hours he dropped out [14]. Cheers. DN (talk) 02:00, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Let me clarify 2 more things then I'm outta here. First, I goofed again when I pinged FMSky, total brain fart that might be perceived as intentional CANVAS or sabotage, I'm just tired from editing all day and got distracted putting diffs together. It's no excuse it's just being honest, you can check my contribs. I doubt they would agree with my vote anyway. Second, I'm not saying this is a good reason to do the same thing here, I just think it's relevant somehow. Sorry if I screwed up, it wont happen again (here at least). Cheers. DN (talk) 02:45, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Include. In the last 5-14 days since Harris released her "excellent health" report, there has been renewed coverage in RS about Trump's refusal to release his medical records[15][16][17] and the recent town hall that was even beyond the usual performance standard.[18] Even after Biden it was mentioned [19][20][21][22] Andre🚐 05:49, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, there is polling and Trump hasn't disclosed his medical records.

JohnAdams1800 (talk) 02:26, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. People say that it should not be included because there is no MEDRS-level source that lists Trump's health. However, this did not stop concerns about Biden's health being added to the Joe Biden page, nor did it stop the creation of the Age and health concerns about Joe Biden Wikipedia page. There is also an Age and health concerns about Donald Trump page. Wikipedia is governed by the consensus of reliable sources, and multiple reliable sources have brought up this topic to the extent that an entire individual page on the wiki exists to cover it, thus the content is WP:DUE. To not at least mention it on this page would be a violation of WP:NPOV and I don't like it through the introduction of editorial bias by having Wikipedia editors decide that the issue is "not important" enough to mention on this page, despite multiple RS clearly making the case that this issue is worth mentioning. BootsED (talk) 03:58, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Regarding the rally in Oaks, PA that's been mentioned in this section and in various news media sources, here's the full video of it from C-SPAN [23]. I think it's been mischaracterized as age and health concerns for Trump. Bob K31416 (talk) 07:28, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Yes! Its absurd having a long article Age_and_health_concerns_about_Donald_Trump with 120 references but trying to hide that in the main article. This is really a hot topic in the media (US and abroad) so deleting it here is really ridiculous. Especially with the Joe Biden entry featuring such an paragraph. Andol (talk) 19:03, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Amen to this. Biden has never been diagnosed with dementia, so it would be wildly improper to suggest that he does, per WP:MEDRS, but we can and should report the widely WP:RS-reported public political controversy regarding the possibility of dementia, per WP:NPOV, as it is politically significant. Trump should not be treated as a special case who is somehow privileged over others. — The Anome (talk) 06:51, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes for basically the reason Andol gave. There's a long article on these concerns, so we clearly have ample sourcing for them, so it's weird we're not mentioning them much here. Loki (talk) 01:33, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. The decline may not have been as obvious as Biden's because it started from a much lower baseline, but it was noticeable and noticed. Just this week, there was the 39-minute musical interlude at the Oaks, PA, town hall; the non-responsive rambling during the Bloomberg interview; on Friday, a 10-year old asked Trump on [Fox&Fiends (at 34:26) who his favorite president was when he was little. Trump said "Reagan", then rambled on about Lincoln, the Civil War, Ukraine, Russia, October 7, buying oil from Iran, etc.; and at yesterday's rally in Latrobe, PA, where he "spewed crude and vulgar remarks" and regaled the crowd with tales of Arnold Palmer being "strong and tough" and "unbelievable" in the shower, adding to the "impression of [Trump] as increasingly unfiltered and undisciplined". Quoting the AP headline: Trump kicks off a Pennsylvania rally by talking about Arnold Palmer’s genitalia. NPR called it "an unusually energetic rally for the former president, who has looked and sounded tired of late while doing multiple events and interviews a day across multiple swing states".Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 15:50, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Oaks Town Hall — (Good-faith refactoring of distracting side issue was reverted. The following posts were in response to this. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 16:06, 17 October 2024 (UTC) )[reply]

It wasn't a rally. It was a "town hall" staged by the Trump campaign, with Republican operatives posing as "constituents" and reading off cue cards. One of them, "Angelina who had voted Democrat all my life and was from a Democrat union household" had to correct herself because she forgot to say "union household"; she's Angelina Banks who was the Republican nominee for Township Commissioner and State Representative in Pennsylvania's 154th and lost with 19.3% to Nelson's 80.7%. Mischaracterized? The campaign had prepared 10 Q&As but after five the Q&A turned into a bizarre musical event with Trump giving a minion a playlist and then standing on stage not even dancing. Just standing, occasionally swaying, jerking his arms, finger-pointing at the audience, and making faces/smiling(?). And, in keeping with the musical theme, two days later Fox unearthed the set of Hee Haw for an all-women town hall with an audience of MAGA supporters asking curated puff questions. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 11:15, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's been mischaracterized... You personal analysis of reliable sources is of no concern to this page. If the sources cover this as an example of the subject's mental decline, then so shall we. Not necessarily in the proverbial "WikiVoice" but as "sources say." For now. Zaathras (talk) 12:12, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• No There are no reliable secondary sources reporting that Trump has age-related cognitive decline, just speculation from his opponents. One editor mentioned that we covered this for Biden, but it was in the article about his recent presidential campaign. That's where this informtion belongs. It isn't possible to list every accusation made by his opponents in this article, so there is a high bar for inclusion. TFD (talk) 11:27, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speculation from his opponents? You mean denial of his supporters? I think it is obvious to everyone except is supporters that he has massive issues. This is not a political campaign. It is a topic reported in international media all over the world, even making headlines. And everyone can see it. The only news outlets that don't report on this are the conservative media in US! Think about that. Greetings from Germany, where Trumps decline seems to be better covered than in (the conservative) parts of the US media. Andol (talk) 19:29, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Is there something askew with these sources? They seem to be speculating at the very least.

NYT: Trump’s Speeches, Increasingly Angry and Rambling, Reignite the Question of Age

Independent: Trump’s rambling and angry speeches raise questions about his age and fitness to serve four years

Independent: Experts say Trump’s speaking style shows ‘potential indications of cognitive decline’

New Republic: Watch: Embarrassing Video Reveals Trump’s Alarming Cognitive Decline

The Atlantic: Trump’s Repetitive Speech Is a Bad Sign

WaPo: What science tells us about Biden, Trump and evaluating an aging brain

LA Times: Trump’s rhetorical walkabouts: A sign of ‘genius’ or cognitive decline?

Cheers. DN (talk) 02:21, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reliable sources lose their reliability when they express politically motivated opinion and manipulation during a heated election campaign. Buried in one of those sources is a glimmer of rational journalistic integrity, "...the experts in memory, psychology, and linguistics who spoke to STAT noted that they couldn’t give a diagnosis without conducting an examination...". Thanks. Bob K31416 (talk) 11:17, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not according to policy, bias it not a justification for rejecting a source, only lack of factual accuracy. Slatersteven (talk) 11:27, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Don't fall for the bias claim. It doesn't make you biased if you report on those glaring issues. They are obvious. Rather the opposite is true. It takes willful denial, i.e. bias, to not see it. The whole point here is that Trump as a whole is such an abnormal person that he has shifted the goalposts to such a distance that there is no standard to measure him and thus he can get away with anything. And that is a problem for Wikipedia, because Biden is compared to normal people (making him look old), while Trump is compared to himself. Add the near-total polarization in the US, which has his supporters deny everything, even the possibility that there could be anything. Please step back and look up, how the Rest of the world looks at Trump and this election. It's not how the US see it. Trust me. 80 % of the population is in utter disbelieve how Trump with all of his glaring issues even got there, lest how someone who is right in his mind can even think a second of voting for him. And we do really debate if he has issues? Claiming he hasn't is biased, not the other way round. This is a clear situation where the truth is not halfway in the middle. Look at this. Just imagine Joe Biden or Kamala Harris being on stage bragging about the size of some dudes dick. The outcry would be thermonuclear and it would be broadly covered in his or her article in literally five seconds. Here? Thats Trump, normal day in the office, so what. Irrelevant, he made a thousand similar remarks. And that creates a systematic bias pro Trump, because there is no standard he doesn't fall short of, and therefore nothing is noteworthy, no matter how egregious. Andol (talk) 23:59, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• No - If it was to be included, it would have to be introduced as mere speculation because of MEDRS, but I do not believe there has been any particulary significant RS reporting of speculation about cognitive decline as there was about Biden nor any substantive reason (like a drop out over it) to include it. Trump's speculated cognitive decline has only been popping in the news for the past couple months because he's now the old guy on the ticket, and Dems naturally want to capitalize on that. Not WP:DUE at this time. R. G. Checkers 14:51, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • @R. G. Checkers: And yet we have all the cites from mainstream media WP:RS cited above. Mysteriously, this sort of reporting is regarded as WP:NPOV when it comes to Biden, yet not for Trump. As Elon Musk would say, "Interesting." Is there any point at which you might regarded the public debate about Trump's mental competence noteworthy enough to mention here, or are you just waiting for the election to be over? — The Anome (talk) 17:48, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Yes, and it won’t be because he danced at a rally. It would be if there was sustained coverage over months long periods with concerns of cognitive decline or if he literally had drop out of the race because of it. But do I think that 3 weeks before an election with politics flaring and a sudden emphasis on his alleged mental decline is a good reason for inclusion? I answer no. R. G. Checkers 19:18, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    In other words, WP:DUE but not before the election? I didn't know WP had to adhere to DOJ guidelines. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 20:40, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Is there some policy I'm not aware of that gives a waiting period, especially if your name isn't Joe Biden? DN (talk) 20:43, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    That's not exactly what Mr. Checkers said. I agree that we should ensure the content is WP:DUE by waiting to see if it's a blip, or something carried through by the sources for more than a few days. Space4Time3Continuum2x, you are usually a stalwart adherent of both established consensus and conservative application of policy - what gives? Riposte97 (talk) 21:08, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Last week happened. (I'm still trying to unimagine the unbelievable Arnold Palmer in the shower — a few extra nipples, a rudimentary third leg, a tattoo of Richard Nixon on his back? Although that one is on Roger Stone, I believe, another Trump friend.) This isn't new. NYT in 2018: "Trump's self-absorption, impulsiveness, lack of empathy, obsessive focus on slights, tenuous grasp of facts and penchant for sometimes far-fetched conspiracy theories have generated endless op-ed columns, magazine articles, books, professional panel discussions and cable television speculation." Now we have a flood of reporting on what was obvious for months for everyone who watched Trump rallys on C-SPAN. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 15:03, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Your personal analysis or perceived opinion on what's "obvious" about political candidates is irrelevant to the discussion at issue. You're getting seriously close to WP:NOTFORUM. Quit rambling and stick to neutral discussion about the topic at hand to improve the encyclopedia. Just10A (talk) 16:27, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    WP:NOPA. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 17:53, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Asking you to stop violating policy is not a personal attack. Just10A (talk) 18:26, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    This has been reported on maybe as far back as 2017.

    2017

    2017

    2017

    2017

    2017

    Jan 2024

    No one seems to be suggesting this goes into the lead sentence, and as far as policy goes, eerily similar material to Age and health concerns about Donald Trump made it into the the Biden article as far back as July 4th, and it's STILL there. DN (talk) 19:12, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    As is frequently pointed out to new users of this page, the fact that some other page on Wikipedia has a different consensus has no bearing on this one. That is usually understood when we are resisting putting something positive in, but seems all to quickly jettisoned when convenient. Regarding the Oaks Town Hall which precipitated this thread, neutral RS seem to offer an explanation that is inconsistent with the line pushed by more partisan sources that Trump had some kind of mental episode. See for example: https://abcnews.go.com/amp/Politics/trump-town-hall-derailed-after-medical-emergencies-crowd/story?id=114796716. I remain unconvinced that the content should be added. Riposte97 (talk) 20:41, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    "neutral RS seem to offer an explanation that is inconsistent with the line pushed by more partisan sources"

    These threads get so long it's hard to keep track. Please link or cite examples of partisan and neutral sources to which you're referring if you get the chance, it would be very helpful. Cheers. DN (talk) 20:51, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Judging by the headlines, we shouldn't use the 2017 sources per the Goldwater rule (psychiatrists/psychologists diagnosing people they haven't seen as patients). Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 12:45, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Also, I may a bit confused as to where this thread begins and ends. I may be unintentionally conflating the Oaks town hall and the Proposal: Age and health concerns...Cheers. DN (talk) 21:38, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• The 39 minute weird man-dancing (partly to YMCA, a song about gay hookups of all things) may actually be the worst example of his cognitive decline as he was quiet instead of rambling nonsense. Indeed, it could be an example of something not at all recent. It certainly doesn't belong in this article. Perhaps elsewhere. O3000, Ret. (talk) 00:18, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Not sure if you've seen the unbiased raw video of the Oaks, PA event. On the webpage of C-SPAN's presentation of the full video [24], to the right there is a list of the points of interest in the video: Gov. Kristi Noem (R-SD) Remarks, Fmr. President Trump Remarks, Affordable Homeownership, Family Request Congressional Hearing, Cost of Living, Immigration, Russia-Ukraine War, Immigration & Deportation, Medical Emergency. Notably missing from C-SPAN's list is "weird man-dancing". Bob K31416 (talk) 11:12, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  What's your point? The C-SPAN video shows the entire event. The music starts at 45:00 and continues until the end. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 12:19, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  For context, note that the first medical emergency began at 39:00, 6 minutes before your start time. Viewing the video starting at 39:00 will give a better idea of what's going on. Thanks. Bob K31416 (talk) 23:54, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I've seen the video and I don't see your point either. Trump just said that he is ahead in every one of the 50 states in the polls. Every state. His goofy, silent dancing was far more rational. O3000, Ret. (talk) 00:49, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What particularly irritates me here is the double standard of invoking WP:MEDRS in regard to this. No-one is asking for Wikipedia to state that Trump has dementia, or that he has suffered a medical cognitive decline; the issue here is that his increasingly erratic behavior has become a significant news story, and is being reported in reputable MSM sources such as the NYT and WP, who have bent over backwards to be fair to Trump, wouldn't have dreamed of doing eveen a few months ago. Yet for some reason, we're not allowed to use these WP:RS to report these events and the public concern about them in the MSM. This is a profoundly un-encyclopedic things to do that breaks the fundamental WP:NPOV policy. Rejecting any mention of significant major MSM coverage because you don't like it is just another form of WP:OR, — The Anome (talk) 17:02, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

But that is the consensus on this article. That MEDRS sources are required, even to have the conversation technically. PackMecEng (talk) 17:39, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If this is absolute, then it could not be in the Biden article. But it is. Therefore there is no way to deny the pro Trump bias. MEDRS cannot only protect Trump, but ignore Biden. To me the deletion sounds politically motivated. And that is a major problem. Andol (talk) 20:42, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Andol Look at the top of the page in current consensus #39. Nothing is politically motived. PackMecEng (talk) 22:01, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I made a WP:BOLD edit to see how this plays out [25]. Maybe there is consensus? DN (talk) 04:43, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm good with it and hope it sticks. PackMecEng (talk) 14:15, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry DN, could you link to your change? I can't seem to find it. Riposte97 (talk) 20:17, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

He changed it on the Joe Biden page, not the Trump one. I had the same confusion initially. Just10A (talk) 20:36, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ah. Thank you. Riposte97 (talk) 20:42, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please do NOT refer to me as "he". They or them is fine. DN (talk) 10:36, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree MEDRS applies there any more than it does here, but I don't particularly care if it's in the lead or how much weight to give to it, so long as it's there. I will revert if someone tries to remove all three paragraphs about it in the other article though. Alpha3031 (t • c) 10:30, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has now re-added Age and health concerns about Joe Biden back into the lead on Joe Biden's BLP. I am not going to remove it, and agree that we should leave it. IMO Age and health concerns about Donald Trump now seems over-DUE here. DN (talk) 05:16, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mx. Nipples, the existence of a section on another page has absolutely zero bearing on what should be on this one. None. We go by consensus, not by precedent. Riposte97 (talk) 05:44, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

↑↑↑↑ Agree as to process. Other articles never affect this article unless a community consensus says they do for a specific discrete situation. This is a common misconception, understandable given the human desire for consistency, but you won't find it anywhere in policy, and not for lack of attempts to make it so. ―Mandruss ☎ 06:00, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That was more of an aside. See Riposte's removal of cited content on the current subject, referring to a now seemingly dormant discussion. DN (talk) 06:22, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes. It's been covered extensively in media reports, which is the only criteria that really matters here. Cessaune [talk] 17:50, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Question Riposte97 See edit - There has been no further discussion here for the last few days. What is still being discussed? BTW, "age and health concerns for Joe Biden" was added back into his BLP in the lead, and I see no further arguments over MEDRS. DN (talk) 05:34, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  If you have a problem with the Biden page, take it to the Biden page. There is currently no consensus to add the disputed material to this page. Riposte97 (talk) 05:47, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I never had a problem with the Biden BLP, but I asked you what is left to discuss here. DN (talk) 06:20, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I'll ask again. What is left to discuss? DN (talk) 20:27, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I agree with you that there isn't a ton left to discuss. But the discussion did not end with your proposed addition achieving consensus. As already outlined in this thread: (1) wikipedia is not a source, what occurs on a totally different page has no bearing on this one; and (2) Even if it did, the situations are clearly distinguishable. It's included on Biden's page as relevant primarily because it's the reason Biden dropped out of the race. The same is not true for Trump. Thus, since the situations are distinguishable and consensus has not adopted it, it's unlikely to be added. Just10A (talk) 20:44, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  To be clear, it wasn't my proposal, and the primary argument against the addition seemed to be that it violated MEDRS, not because this BLP needed to be like the Biden BLP. The Biden BLP was only used as an example of how the MEDRS argument didn't seem to hold water. DN (talk) 20:56, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  "It's included on Biden's page as relevant primarily because it's the reason Biden dropped out of the race."

  I thought we weren't using edits from one BLP as an example to justify similar edits to the other?

  Anyway, that content was added BEFORE Biden dropped out.

  So, there goes that excuse. DN (talk) 05:10, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I thought we weren't using edits from one BLP as an example to justify similar edits to the other? We aren't. That's why I explicitly began the point with "Even if it did". We don't use another page as a source, but even if we did, the situations are clearly distinguishable for the reasons already outlined throughout the post. The addition doesn't have consensus, so it's not going to be added at this time. Just10A (talk) 13:59, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Just to be clear, I'm not advocating for the Oaks Town Hall to be used as evidence for concerns about age and health, especially in VOICE. Far from it. I simply disagree that there is any clear violation of MEDRS to include something like (below)

  • Trump, if he served his full second term, would become the oldest President of the United States ever. Since his emergence as a politician, Trump has provided less information about his health than is normal for presidential candidates WaPo

  Cheers. DN (talk) 20:58, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Well, that's not really what this thread entitled 'Oaks Town Hall' is about. Perhaps start a new one with your suggested text. Riposte97 (talk) 21:03, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Why start yet another thread? Seems like an additional time sink. DN (talk) 21:13, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - sorry, I missed this on the talk page. Now extensive and increasing sourcing on the topic. Blythwood (talk) 17:42, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Seems like the Harris campaign and news media have moved from age and health concerns to fascism. Do you have any new links that came out this week for age and health concerns? Thanks. Bob K31416 (talk) 19:47, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Seems there was a YouGov poll and pieces in Time magazine and the New Yorker, recently...

  "As the calls grow for Donald Trump to release his medical records, Democratic presidential nominee Kamala Harris called out her opponent once more during a rally in Houston, Texas, on Friday. She pointed towards the legal battle of Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton and other Texas right wing leaders to access the private medical records of patients who seek out-of-state abortions." Time 10-27-24

  "Over half of Americans, 56 percent, said they believe that Trump’s age and health would impact his ability to serve as commander-in-chief at least a little bit, according to another YouGov poll conducted earlier this month.

  Over one-third, 36 percent, said the former president will be “severely” undercut by his age and health. Another one-third, 33 percent, said those factors will not impact the Republican nominee.

  Inversely, 62 percent of Americans said Harris’s health and age will not affect her work in the White House if she is elected president, according to the survey." The Hill 10-26-24

  "couple of weeks ago, Donald Trump turned in one of his strangest performances in a campaign with no shortage of them—part of a series of oddities that may or may not constitute an October surprise but has certainly made for a surprising October. 'Who the hell wants to hear questions?' he hollered at a town hall in Pennsylvania, after two attendees had suffered medical emergencies. Then he wandered the stage for nearly forty minutes, swaying to music from his playlist—'Ave Maria,' 'Y.M.C.A.,' 'Hallelujah.'" The New Yorker 10-27-24

  "An increasing number of Americans say Donald Trump is too old to be president — but not as many as when President Joe Biden faced similar concerns about his age over the summer.

  A new poll from YouGov found that 44 percent said Trump, at age 78, is too old to lead the executive branch. That figure is up from 35 percent who said the same in a similar February survey." The Independent 10-27-24

  Cheers. DN (talk) 05:44, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Respectfully, there is no way this is going to get consensus here. If you feel really strongly, maybe start an RfC. That would probably be the most appropriate way to displace the existing RfCs. Riposte97 (talk) 07:44, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I was replying to Bob K3416's recent request..."Do you have any new links that came out this week for age and health concerns?"

  Your declarative statement may be a bit out of place in this context, and brings up what appears to be an inconsistency.

  [26] As you also stated in your recent removal of cited content that is months old (clarify - irl - not the article itself)... "This is still being discussed on the talk page"

  What are the means by which to reconcile "this is still being discussed", at the same time as, "there is no way this is going to get consensus here"?

  Cheers. DN (talk) 08:46, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks for your response with the links.

  Regarding the rest of your message, the logic isn't clear. Various messages here are evidence that it is still being discussed and the point that you are trying to make with your sentence, "What is the means..." is unclear. For one thing, note that you are comparing an edit summary on the article page with a message on this talk page. Seems like apples and oranges. Bob K31416 (talk) 13:28, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Darknipples has now edited their comment, although the argument isn't any more compelling imo. Riposte97 (talk) 20:24, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I was about to add (Btw I corrected my grammar slip) Reverting under the auspices of "it's under discussion", gives the appearance of contradiction to the recent declaration that "there is no way to achieve consensus"

  Granted, I wouldn't completely disagree with Riposte97's removal of some of the context, but the rest seems like it could be DUE. (below)

  • Trump, if he served his full second term, would become the oldest President of the United States ever. Since his emergence as a politician, Trump has provided less information about his health than is normal for presidential candidates.

  A partial revert leaving this portion would seem fine. DN (talk) 20:29, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  The second sentence wasn't in the given source. The insinuation of being in poor health since becoming a politician is contradicted by the fact that he served 4 years as president without any apparent chronic health problem or physical weakness, and he is currently vigorously campaigning for president. Be careful of age discrimination where healthy people are presumed weak and unhealthy because they are old. If you were elderly, healthy and strong, I don't think you would like people insinuating that you were unhealthy and weak because you were chronologically old. Be well. Bob K31416 (talk) 08:04, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  "The second sentence wasn't in the given source."

  Good catch, I pulled it from the edit that was reverted so maybe the citation might have been placed further in.

  As far as "insinuating he is in poor health", that is not what the proposal is about. The proposal was for reports regarding public concern for his age and health, that does not involve speculation or "insinuate" anything specific as to violate MEDRS.

  • "The age of presidential candidates has been a key issue for voters this year. A Washington Post-ABC News-Ipsos poll, conducted before last week’s Republican convention, found that 60 percent of Americans said Trump is too old for another term as president, including 82 percent of Democrats, 65 percent of independents and 29 percent of Republicans."

  DN (talk) 09:55, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  His age is already in the article. Riposte97 (talk) 04:19, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Water is wet. DN (talk) 05:30, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes. There is overwhelming and WP:SUSTAINED coverage of it at this point; the fact that it is speculative (which some people object to above) doesn't matter, since we do cover speculation when it has sufficient coverage and is clearly relevant to the subject. As WP:BLP says, If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs in the article—even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it, emphasis mine. For recent coverage, which someone requested above, see eg. ; for older coverage, there's a massive number of sources on Age and health concerns about Donald Trump. --Aquillion (talk) 15:34, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  the article have all the negatives about Trump or they have been put under a bad light. For eg: he met north korean president but without decreasing the nuclear prospect. It doesn't consider that Trump's predecessors or successors hasn't visited him and downright refused to that idea. And north korea did decreased thier frequency in building nuclear weapon. These article seems to be put forward by a Trump hater, and doesn't even mention all the good things he has done, like low inflation, boosting economy etc. 2409:40D0:1007:DCA2:E484:1679:D4AE:2CC2 (talk) 07:20, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes. See Public image of Donald Trump#Temperament. Kolya Butternut (talk) 23:46, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• I think it's time to close this discussion. Bob K31416 (talk) 03:43, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  What rationale? Stale? Consensus? We need a rationale or we just let things fall off the page naturally. Of course we've just added another 14 days by merely saying this. ―Mandruss ☎ 04:07, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  There is at least consensus to change Consensus item #39 (last modified July 2021) to allow discussion regarding Trump's mental health or fitness for office even without diagnosis. Biden's cognitive health has been in his article since 9/2023: Special:Diff/1175184377 Kolya Butternut (talk) 06:09, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Uninvolved close sounds prudent. Cheers. DN (talk) 10:29, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I was confusing "close with consensus assessment" with "close to get stuff off the page per consensus 13". Sorry Bob. ―Mandruss ☎ 18:12, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• No, go on about Trump not living up to his promises to release his health info, but jeez, just don't add speculation. Let's do a litmus test: if I speculated about @User:Example having Obsessive-compulsive disorder on Wikipedia, my ass would get a harsh warning, if not a block, so apply that thinking to Trumpty-Dumpty. It's a person, yes, and it's bad to speculate like that about any person. I wonder what Trump thinks about all this Wikipedia obsession about him... BarntToust 14:01, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@SusanLesch, you have recently removed multiple sources in the political practice and rhetoric section. My initial edit added in multiple peer-reviewed journal articles that backed up the claims which were made, which @Nikkimaria then further condensed in half, which you have now condensed even further to one source per claim. However, I take issue with your recent condensing and your use of direct quotes that now tell the reader that only this "one" researcher found that Trump's rhetoric used fearmongering or that it was essential to his support, where previously multiple researchers in multiple peer-reviewed articles had come to that conclusion. I believe this engages in whitewashing and presents an inaccurate view of the scholarly consensus and suggests to the reader that such opinions are not widespread and only one or two researchers believe this, which is not the case. I would like to recommend restoring the edit as Nikkimaria had made it. You also removed a journal article because it had "no access", however, this is not a reason that a source should be removed. Rather, you should add an appropriate template to the reference noting that it requires a subscription. Others may have access to the source if you require access to it. BootsED (talk) 01:44, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Individual researchers opinions shouldn't really be cited unless we can verify they are representative in some sense to avoid giving undue weight. Citing two isn't much better than just citing one in such a sense; it doesn't constitute a scholarly consensus. Use review articles etcetera for these purposes. Agree on not removing a source simply because of no-access per WP:SOURCEACCESS, but if two sources are of equal verification value and we only need one, the more accessible one should be preferred.

I don't find the accusations of "whitewashing" helpful; consider that by using such a term, you are implying Susan is acting with malice. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 01:57, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Rollinginhisgrave My initial edit added multiple sources, many more than two, but it was reduced by Nikkimaria in order to avoid overciting. For the fearmongering claim I have about ten that I shrunk down to four very strong peer-reviewed journal articles, which were then shrunk down to two by Nikkimaria, which were then shrunk down to one by SusanLesch who reworded it to simply state that this one researcher thought Trump used fearmongering, which as you yourself stated, "individual researchers opinions shouldn't really be cited unless we can verify they are representative in some sense to avoid giving undue weight." Susan has been on a source removing spree and has also removed many other sources on this page so far for various reasons as a look at the page edit history will show. BootsED (talk) 03:09, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As I'm sure you can understand, citing even ten sources rather than two does not signify that the opinion represented therein is representative of academic consensus. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 03:14, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So first I am told I have too many peer-reviewed sources and need to remove them. Then I am told I do not have enough peer-reviewed sources and need to have more. Now I am told that even if I had many peer-reviewed sources, they are not enough. I have acted in good faith here. BootsED (talk) 03:22, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The easiest solution is to cite review sources, if they exist - do they? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:27, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You've been run around a bit, which isn't very fair, but it doesn't justify engaging in original research. The reason this is original research is because these journal articles are primary sources, and taking multiple together to extrapolate conclusions not made in such sources is synthesis. We need to use secondary sources to make such claims, such as review articles. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 03:29, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have multiple (10) news articles such as this one from the NYT or this one from WaPo that provide further, explicit statements that Trump has engaged in fearmongering, vitriol, and ecetera against immigrants and minorities, not counting the roughly one dozen peer-reviewed journal articles that all state the same conclusion. These are not opinion pieces, but actual news articles and articles labeled as "analysis". I can get lots of opinion pieces too (obviously in this case!). Do these count as reliable secondary sources? If not I am unsure what you are specifically referring to as "review sources". I can even get book reviews if you need them or roundtable discussions with scholars posted in academic journals. I am not engaging in original research, as this is well documented, but if I need even more citations that is not an issue on my part and is simply a chore on my end to satisfy the requirements of the editors on this page. BootsED (talk) 03:43, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm occupied at the moment so won't be able to comment further for a bit, but review articles are a type of journal article that assesses scholarly consensus. Some examples of journals publishing these are Political Studies Review or the American Political Science Review. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 03:49, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, some of the sources in my edits are from those two journals. I believe some of the sources I am using are already review articles, although I am a bit confused as each site seems to have its own labels. It's late for me right now but I will do some more digging into this later. Thank you for your assistance in this matter. BootsED (talk) 04:05, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Good morning. I only had ten minutes this morning but have already found one review article and that at least one of the articles I have used so far are classified as a review article by Google scholar. Other sources that were used have sections dedicated at the beginning to review existing literature, but are not listed as review articles. However, I've noticed that several publishers do not provide an option to search by review articles, and some list review articles as simply "article" which also has non-review articles on them. Other non-review articles contain sections that review existing literature. So this makes it confusing to say the least. BootsED (talk) 13:29, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Access is a poor justification for removal, my bad. (Bustinza & Witkowski seems to be an observational study, not a review, but you're welcome to add it back in.) Per WP:INTEXT, it is bad form to directly quote a researcher without attribution, otherwise the wiki could be plagiarizing. Your edit added Research has identified Trump's rhetoric as heavily using vitriol, demeaning language, false equivalency, exclusion. Dr. Stuckey wrote He depends heavily on vitriol, primarily using demeaning language, false equivalency, and exclusion. I believe the final study you provided, used in the sentence beginning wih Jacobson (please note spelling), and attributed to "other researchers," has aspects of a review but we should keep looking. -SusanLesch (talk) 14:31, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I believe that was the source I saw pop up as a review article when I did more searching this morning. I can't check right now as I am not at my computer. I likely won't be able to work on this further until later this week as I have a full-time job, (un)fortunately. BootsED (talk) 14:46, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just an update, I spent a few hours this weekend and found some more good more review articles on this topic. I also found some other good review articles and sources that can be used on this page to remove some lower-quality sources we have now. I will hopefully be able to update the page sometime later this week. BootsED (talk) 18:36, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just another update, will hopefully be able to post an updated edit here soon. Have been distracted with other things in real life and on Wikipedia. Replying to keep this talk page section from auto-archiving. BootsED (talk) 04:24, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Another post to prevent auto-archiving. Sorry for the wait. I've found a bunch of good sources in the meantime for other aspects of this page. BootsED (talk) 00:36, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I made one edit to the political practice section here. I added in two review articles that describe Trump as a populist, and removed two articles that don't describe him as right-wing populist and replaced it with a better article. I don't believe this edit should be controversial. I will post proposed edits that will likely attract more discussion here in the near future. BootsED (talk) 06:09, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging SusanLesch, Rollinginhisgrave, and Nikkimaria owing to your prior participation in the above discussion. Here is the proposed edit using review articles for the Political practice and rhetoric section of the page. Reference formatting will be corrected if this goes live. Two sources in the proposed edit are also already used elsewhere on the page. I believe this should satisfy the concerns raised above.

Trump's first election victory was attributed to backlash against globalization based on both economic insecurity and racial fears. Trump's rhetoric and actions inflame anger and exacerbate distrust through an "us" versus "them" narrative. Trump explicitly and routinely disparages racial, religious, and ethnic minorities, and scholars consistently find that racial animus regarding blacks, immigrants, and Muslims are the best predictors of support for Trump. Trump's rhetoric has been described as using fearmongering.

Let me know your thoughts and opinions. BootsED (talk) 06:59, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bravo, BootsED! I fully support your effort. Only note is that we need one, not four citations for the final sentence. (Haberman seems to have it covered.) Thank you. -SusanLesch (talk) 15:21, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

" 'The point of modern propaganda isn't only to misinform or push an agenda. It is to exhaust your critical thinking, to annihilate truth.' —Garry Kasparov, 2016" [27]. Bob K31416 (talk) 16:54, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's an interesting paragraph that seems to place Trump in the same category as the leader of the Ku Klux Klan or a Neo-Nazi group, especially the part that says, "Trump explicitly and routinely disparages racial, religious, and ethnic minorities...". See also [28]. Regards, Bob K31416 (talk) 17:18, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Nikkimaria. I removed duplication and then strayed into overdetail which you reverted. Thank you. Per WP:BRD, to establish Trump's Mafia ties, how about I trim my addition like this? In §Real estate, Cohn was a consigliere whose Mafia connection controlled construction unions and helped Trump projects. In §Side ventures, In 1988, a soldier in the Colombo crime family customized Trump-branded limousines. We're still omitting a number of gangsters. In the meantime I'll work out the shortest possible way to explain the failed Trump-licensed seaside resorts. -SusanLesch (talk) 15:51, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Could you elaborate on why you feel the Colombo piece warrants inclusion? The Cohn piece seems more directly relevant to Cohn. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:40, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be satisfied to only mention Cohn's Mafia ties which directly benefited Trump. I can agree to omit the limousine modifier. Every one of my books mentions the Mafia in one context or another. The gist I get is that Trump didn't actively seek them out; he thought organized crime was just part of doing business in New York. We're already omitting Cody, Libutti, and Weichselbaum. The article also omits Felix Sater which should probably be corrected. -SusanLesch (talk) 15:29, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nikkimaria, we're past 24 hours so I'm just waiting for your approval of this sentence or similar: Helping Trump projects, Cohn was a consigliere whose Mafia connections controlled construction unions. Here's a free online source.-SusanLesch (talk) 17:06, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'd prefer the alternate wording above. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:10, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mandruss, okay to archive this one. Thanks. -SusanLesch (talk) 21:21, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@SusanLesch: Two changes have reduced the need for early closures and manual archivals. First, the post-election onslaught has died down—we were at over 90 level-2 sections at one point. And the archive age has been changed from 14 days to 7 days to restore compliance with consensus 13; had you not commented "okay to archive this one", this one would've been auto-archived on the 22nd or 23rd UTC. ―Mandruss ☎ 11:47, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Glad to hear circumstances lightened your load. Thanks for your service. -SusanLesch (talk) 17:59, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I believe this should be added to the "First Post Presidency (2021-Present)" under the "Civil Judgements" article or wherever fits most accurately.

ABC agrees to give $15 million to Donald Trump’s presidential library to settle defamation lawsuit AP News. "ABC News has agreed to pay $15 million toward Donald Trump’s presidential library to settle a defamation lawsuit over anchor George Stephanopoulos’ inaccurate on-air assertion that the president-elect had been found civilly liable for raping writer E. Jean Carroll."

Trump gets $15m in ABC News defamation case BBC. "ABC News has agreed to pay $15m (£12m) to US President-elect Donald Trump to settle a defamation lawsuit after its star anchor falsely said he had been found "liable for rape". There are many more sources if needed. 104.230.247.132 (talk) 10:21, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Problem is that this isn't really notable (outside of being reported in the news recently) with respect to Trump. He is notoriously litigious, professing himself as "like a PhD at litigation", and had also previously advocated for the loosening of libel laws to make it easier for him to sue people. WP:FART information, like what you're suggesting to add, is of no use beyond the 24-hour news cycle and the handful of people who might still remember this three months from now.

Put simply, Wikipedia is an online peer-developed encyclopedia and not the front page of the internet, and for the onlookers wondering, that would be Reddit. Pleasant editing, Irruptive Creditor (talk) 06:02, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would disagree in the fact that it helps to show the legacy media's left wing bias (and now them being proven to be legally guilty of it) and the fact they would say any and everything (he's Hitler, he's a threat to democracy, he's a rapist, his supporters are all racist even though he carried close to 45% of the Hispanic vote and double digit percentages of black male voters, insert whatever hyperbolic nonsense or fear mongering they would use here, etc, etc, etc) to discredit him from 2015 up until very, very recently. Remember, he had a very good relationship with the media including Oprah, The View, Howard Stern, NBC, ABC and countless others up until he was the Republican presidential nominee and then he was for all intents and purposes considered the Antichrist. Also, there are many more defamation lawsuits being ruled upon soon so this list will inevitably grow larger. I thought it was a rather noteworthy lawsuit to give due weight to the article. Cheers and pleasant editing to you too. 104.230.247.132 (talk) 08:15, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please read the following, for I don't care to read or respond to anything in the off-topic tangent you trailed on about. However, I nonetheless see you have provided no evidence to substantiate any claim that Trump is not particularly litigious or that this settlement is any more extraordinary than any other involving the former President. For this reason, I will not bother to respond to you unless you can provide cited evidence contradicting my cited claims, as right now you're just talking things up out of thin air. What you have asserted without evidence, I have in return dismissed without evidence. Pleasant editing, Irruptive Creditor (talk) 08:49, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't read your little underlined tangent but my proof is the original topic and the sources cited. Have yourself a most pleasant editing experience. Cheers! 104.230.247.132 (talk) 08:56, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Where? I see no citations. Pleasant editing, and until then, Irruptive Creditor (talk) 09:00, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Irruptive Creditor: I've added the citations you've requested above for this which is receiving much attention on the weekend news review programs and weekly news programs. Should these citations be kept in the article here? Another editor seems to not support it. ErnestKrause (talk) 21:44, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Like I and that other editor said, it’s trivia generally not important enough for the main article. To cite my own statement on that matter: “Problem is that this really isn’t notable with respect to Trump”. As for the other editor, Space4Time3Continuum2x, who reverted your edits on the parent article, that person stated: “Disney Corp.'s decision to settle is currently not important enough for top bio…”. You do you, but I would say it isn’t important enough for this article, as for the sub-article on his personal affairs, I would open a talk page discussion there and see what others think. Pleasant editing, Irruptive Creditor (talk) 08:21, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This section is pinned and will not be automatically archived.

Please consider joining the feedback request service. An editor has requested comments from other editors for this discussion. This page has been added to the following lists: Biographies Politics, government, and law When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the lists. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.

The current lead contains a simple mention of Trumpism. Should a brief description be added to this mention? A proposed wording for the added text, which is also up for debate here: characterized by right-wing populism, "America First" nationalism, and economic protectionism. — Goszei (talk) 04:51, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Addendum: A shorter version of the proposed addition could look like led to Trumpism, a right-wing populist movement. — Goszei (talk) 18:31, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Previous discussion at Talk:Donald Trump/Archive 185#Proposal to add brief description of Trumpism in lead. — Goszei (talk) 04:51, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support. The statement "Trump created Trumpism" without further description is meaningless. If there is any single piece of information which a reader should take away from the lead, it is that Trump is America's leading proponent of right-wing populism, and the person who has done to most to reshape the Republican Party along these lines. It was argued by some in the previous discussion that details should be saved for the Trumpism article, but I believe that these words briefly and simply introduce what much of the rest of the lead and article are seeking to explain. Just as FDR's lead describes in broad terms what "New Deal"ism is and Reagan's describes what "Reaganomics" is, so too should Trump's lead briefly describe Trumpism. This is especially relevant after the recent election, as Trump and Trumpism's importance in U.S. political history only continues to grow. — Goszei (talk) 04:51, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Suppport: we need to know what Trumpism is about.--Jack Upland (talk) 04:55, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose as I believe it is unnecessarily adding to an already excessively large article. The article is not about Trumpism - which is linked in the text for the purpose of providing a shortcut should people wish to know more about what constitutes such, without contributing further to the word count. Artem... 05:05, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Further explanation of Trumpism seems relative in the lead, or at least, it likely will be within the next four years. DN (talk) 06:13, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose a, this article is already too long, and 2, it might need a lot more explanation then we can give it in the lead, what is Trumpism? Slatersteven (talk) 14:50, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support but it should be limited to one sentence after a more detailed yet brief description is provided in the body. I agree that anyone with a political movement named after them should have some more description about it other than "they created it". I don't have exact wording but something along the lines of its impact on the Republican Party or American politics would be warranted as per Goszei. Any statement would need to be sourced in the body first, however, to avoid OR. Agreeing on a description in the political practice and rhetoric section would be helpful first before adding it to the lead. BootsED (talk) 14:57, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Support since Trumpism is mentioned, then it should be explained what it is. A single sentence in the lede, and a brief elaboration somewhere else in the article. The wording in the lede could be as proposed above, or something a bit different. Ktrimi991 (talk) 19:18, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose as misplaced for the lead, and per Artem. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:34, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose too wordy in an already bloated article. Artem is indeed correct. Nemov (talk) 03:30, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose because “Trumpism” in the lead should be replaced with “MAGA”, which is a much more widely discussed and widespread thing. Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:01, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Artem P75, Slatersteven, Nikkimaria, and Nemov: To those opposing the proposed text based on concerns about length, would you support a shorter addition such as led to Trumpism, a right-wing populist movement.? — Goszei (talk) 04:03, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose We don't have room for this, and this isn't the Trumpism article, it is the Trump article. Also, this would need to be added to the body first, since the lead follows the body. QuicoleJR (talk) 15:00, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per Anythingyouwant. I've never heard of Trumpism before. Neither has Britannica, which instead has an article for MAGA movement. -SusanLesch (talk) 18:48, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  What the Britannica article describes is exactly what our article at Trumpism describes. The term MAGA movement should probably be added to that article's lead as a synonym. — Goszei (talk) 18:59, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  It's a redirect. The BBC said, But is there such a thing as Trumpism? Well that might be stretching it. -SusanLesch (talk) 23:12, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  This article doesn't mention MAGA. Maybe somebody wanted to make something of Trumpism? -SusanLesch (talk) 16:33, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose mainly as it is unnecessarily adding to an already excessively large article per Artem, also because Trumpism isn't a "a thought-through philosophy, a carefully mapped world view" inextricably linked to the man in the way that Marxism or Leninism are. Trumpism is more of a term descibing a series of populist instincts which are not very often used to characterise reactions/policies etc. When/if Trumpism itself becomes more elaborated, and the term more used, WEIGHT might then dictate a brief definition. At present it would be at least unnecessary and potentially confusing.Pincrete (talk) 07:57, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Very much WP:Due to summarise the key tenets of his political ideology, much more so than discussing specific policies as in the status quo. I’m very confused about the opposes, however the leads of Margaret Thatcher and Juan Peron only mention their ideologies rather than describe them

Kowal2701 (talk) 10:17, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak oppose, while it's only a few extra words it's still more to an already-too-big article, and the link to the Trumpism article is there for a reason. — Czello 10:37, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Trump was named Time's Person of the Year in 2016 and 2024, each time shortly after his election. In recent weeks, this has bounced back and forth between a number of states, enumerated below; in some cases it appeared that an editor was not aware of what was already in the article.

1. No mention.
2. Mention of the 2016 event. This was placed in the election section because it was a direct result of his election.
3. Separate mentions of the 2016 and 2024 events, in the respective election sections per #2.
4. Combined mention of both events.
5. Separate and combined mentions.

This needs settling. I support #3. ―Mandruss ☎ 10:28, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Support for #5. JacktheBrown (talk) 11:07, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would support #3 or #4 with minor changes.

For #3, the 2016 section also mentions his receipt of the award in 2024, and the page also mentions the award in 2024. This is redundant. The 2016 section should only mention the 2016 award, and the 2024 award should only mention the 2024 award.

For #4, a potential "awards and honors" section should be created where both awards would be mentioned like most other pages of presidents. However, this is usually placed in a section titled "legacy" so it may be too soon to create this. It would also mean mention of his Hollywood Star would be moved from the body to the new section.

I can see an argument for #1 solely because every president receives the award, so mentioning it would also seem redundant, but I still think it should be mentioned somewhere. BootsED (talk) 14:46, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What's in the article now is irrelevant. For purposes of this discussion, pretend there's no mention currently. ―Mandruss ☎ 14:59, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

After reading some of the persuasive responses here, and having to remove one of three mentions of Trump's 2024 award on the page, I am changing my vote to #1 or #4. BootsED (talk) 05:38, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As (it seems) this is awarded to every president, it seems trivial, so 1, as it is not really an achievement. Slatersteven (talk) 14:51, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Option 3 or 4. Regardless of whether they like awarding it to presidents (and BTW not every president receives the honor, they skipped Ford), TIME Person of the Year is a major award, and Trump winning it twice should be mentioned somewhere in the article. QuicoleJR (talk) 17:05, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• 1 per Slatersteven. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:34, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

4 per BootsED. 104.230.247.132 (talk) 04:49, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1 or 4, but it should be a minor mention if it's there, as discussed above it's basically a "congrats on being elected POTUS" award (which is why Ford didn't get it btw QuicoleJR, he wasn't elected) Relinus (talk) 16:31, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1 or 4, and if it's 4 please try very hard to condense into a short sentence. -SusanLesch (talk) 21:25, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1. Every president since FDR has been one. Drop a mention of it in Public image of Donald Trump, not here. Zaathras (talk) 00:33, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it on the separate page (linked at "Awards" in the infobox) with the other awards and honors. The two Time "Man of the Year" awards are mentioned in the Media section. It's also the newsflash of the day, in the headlines for one day only (December 12), already forgotten. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 19:16, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I just made one edit to the page that removed a mention of the 2024 TIME award in the assessments section where it doesn't belong, which brings down mention of Trump's 2024 TIME Person of the Year award on this page from 3 times to 2 times. BootsED (talk) 05:33, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I restored the consensus version by removing the remaining mention of both awards from the 2016 election results section. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 17:53, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to propose a radical cut to the Wealth section. What we have hops all over chronologically. It's sort of a mass of cited information but somehow fails to ever deliver a bottom line. Wikipedia has an entire article on the subject of Trump's wealth, so here's an alternate plan: cover that he was a child millionaire, mention his alter ego John Barron, and then summarize his wealth.

Trump has often said he began his career with "a small loan of a million dollars" from his father and that he had to pay it back with interest. He was a millionaire by age eight, borrowed at least $60 million from his father, largely failed to repay those loans, and received another $413 million (2018 dollars adjusted for inflation) from his father's company.

Trying to get a higher ranking on the Forbes 400 list of wealthy Americans, Trump called journalist Jonathan Greenberg in 1984, pretending to be a Trump Organization official named "John Barron".

Trump's net worth has been reported over a wide range: from a low of minus $900 million in 1990, to a high of $10 billion in 2015. In 2024 dollars according to Forbes, Trump's wealth in 2024 was made up of approximately $1.1 billion in real estate, about $1 billion in golf clubs and resorts, and $3.5 billion in stock in Trump Media & Technology Group—today his primary asset. As of December 2024, Forbes listed Trump's net worth at $6.3 billion.

-SusanLesch (talk) 20:20, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Support as nominator. -SusanLesch (talk) 20:20, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Cite 3 is broken for me, I would also like non-breaking-news stories as references for some facts to better establish sustained significance. I also don't like how "His net worth fluctuates up and down" is referenced. The change is much more structured and serves as a good, more concise stopgap. Other issues can can be worked out in general page edits. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 20:29, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed cite 3. Wrote out the up and down. Thanks. -SusanLesch (talk) 23:14, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Also a note that using template:inflation is inappropriate here per the template's documentation. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 22:10, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Removed them. Bill Gates, Jeff Bezos, and Elon Musk don't use them and they're all GAs. -SusanLesch (talk) 23:29, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - very helpful in streamlining the narrative. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:34, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Looks good to me. QuicoleJR (talk) 15:02, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, this article's coverage of Trump's wealth, as well as the topic of his non-business and non-governmental personal scandals, is one which has far too often detoured into the way of trivia. Irruptive Creditor (talk) 05:41, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Rollinginhisgrave, upgraded three sources to books, one from 2024. If you or anybody see any mistakes please fix as you said in general page edits. Thanks. -SusanLesch (talk) 20:31, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. The section went from alleged "trivia":

Wealth - pre-December 18 cut

In 1982, Trump made the initial Forbes list of wealthy people for holding a share of his family's estimated $200 million net worth (equivalent to $631 million in 2023). His losses in the 1980s dropped him from the list between 1990 and 1995. After filing the mandatory financial disclosure report with the FEC in July 2015, he announced a net worth of about $10 billion. Records released by the FEC showed at least $1.4 billion in assets and $265 million in liabilities. Forbes estimated his net worth dropped by $1.4 billion between 2015 and 2018. In their 2024 billionaires ranking, his net worth was estimated to be $2.3 billion (1,438th in the world). In 2018, journalist Jonathan Greenberg reported that Trump had called him in 1984 pretending to be a fictional Trump Organization official named "John Barron". Greenberg said that, to get a higher ranking on the Forbes 400 list of wealthy Americans, Trump, speaking as "Barron", falsely asserted that Donald Trump owned more than 90 percent of his father's business. Greenberg also wrote that Forbes had vastly overestimated Trump's wealth and wrongly included him on the 1982, 1983, and 1984 rankings. Trump has often said he began his career with "a small loan of a million dollars" from his father and that he had to pay it back with interest. He was a millionaire by age eight, borrowed at least $60 million from his father, largely failed to repay those loans, and received another $413 million (2018 dollars adjusted for inflation) from his father's company. In 2018, he and his family were reported to have committed tax fraud, and the New York State Department of Taxation and Finance started an investigation. His investments underperformed the stock and New York property markets. Forbes estimated in October 2018 that his net worth declined from $4.5 billion in 2015 to $3.1 billion in 2017 and his product-licensing income from $23 million to $3 million. Trump's tax returns from 1985 to 1994 show net losses totaling $1.17 billion. The losses were higher than those of almost every other American taxpayer. The losses in 1990 and 1991, more than $250 million each year, were more than double those of the nearest taxpayers. In 1995, his reported losses were $915.7 million (equivalent to $1.83 billion in 2023). In March 1987, Trump halved his net worth in a sworn statement to $1.5 billion ($1.9 billion in 2023), but accountants reported his net worth at less than zero or minus $295 million ($791 million in 2023). In 2020, The New York Times obtained Trump's tax information extending over two decades. Its reporters found that he reported losses of hundreds of millions of dollars. Since 2010 he had also failed to pay back $287 million in loans. During the 15 years prior to 2020, using tax credits for business losses, he paid no income taxes in 10 of those years and $750 each in 2016 and 2017. He balanced his businesses' losses by selling and borrowing against assets, including a $100 million mortgage on Trump Tower (refinanced in 2022) and the liquidation of over $200 million in stocks and bonds. He personally guaranteed $421 million in debt, most of which is due by 2024. As of October 2021, Trump had over $1.3 billion in debts, much of which was secured by his assets. In 2020, he owed $640 million to banks and trust organizations, including Bank of China, Deutsche Bank, and UBS, and approximately $450 million to unknown creditors. The value of his assets exceeds his debt.

to actual trivia in the form of a 1984 Trump call to journalist Greenberg — without the context (falsely asserting that he owned his father's real estate empire, Forbes having vastly overestimated his wealth and wrongly included him on their 1982–1984 rankings) that's all it is: an anecdote about Trump pretending to be someone else:

The FEC info, the NYT report on the hundreds of millions of losses — that's not trivial, goes directly to his self-professed business acumen. Some of the data needs updating, e.g. He personally guaranteed $421 million in debt, most of which is due by 2024, not replacing with e.g. Trump's self-reported worth of $10 billion in 2015; Johnston, the cited source, says that Trump's 2017 presidential disclosure statement showed $1.4 billion. I tagged the sentence with . Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 19:45, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit reintroduced trivia and editorialising. The current wording (that the loans were not 'wholly' repaid) is more concise than the slanted 'failed to repay'. Riposte97 (talk) 01:57, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The text didn't say "failed to repay", it said "largely failed to repay those loans". The cited source says: In fact, The Times found, Fred Trump lent his son at least $60.7 million, or $140 million in today’s dollars. Much of it was never repaid, records show. "Not wholly repaid" claims that he repaid most of it. I don't want to get into an edit war and have tagged the sentence with . Please, self-revert. BTW, it's your edit that goes against clear TP consensus you claim to have reverted to. Never mind what I think of that consensus, another editor and you went against it (see WP:EW). Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 14:23, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the New York Times found that Fred Trump gave Donald half a billion plus more. -SusanLesch (talk) 14:32, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The same edit that whitewashed "much of it was never repaid" to "not wholly paid" also removed the half billion. I reverted, citing the sources, but was reverted, claiming that my edit "goes against clear TP consensus" (see also above. I've since moved Trump's early childhood income into the "Early life" section, moving the note about the trust into the body. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 15:15, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As for that "TP consensus": 48 hours, five editors to remove a long section of the article, including the New York Times report on decades of Trump's finances - that's not "streamlining the narrative", as one of the supporters said, and "looks good to me" isn't much of a comment, IMNSHO. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 15:15, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I like your edit to move 8-year-old millionaire up. Well done. I suspect we disagree on Trump's net worth because I wrote the range and you're thinking over time. There's no need to "update" the high end unless Trump someday claims more. Well he did but I lost the reference. "During the 2016 campaign, Trump’s boasts about his net worth would fluctuate daily, from 8.7 billion one day to 10 billion another, and even at one point 11 billion dollars." -SusanLesch (talk) 15:23, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Space4Time3Continuum2x. Every sentence we write and keep has context. In a word or two, why would we increase the word count to include more information about the Greenberg incident? Mr. Greenberg is a primary source. The books I have barely mention him if at all. -SusanLesch (talk) 14:29, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, as the person who made that initial edit. MB2437 18:51, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User:Riposte97, what we have now is unacceptable. We shouldn't make unilateral deletions without showing some effort to make improvements. Fred Trump gave Donald a half billion dollars. You took that out. Mr. Greenberg is a good example of Trump's use of pseudonyms; you took that out instead of trying to improve the sourcing. Maybe we've lost touch with reality here: losing almost a billion dollars, and admitting it is extraordinary for any person. You decided the footnote was pointless. I'm sorry but you may be reverted unless you make this better soon. -SusanLesch (talk) 13:39, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User:SusanLesch, regarding my first edit, that was a revert which sought primarily to remove editorialising. Saying he 'failed' to repay the loan(s) imo implies that Fred was Donald's regular creditor, and not the reality that these loans were likely never intended to be repaid. Readers who do not understand how the tax code works (let's face it, almost all of them) probably wouldn't intuit this.

I think the 'half-billion' amount should be included, but it should be stated that much of that was put on Donald's balance sheet for tax purposes, as the NYT reports. I also agree with MB2437's comment below that converting it to 2018 dollars seems alarmist. I'll refrain from unilaterally adding anything on that, however, respecting the ongoing efforts to trim this page.

Regarding my second edit, again, I have no in-principle opposition to the allegation that Trump used a pseudonym for the impugned purpose. However, despite the particular sensitivities on this page, this is still Wikipedia, and I am well within my rights to remove poorly sourced claims in a BLP on sight. You are more than welcome to add it back in, with appropriate sourcing. Riposte97 (talk) 22:58, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Greenberg (and Fred Trump's half billion) has been in this article for at least a couple years (I stopped looking in 2022). -SusanLesch (talk) 13:46, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This disruptive whitewashing should have been sanctioned when it happened, on WP:CRYBLP grounds and violation of the BRD restriction on this article. Pity it slipped in on the holidays. Zaathras (talk) 16:10, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Then either take it to ANI, or pipe down. Throwing out accusations that you're not going to follow up on is disruptive. Riposte97 (talk) 17:54, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It would just be marked as "stale" as that is how ANI (dys)functions, so, wrongdoing will be called out as it is seen. Zaathras (talk) 00:51, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have reversed the edits in question. When one does not repay a loan, it is a failure. This is basic English and common sense. Only a PR hire would try to spin a failure to fully repay a debt as "well he partially repaid." Zaathras (talk) 13:54, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Zaathras: Riposte97 had replaced the earlier whitewashed version which he did not wholly repay with which he only partially repaid — IMO another whitewash (with WP:EDITORIAL "only"). You reinserted the first whitewashed version. Was that your intention? The original version said largely failed to repay those loans which IMO reflects the source's Much of it was never repaid. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 15:10, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The initial edit wasn't about whitewashing, it was that the value given was inflated. We should have an exact figure, not one given "in 2018 dollars" to exaggerate the claim four-fold. Largely failed is also blatant editorialising, where did not wholly repay is a much more neutral tone. MB2437 18:54, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Did not wholly repay fails verification, and partially repaid is too vague since anything between 0.001 and 99.999 percent is a partial repayment. largely failed to repay was the longstanding content, and so far, six editors have supported retaining this language. Doesn't look as though the consensus will change, so I'll revert to it. Whether to state the figure in 1954 or 2018 dollars is a separate discussion. One dollar in 1954 was worth $9.16 in 2018; the 2018 figure isn't an exaggeration, it's an explanation. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 17:15, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is an exaggeration when placed alongside true values; there should be numerical consistency across this prose, not some values inflated and others not, especially when the inflated values cover a long period of time. Did not wholly repay does not fail verification, it tells the reader just as much as largely failed to repay does without clear negative undertones. Branding the removal of such language as whitewashing sets dangerous precedent. MB2437 17:39, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Did not wholly repay says he repaid most of it while the source says that much of it wasn't repaid. Much, noun: a great quantity, amount, extent, or degree. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 18:35, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello all, I would like to know if you think that we should add a subsection to the Inter-Presidency section of this article to discuss the impact of Trump endorsing candidates in the 2023 January and 2023 October Speaker of the House elections had on the results. It could be included within that subsection that Trump was nominated and received votes in various rounds of the January 2023 Speaker of the United States House of Representatives election. As well as the inclusion of his brief consideration to be the House Speaker during the October 2023 Speaker of the United States House of Representatives election. I remember Trump's role in the 2023 House Speaker elections gaining a lot of media attention at the time, so I was surprised it was not already included in the Inter-Presidency section of this article in some way.

Main articles: January 2023 Speaker of the United States House of Representatives election#Election of the speaker and October 2023 Speaker of the United States House of Representatives election Smobes (talk) 07:27, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No the article is already too big. Slatersteven (talk) 14:55, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Shocked this article does not have any mention of his bromance with Elon Musk the only mention of musk is that he unbanned trump when he bought twitter now know as X https://www.businessinsider.com/musk-trump-bromance-billionaire-president-doge-election-government-tesla-2024-12 https://airmail.news/issues/2024-12-14/when-donald-met-elon https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2024/nov/22/elon-musk-donald-trump 71.173.64.97 (talk) 11:54, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree Anonymous8206 (talk) 15:59, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lets wait and see if this is in fact anything more than two greedy men trying to find ways to be corrupt. Slatersteven (talk) 16:03, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Slatersteven, please review WP:BLPTALK. Don't be making these kinds of remarks. BarntToust 20:00, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@BarntToust Biographical subjects are not immune from innocuous criticism, this is not a safe space. If it was truly egregious then an admin would have struck the text. See WP:CRYBLP and think twice before you, with 6 months of editing under your belt, instruct a long-veteran users in Wikipedia policy. Zaathras (talk) 20:32, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Zaathras, was it needed for the editor to bring Trump being a criminal crook into a discussion that only needed a reinforcement of the WP:DUE weight policy? I don't give a hot cake about how long Steven or you or anyone have been hanging around this place, besides the point I used to edit as an IP since, eh, IDK, the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic. I suggest you watch your tone when speaking to me, the next fellow, and everyone else, because everyone can use a good reminder in policy from time to time again. There is a page decrying that Trump is Hitler on here, but keep in mind that that BLP policy doesn't allow for random interjections of Trump being a criminal and what have you, lest it be executed prudently and, of course, due-ly. BarntToust 21:03, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So, to summarise, when talking about Trump being a friend of Musk, it's probably prudent to discuss whether including it is of due weight rather than make an undue potshot about him being a crook conniving with an oligarch or whatever to that effect.

and, @Zaathras, let's address this ridiculous line of yours: If it was truly egregious then an admin would have struck the text. #1. I never said it was "egregious" and needed struck, I just warned Steven to not be making unneeded remarks about Trump being a conniving whatever. #2. By this "logic" of yours, I suppose we should not have an ANI since "if the things that are brought attention to were truly egregious, then an Admin would have done something to address them already".

Watch who you bite. Even if I'm not by any means new here, watch the tone. BarntToust 21:17, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I added the tag to the sentence; applies, too. "Excelled in a strict regimen" - what does that mean and whose testimony is it based on? According to Buettner & Craig, p. 70, Trump wasn't one of the students who were awarded medals for accomplishments or were nominated for the top honor, the Achievement Alumni Award for "excell[ing] at the core values of the academy". According to several classmates' testimony (P. 67 and WaPo), he was laterally transferred into a position without command responsibilities for neglecting his duties, according to Trump he was promoted "because I did so good". Inconclusive and trivial; the clause needs to be removed. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 22:16, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree Anonymous8206 (talk) 00:32, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I removed it. -SusanLesch (talk) 14:43, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Anonymous8206 (talk) 01:36, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm making a couple minor but bold changes to the TOC outline. This article doesn't have a TOC item for The Apprentice, which was a milestone in Trump's life. The Apprentice led Trump to licensing deals worldwide. Any help is welcomed especially to keep the chrono order. For example, I fudged the SAG-AFTRA para out of order to keep it.

   1 Early life and education
   2 Personal life
       2.1 Family
       2.2 Health
   3 Business career
       3.1 Real estate
           3.1.1 Manhattan and Chicago developments
           3.1.2 Atlantic City casinos
           3.1.3 Clubs
       3.2 Side ventures
           3.2.1 Trump University
       3.3 Foundation
       3.4 Legal affairs and bankruptcies
       3.5 Wealth
   4 Media career
   5 Early political aspirations (1987–2014)

   1 Early life and education
   2 Personal life
       2.1 Family
       2.2 Health
   3 Business career
       3.1 Real estate
           3.1.1 Manhattan and Chicago developments
           3.1.2 Atlantic City casinos
           3.1.3 Clubs
       3.2 Side ventures
       3.3 Foundation
       3.4 Trump University
       3.5 Legal affairs and bankruptcies
       3.6 Wealth
   4 Media career
   5 The Apprentice
   6 Licensing the Trump name
   7 Early political aspirations (1987–2014)

-SusanLesch (talk) 18:56, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think there is an edit war going on here. Following the Inauguration of Joe Biden, Trump left office. Till he won, the title was clear, post-presidency. After he won, an edit war started. For some weird reason, these are the choices at hand:

1. Interpresidency
2. First post-presidency
3. post-presidency (current)

At first, people used choice number 3. Then the edit war started after the election, and people cannot decide between these choices. We need better security for this article, Extended confirmed is clearly not doing it here. Just please decide. 2601:483:400:1CD0:7D95:FF0A:CEC6:A8AD (talk) 19:11, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The situation is neither uncommon nor illegitimate when there is no clear talk page consensus. See #Time Person of the Year in the body for another example. It has nothing to do with the level of protection. Regardless, the next level after ECP is full protection, which is not going to happen. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:32, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cite error: There are <ref group=lower-alpha> tags or {{efn}} templates on this page, but the references will not show without a {{reflist|group=lower-alpha}} template or {{notelist}} template (see the help page).