Talk:Donald Trump

Current consensus

NOTE: It is recommended to link to this list in your edit summary when reverting, as:
[[Talk:Donald Trump#Current consensus|current consensus]] item [n]
To ensure you are viewing the current list, you may wish to .

01. Use the official White House portrait as the infobox image. (Dec 2016, Jan 2017, Oct 2017, March 2020) (temporarily suspended by #19 following copyright issues on the inauguration portrait, enforced when an official public-domain portrait was released on 31 October 2017)

02. Show birthplace as "Queens, New York City, U.S." in the infobox. (Nov 2016, Oct 2018, Feb 2021) "New York City" de-linked. (September 2020)

03. Omit reference to county-level election statistics. (Dec 2016)

04. Superseded by #15

Lead phrasing of Trump "gaining a majority of the U.S. Electoral College" and "receiving a smaller share of the popular vote nationwide", without quoting numbers. (Nov 2016, Dec 2016) (Superseded by #15 since 11 February 2017)

05. Use Trump's annual net worth evaluation and matching ranking, from the Forbes list of billionaires, not from monthly or "live" estimates. (Oct 2016) In the lead section, just write: Forbes estimates his net worth to be [$x.x] billion. (July 2018, July 2018) Removed from the lead per #47.

06. Do not include allegations of sexual misconduct in the lead section. (June 2016, Feb 2018)

07. Superseded by #35

Include "Many of his public statements were controversial or false." in the lead. (Sep 2016, February 2017, wording shortened per April 2017, upheld with July 2018) (superseded by #35 since 18 February 2019)

08. Mention that Trump is the first president elected "without prior military or government service". (Dec 2016)

09. Include a link to Trump's Twitter account in the "External links" section. (Jan 2017) Include a link to an archive of Trump's Twitter account in the "External links" section. (Jan 2021)

10. Keep Barron Trump's name in the list of children and wikilink it, which redirects to his section in Family of Donald Trump per AfD consensus. (Jan 2017, Nov 2016)

11. Superseded by #17

The lead sentence is "Donald John Trump (born June 14, 1946) is an American businessman, television personality, politician, and the 45th President of the United States." (Jan 2017, Jan 2017, Jan 2017, Jan 2017, Jan 2017, Feb 2017) (superseded by #17 since 2 April 2017)

12. The article title is Donald Trump, not Donald J. Trump. (RM Jan 2017, RM June 2019)

13. Auto-archival is set for discussions with no comments for 14 days. Manual archival is allowed for (1) closed discussions, 24 hours after the closure, provided the closure has not been challenged, and (2) "answered" edit requests, 24 hours after the "answer", provided there has been no follow-on discussion after the "answer". (Jan 2017) (amended with respect to manual archiving, to better reflect common practice at this article) (Nov 2019)

14. Omit mention of Trump's alleged bathmophobia/fear of slopes. (Feb 2017)

15. Superseded by lead rewrite

Supersedes #4. There is no consensus to change the formulation of the paragraph which summarizes election results in the lead (starting with "Trump won the general election on November 8, 2016, …"). Accordingly the pre-RfC text (Diff 8 Jan 2017) has been restored, with minor adjustments to past tense (Diff 11 Feb 2018). No new changes should be applied without debate. (RfC Feb 2017, Jan 2017, Feb 2017, Feb 2017) In particular, there is no consensus to include any wording akin to "losing the popular vote". (RfC March 2017) (Superseded by local consensus on 26 May 2017 and lead section rewrite on 23 June 2017)

16. Superseded by lead rewrite

Do not mention Russian influence on the presidential election in the lead section. (RfC March 2017) (Superseded by lead section rewrite on 23 June 2017)

17. Superseded by #50

Supersedes #11. The lead paragraph is "Donald John Trump (born June 14, 1946) is the 45th and current president of the United States. Before entering politics, he was a businessman and television personality." The hatnote is simply {{Other uses}}. (April 2017, RfC April 2017, April 2017, April 2017, April 2017, July 2017, Dec 2018) Amended by lead section rewrite on 23 June 2017 and removal of inauguration date on 4 July 2018. Lower-case "p" in "president" per Dec 2018 and MOS:JOBTITLES RfC Oct 2017. Wikilinks modified per April 2020. Wikilink modified again per July 2020. "45th" de-linked. (Jan 2021)

18. Superseded by #63

The "Alma mater" infobox entry shows "Wharton School (BS Econ.)", does not mention Fordham University. (April 2017, April 2017, Aug 2020, Dec 2020)

19. Obsolete

Following deletion of Trump's official White House portrait for copyright reasons on 2 June 2017, infobox image was replaced by File:Donald Trump Pentagon 2017.jpg. (June 2017 for replacement, June 2017, declined REFUND on 11 June 2017) (replaced by White House official public-domain portrait according to #1 since 31 Oct 2017)

20. Mention protests in the lead section with this exact wording: His election and policies have sparked numerous protests. (June 2017, May 2018) (Note: In February 2021, when he was no longer president, the verb tense was changed from "have sparked" to "sparked", without objection.)

21. Superseded by #39

Omit any opinions about Trump's psychology held by mental health academics or professionals who have not examined him. (July 2017, Aug 2017) (superseded by #36 on 18 June 2019, then by #39 since 20 Aug 2019)

22. Do not call Trump a "liar" in Wikipedia's voice. Falsehoods he uttered can be mentioned, while being mindful of calling them "lies", which implies malicious intent. (RfC Aug 2017)

23. Superseded by #52

The lead includes the following sentence: Trump ordered a travel ban on citizens from several Muslim-majority countries, citing security concerns; after legal challenges, the Supreme Court upheld the policy's third revision. (Aug 2017, Nov 2017, Dec 2017, Jan 2018, Jan 2018) Wording updated (July 2018) and again (Sep 2018).

24. Superseded by #30

Do not include allegations of racism in the lead. (Feb 2018) (superseded by #30 since 16 Aug 2018)

25. Do not add web archives to cited sources which are not dead. (Dec 2017, March 2018)

26. Do not include opinions by Michael Hayden and Michael Morell that Trump is a "useful fool […] manipulated by Moscow" or an "unwitting agent of the Russian Federation". (RfC April 2018)

27. State that Trump falsely claimed that Hillary Clinton started the Barack Obama birther rumors. (April 2018, June 2018)

28. Include, in the Wealth section, a sentence on Jonathan Greenberg's allegation that Trump deceived him in order to get on the Forbes 400 list. (June 2018, June 2018)

29. Include material about the Trump administration family separation policy in the article. (June 2018)

30. Supersedes #24. The lead includes: "Many of his comments and actions have been characterized as racially charged or racist." (RfC Sep 2018, Oct 2018, RfC May 2019)

31. Do not mention Trump's office space donation to Jesse Jackson's Rainbow/Push Coalition in 1999. (Nov 2018)

32. Omit from the lead the fact that Trump is the first sitting U.S. president to meet with a North Korean supreme leader. (RfC July 2018, Nov 2018)

33. Do not mention "birtherism" in the lead section. (RfC Nov 2018)

34. Refer to Ivana Zelníčková as a Czech model, with a link to Czechs (people), not Czechoslovakia (country). (Jan 2019)

35. Superseded by #49

Supersedes #7. Include in the lead: Trump has made many false or misleading statements during his campaign and presidency. The statements have been documented by fact-checkers, and the media have widely described the phenomenon as unprecedented in American politics. (RfC Feb 2019)

36. Superseded by #39

Include one paragraph merged from Health of Donald Trump describing views about Trump's psychology expressed by public figures, media sources, and mental health professionals who have not examined him. (June 2019) (paragraph removed per RfC Aug 2019 yielding consensus #39)

37. Resolved: Content related to Trump's presidency should be limited to summary-level about things that are likely to have a lasting impact on his life and/or long-term presidential legacy. If something is borderline or debatable, the resolution does not apply. (June 2019)

38. Do not state in the lead that Trump is the wealthiest U.S. president ever. (RfC June 2019)

39. Supersedes #21 and #36. Do not include any paragraph regarding Trump's mental health or mental fitness for office. Do not bring up for discussion again until an announced formal diagnosis or WP:MEDRS-level sources are provided. This does not prevent inclusion of content about temperamental fitness for office. (RfC Aug 2019, July 2021)

40. Include, when discussing Trump's exercise or the lack thereof: He has called golfing his "primary form of exercise", although he usually does not walk the course. He considers exercise a waste of energy, because he believes the body is "like a battery, with a finite amount of energy" which is depleted by exercise. (RfC Aug 2019)

41. Omit book authorship (or lack thereof) from the lead section. (RfC Nov 2019)

42. House and Senate outcomes of the impeachment process are separated by a full stop. For example: He was impeached by the House on December 18, 2019, for abuse of power and obstruction of Congress. He was acquitted of both charges by the Senate on February 5, 2020. (Feb 2020)

43. The rules for edits to the lead are no different from those for edits below the lead. For edits that do not conflict with existing consensus: Prior consensus is NOT required. BOLD edits are allowed, subject to normal BRD process. The mere fact that an edit has not been discussed is not a valid reason to revert it. (March 2020)

44. The lead section should mention North Korea, focusing on Trump's meetings with Kim, and stating that they haven't produced clear results. (RfC May 2020)

45. Superseded by #48

There is no consensus to mention the COVID-19 pandemic in the lead section. (RfC May 2020, July 2020) (Superseded by RfC Aug 2020)

46. Use the caption "Official portrait, 2017" for the infobox image. (Aug 2020, Jan 2021)

47. Do not mention Trump's net worth or Forbes ranking (or equivalents from other publications) in the lead, nor in the infobox. (Sep 2020)

48. Supersedes #45. Trump's reaction to the COVID-19 pandemic should be mentioned in the lead section. There is no consensus on specific wording, but the status quo is Trump reacted slowly to the COVID-19 pandemic; he minimized the threat, ignored or contradicted many recommendations from health officials, and promoted false information about unproven treatments and the availability of testing. (Oct 2020, RfC Aug 2020)

49. Supersedes #35. Include in lead: Trump has made many false and misleading statements during his campaigns and presidency, to a degree unprecedented in American politics. (Dec 2020)

50. Supersedes #17. The lead sentence is: Donald John Trump (born June 14, 1946) is an American politician, media personality, and businessman who served as the 45th president of the United States from 2017 to 2021. (March 2021), amended (July 2021), inclusion of politician (RfC September 2021)

51. Include in the lead that many of Trump's comments and actions have been characterized as misogynistic. (Aug 2021 and Sep 2021)

52. Supersedes #23. The lead should contain a summary of Trump's actions on immigration, including the Muslim travel ban (cf. item 23), the wall, and the family separation policy. (September 2021)

53. The lead should mention that Trump promotes conspiracy theories. (October 2021)

54. Include in the lead that, quote, Scholars and historians rank Trump as one of the worst presidents in U.S. history. (October 2021)

55. Regarding Trump's comments on the 2017 far-right rally in Charlottesville, Virginia, do not wiki-link "Trump's comments" in this manner. (RfC December 2021)

56. Retain the content that Trump never confronted Putin over its alleged bounties against American soldiers in Afghanistan but add context. Current wording can be altered or contextualized; no consensus was achieved on alternate wordings. (RfC November 2021) Trump's expressions of doubt regarding the Russian Bounties Program should be included in some capacity, though there there is no consensus on a specific way to characterize these expressed doubts. (RfC March 2022)

57. Do not mention in the lead Gallup polling that states Trump's the only president to never reach 50% approval rating. (RfC January 2022)

58. Use inline citations in the lead for the more contentious and controversial statements. Editors should further discuss which sentences would benefit from having inline citations. (RfC May 2022, discussion on what to cite May 2022)

59. Do not label or categorize Trump as a far-right politician. (RfC August 2022)

60. Insert the links described in the RfC January 2023.

61. When a thread is started with a general assertion that the article is biased for or against Trump (i.e., without a specific, policy-based suggestion for a change to the article), it is to be handled as follows:

1. Reply briefly with a link to Talk:Donald Trump/Response to claims of bias.
2. Close the thread using {{archive top}} and {{archive bottom}}, referring to this consensus item.
3. Wait at least 24 hours per current consensus #13.
4. Manually archive the thread.

This does not apply to posts that are clearly in bad faith, which are to be removed on sight. (May 2023)

62. The article's description of the five people who died during and subsequent to the January 6 Capitol attack should avoid a) mentioning the causes of death and b) an explicit mention of the Capitol Police Officer who died. (RfC July 2023)

63. Supersedes #18. The alma mater field of the infobox reads: "University of Pennsylvania (BS)". (September 2023)

64. Omit the {{Very long}} tag. (January 2024)

65. Mention the Abraham Accords in the article; no consensus was achieved on specific wordings. (RfC February 2024)

Trump University - excessive detail tab

The brief discussion was archived, the "excessive detail" tag remains in place. Recapping item 3 on Trump University:

1. removal of longstanding content
2. partially reinserted
3. tagged as excessive detail
4. shortened here

I didn't remove the tag when I removed part of the sentence, removing it now under the assumption that it's a dead issue. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 13:30, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

Per that discussion, I've removed the case value. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:35, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

And you've restored it, so it seems the issue is not dead. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:59, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

Third opinion on "excessive detail" tag needed

• Longstanding content: In 2004, Trump co-founded Trump University, a company that sold real estate training courses priced from $1,500 to $35,000. trimmed to say In 2004, Trump co-founded Trump University, a company that sold real estate training courses.
• Shortened to: In 2004, Trump co-founded Trump University, a company that sold real estate seminars for up to $35,000.

Is the tag justified? As I said in the previous discussion, such hefty fees for seminars that were adjudged to be basically worthless is a relevant detail IMO. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 12:23, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

That tag is about wordiness, and, despite its name, not about the level of information in a given sentence. Since that sentence is about as short as it can be without removing information, the tag isn't used correctly.

That aside, I think since the "university" was involved in a number of lawsuits and allegations of misconduct, mentioning the unusually high price tag is relevant. Also, all six sources mention the $35,000 sum, and most do so at the beginning of the article. Since RS consider it to be relevant, it should be included here, as Wikipedia is a reflection of the sources it uses. Cortador (talk) 13:37, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

What leads you to the conclusion that the tag is not about level of information?

Wikipedia is a reflection of the sources it uses, but not a reflection of the level of detail in news articles specific to a particular facet of the topic. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:20, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

Just read what the policy the excessive detail tag links to says.

Yes, it is. If all sources used deem a certain detail important, that detail should be included. Cortador (talk) 10:37, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

That belief is inconsistent with the relevant policy. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:48, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

How do "excessive detail" and "NPOV violation by giving undue weight to a minor aspect of a subject" even apply to four words in a two-paragraph, 141-word subsection? The material has been in the article since June 6, 2016. The six references were published between 2011 and 2016 and added to the article by different editors between February 2016 and September 2021, so it’s not as if someone sought out references to make a point. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 12:34, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

Because this is excessive detail about a minor aspect of the subject in what is meant to be a high-level overview article. A lot of material ends up in this article because it is the news of the day, rather than because someone sets out specifically to introduce problems, but it needs curating either way. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:56, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

That's one opinion, with two opinions saying it's not excessive. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 14:08, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

Please elaborate how "Wikipedia is not a newspaper" applies to information added eight years ago using a source which was then two years old, which addition sources covering a five-year period.

That said, your arguments have gone from the paragraph being too wordy to being imbalanced to being news reporting. With every reply, you come up with a new reason why this information should not be included, which does not add credence to your case. Cortador (talk) 08:13, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

References

Possible bias

The following needs references/citations, otherwise it sounds Bias: "Many of his comments and actions have been characterized as racially charged or racist and many as misogynistic." RainbowBambi (talk) 14:38, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

The article's lead summarizes its body content, and citations for verifiability are placed in the body. In the case you cited, the backup content is at Donald Trump#Racial views and Donald Trump#Misogyny and allegations of sexual misconduct. ―Mandruss ☎ 14:46, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

Does consensus item 58 apply here? "Use inline citations in the lead for the more contentious and controversial statements." Bob K31416 (talk) 15:43, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

Yes. Strictly speaking per 58, one could add citations there, subject to normal BRD (58 therefore seems a bit pointless to me, as that would be the case without it). I'd be on the oppose side. ―Mandruss ☎ 15:48, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

As I interpret it, consensus 58 essentially says that an attempt to reach a consensus to exclude all cites in the lead failed. It doesn't mean that cites can be added without being subject to challenge; rather, merely that such challenges can't rest on the argument that we don't put cites in the lead. I could oppose without using that argument. This is all moot unless and until someone boldly adds one or more cites. ―Mandruss ☎ 16:05, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

That is clearly loaded language, it needs to be more neutral RainbowBambi (talk) 16:13, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

That is not what you said in your opening comment. See the WP:NPOV policy and Talk:Donald Trump/Response to claims of bias. The statement would be improper if the words "characterized as" were not present. We are not using wikivoice for that statement. See also current consensus item 30, in which a consensus was reached for exactly that language minus the misogyny part. ―Mandruss ☎ 16:44, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

Consensus #51 covers the misogyny part. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 19:57, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

It is neutral, because the text is saying how his comments and actions have been interpreted. It neither endorses nor contradicts the interpretation. Furthermore, there is nothing controversial about those interpretations. TFD (talk) 16:44, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

I think it would be quite difficult indeed to argue that the current text is not neutral. O3000, Ret. (talk) 19:06, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

Were any of his comments and actions anti-racist? Bob K31416 (talk) 20:13, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

Well I just now heard him strike out against racism by calling all of his prosecutors racists. Seriously, racists make what could be called anti-racist statements. This has no meaning. In any case, we merely state what RS state, as is the way of WP. O3000, Ret. (talk) 21:45, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

Have you ever heard that when Trump opened Mar-a-Lago, he welcomed Jewish members, African-Americans, and gay couples, unlike other Palm Beach clubs which prohibited them from joining? Bob K31416 (talk) 21:26, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

[1] O3000, Ret. (talk) 21:44, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

"When he opened Mar-a-Lago, Trump welcomed Jewish members, African-Americans, and gay couples, who had been prohibited from joining other Palm Beach clubs."Town & Country

"Mr. Trump’s arrival was greeted with sneers by the Palm Beach elite, and he opened up Mar-a-Lago’s membership to Jews and African-Americans, who had been excluded from other members-only establishments. He was also the first club owner on the island to admit an openly gay couple." NY Times

And as far as I know he hasn't changed this policy since it was opened many years ago. If he did, it might be awkward with regard to his orthodox jewish son-in-law and former white house adviser Jared Kushner, and to his daughter Ivanka who converted to judaism around the time when she married him. Bob K31416 (talk) 22:18, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

Did you read my entire link? This is a well-known story. In any case, if it belongs anywhere it is in the Trump racism article and should include the entire story. O3000, Ret. (talk) 22:36, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

I don't mean to lecture. But a white man can have a black girlfriend and still be a racist. A man can marry a woman and still be a misogynist. Indeed that's rather common. Let us not draw our own conclusions but use reliable sources. O3000, Ret. (talk) 00:19, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

Your source is disputing a Facebook post that has misinformation. It doesn't dispute the fact that Trump opened Mar-a-Lago as a private club without discrimination, which went against the norm for other clubs in the city. I think your source may have tried to imply that Trump would have discriminated if it didn't hurt his business. I see no evidence for that. Presenting your source confuses the issue because it is about some Facebook post, rather than the information in the two reliable sources I presented. I welcome your response, but that will be the end of this discussion for me. Enjoy your editing. Bob K31416 (talk) 00:23, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

The source was based on other sources that we consider RS. Indeed, this is a quite old, well known episode. Mar-a-Lago was not zoned for a resort or club. It was zoned as a private residence. He used his floor of lawyers to get around the zoning violation by declaring discrimination. Believe what you wish. But claiming that this means he is not a racist is OR. We don't do that. O3000, Ret. (talk) 00:32, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

Parents in the infobox

Due to Fred's role in kickstarting Donald's business career, I feel that Donald's parents, Fred Trump and Mary Anne MacLeod Trump, are important enough to warrant direct mention in the infobox via the "parents=" parameter - especially since Donald's father was judged important enough to be mentioned in the lead. Koopinator (talk) 19:46, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

I assume that we don't because they are covered by Family of Donald Trump in the "relatives" parameter. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:51, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

Yes, there's no need to duplicate. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:37, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

They were removed in this edit. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 21:19, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

Closing active discussions

What kind of conduct is necessary for us to close an active discussion? Does an uninvolved editor have to do it? Is there something specific that we should link to when doing so? I'd like for there to be a specific, actionable something to refer back to. Cessaune [talk] 21:13, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

• I think any uninvolved editor should be allowed to close discussions, but not sure what circumstances would be okay for someone involved to. Clearly it's very much necessary to close discussions promptly, this talk seems to just have continous debates without a point. For now, I've closed the above discussion again Soni (talk) 08:46, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

I think that an uninvolved editor can close an active discussion, provided that they leave a closing statement that specifically explains why they did so, pointing to at least one relevant policy/guideline, and provides an edit summary. Cessaune [talk] 22:55, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

I've closed at least two sections on AN/I as non-admin, involved and they survived. Although it may be frowned upon, it can save editor time if the rational is reasonable. We have a process if you don't like a close. If the closure is vandalism, you can revert. If not, you can discuss with the closer on their TP. If that gets nowhere, you can ask for a closure review at AN. You can also create a new section if you have something new to add that isn't a repeat of an argument. Meanwhile you are not supposed to continue posting in a closed thread, as per instructions in the close template. Otherwise closure has no meaning. As for relevant policy/guideline, many threads that are closed are done so because they simply aren't going anywhere. In this case, the OP is also arguing on the Flat Earth TP that the Flat Earth article should not say the Earth is not flat. Others may disagree with my view. O3000, Ret. (talk) 00:25, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

I don't see a problem with posting in a closed thread, provided that you aren't just re-arguing the points brought up. Talks of procedure and such beneath a close are fine IMO, as long as they are related to the topic at hand.

Sure, involved editors can close discussions, but I don't see any real reason to do so. Especially in the context of the previous close, where editors, including you, were replying and responding to the user. I think that we don't need involved editors to close discussions, as there are enough non-involved editors who can do the same, so we should avoid it as best as possible. AN is a step too far: we obviously don't need an admin to do what any one of us can do, if it's truly obvious that we need to close an active thread.

Ultimately, I'd just like to see better edit summaries and closure reasons. I think that a close should require a reason written out in the result= parameter, similar to consensus #61. Otherwise it's kind of a helpless feeling—to watch your active thread get shut down for vaguely defined reasons. We don't have to write essays. Maybe a sentence or two; something along the lines of "WP:SNOW—this discussion is going nowhere." Cessaune [talk] 02:04, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

Sometimes an article on a contentious subject can be taken over by editors who have the same opinion with regard to the subject. Being human they may not be able to edit the article in an impartial way along the lines of NPOV. Individual users who can edit impartially or have their own contrary opinion on the subject are driven away in such an editing environment. So any time such an individual user shows up they are outnumbered and the discussion can be closed as pointless. It might be considered pointless because there is no way their suggestion will be accepted. Here's a recent example of ending such a discussion without a close Talk:Donald_Trump/Archive_167#Operation_Warp_Speed. Also, your suggestion of closing with the reason "WP:SNOW—this discussion is going nowhere." should work every time in such an environment. Bob K31416 (talk) 11:03, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

Yet another evidence-free, broad attack against editors by you. O3000, Ret. (talk) 13:21, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

This is biased and false

"Trump refused to concede after losing the 2020 presidential election to Joe Biden, falsely claiming widespread electoral fraud, and attempted to overturn the results by pressuring government officials, mounting scores of unsuccessful legal challenges, and obstructing the presidential transition. On January 6, 2021, he urged his supporters to march to the U.S. Capitol, which many of them then attacked, resulting in multiple deaths and interrupting the electoral vote count."

This section clearly shows left wing bias. Fix plz. 2600:100F:B1B6:7945:0:1A:847:5801 (talk) 04:10, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

This is very much unbiased and is a well-documented event. The Capitol Riots were reported by multiple reliable, neutral sources. Someone, i guess^{(talk i guess|le edit list)} 04:13, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

No, it biased and misleading to say that the capitol rioters led to "multiple deaths." All the deaths were natural causes, sucide, or Ashley Babbit. 68.234.168.25 (talk) 10:11, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

RS say otherwise. Slatersteven (talk) 10:40, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

We spent a long time discussing this exact issue: [2]. The consensus isn't going to shift any time soon. Cessaune [talk] 22:13, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

"On January 6, 2021, he urged his supporters to march to the U.S. Capitol, which many of them then attacked, resulting in multiple deaths and interrupting the electoral vote count."

So we have "...many of them then attacked, resulting in multiple deaths...". That looks like Trump supporters killed multiple people when they attacked the Capitol. As you noted, this language was supported by a consensus of editors here. Bob K31416 (talk) 00:51, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

No, it looks like multiple people died when they attacked the Capitol. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:57, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

"resulting in" is misleading and should be removed[3] soibangla (talk) 10:30, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

Instead of this nonspecific bias allegation, please suggest a specific, policy-based improvement, one that is backed up by reliable sources — see Talk:Donald_Trump/Response_to_claims_of_bias for more information (consensus #61). (Soibangla, your source says they take no position in the debate over whom to include in the deaths from the riots.) The wording in the lead is based on the Donald Trump#January 6 Capitol attack subsection in the body of our article: According to the Department of Justice, more than 140 police officers were injured, and five people died.. The cited ABC News article says that "five people died during or after the attack". The New York Times source cites the bipartisan Senate report which found that "at least seven people had lost their lives in connection with the Jan. 6 attack". Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 13:25, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

We should be concerned with what the text conveys to the reader, rather than whether it is techically correct. A typical reader would interpret the text to mean that the victims died as result of injuries suffered during the incident. In comparison, we might say that 5,000 Americans died as a result of the War in Iraq and not include the 30,000 who died from suicide once they returned to the U.S.

Also, "multiple" probably fails MOS:WEASEL.

If you want a suggested replacement, I would say, "resulting in the death of one demonstrator and the subsequent death of x. no. of police officers through natural causes and suicide. TFD (talk) 23:24, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

yes soibangla (talk) 23:30, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I like TFD's solution. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 00:49, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

Did we mention the 140 or so officers injured? O3000, Ret. (talk) 01:01, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

No. Consensus #62 says that "the article's description of the five people who died during and subsequent to the January 6 Capitol attack should avoid a) mentioning the causes of death and b) an explicit mention of the Capitol Police Officer who died". That also rules out mentioning "natural causes and suicide" in the lead — not in the body, ergo not in the lead. resulting in multiple deaths is short and concise. What's weaselly about multiple? Multiple seems justified for six at the scene or line-of-duty (don't know about the status rulings on the three other officers who committed suicide in January and July 2021). Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 14:33, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

No. Every death has a natural cause. In this instance the natural causes were the result of the insurrectionists' attacks. SPECIFICO talk 17:53, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

"resulting in multiple deaths." This is misleading. The natural causes deaths were not related to the capitol attack. Suicide cannot be blamed on a capitol attack. This is like saying that if you serve in Iraq but die from alcohol abuse a month later after leaving which started during deployment, you "died from service", which is totally misleading and disrespectful to war heros who die in combat. 68.234.168.22 (talk) 04:29, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Why are liberal Wikipedia admins and editors putting up so much of a fight to prevent adding a few phrases of qualifying information? Simply mentioning the causes of death in a few words in the lead (where most people only read it there) can prevent slandering a living person biography. Since when is Wikipedia the place for witholding information or burying it from view for transparently political purposes? Please include this critical info. 68.234.168.22 (talk) 04:34, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

These Are the People Who Died in Connection With the Capitol Riot https://www.nytimes.com/2022/01/05/us/politics/jan-6-capitol-deaths.html?smid=nytcore-android-share 68.234.168.22 (talk) 04:35, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

[According to the above source] Four members of the mob died (Trump supporters).

One officer died of stroke, and four officers committed suicide (as long as 6 months later). 68.234.168.22 (talk) 04:39, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

References

bias / abraham accords

1) "He met with North Korean leader Kim Jong Un three times but made no progress on denuclearization." what is the point of the end part? its like saying [in the lead for the cristiano ronaldo article]

"Ronaldo ... before signing with Manchester United in 2003, winning the FA Cup in his first season. He would also go on to win three consecutive Premier League titles [on a team that had won it like 5 times in the past 10 years], the Champions League [missing the penalty shootout in the final] and the FIFA Club World Cup [scoring only one goal];" You can just praise the achievement man.

2) looking at previous conversations, real human adults put too much effort into actively campaigning against a notable event being in the wikipedia lead of the guy who orchestrated it, mentioned in ONE SENTENCE (that specifico guy for one). just put the darn abraham accords in the lead and be done with this DannyM999x (talk) 07:11, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

I agree it went nowhere so we should remove the whole passage about meeting NK leader. Slatersteven (talk) 10:41, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

• I oppose revisiting #44. This was an important element of foreign policy (North Korea's nuclear arsenal and the security of the Korean peninsula are, obviously, important), and a significant change from previous policy (no previous president had met a North Korean supreme leader, and Trump met three times). It is perfectly appropriate to include a single sentence in the lead section explaining what happened. Neutrality^talk 20:42, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

  it should be in there but why mention he "made no progress on denuclearization?" seems like an attempt to spin it as a negative event. no other president even went close to north korea when they were in office DannyM999x (talk) 21:10, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

  If it was an important event, seems a bit odd to not include just a few words on the result. O3000, Ret. (talk) 21:14, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

Instead of these nonspecific bias allegations, please suggest specific, policy-based improvements backed up by reliable sources — see Talk:Donald_Trump/Response_to_claims_of_bias for more information (consensus #61). Abraham Accords: also see consensus #65. Kim Jon Un: also see consensus #44. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 13:28, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

The Abraham Accords are mentioned in the section Israel of this Trump article, along with a source. Another source is, [‘The dawn of a new Middle East’: Trump celebrates Abraham Accords with White House signing ceremony — The president also predicted the Palestinians “will come to the table” to negotiate a peace deal with Israel. In this source is, "[Netanyahu] praised Trump for helping mediate the agreements and encouraged more Arab states to sign the accords." Bob K31416 (talk) 20:48, 27 April 2024 (UTC) (I just now added this source to the article. diff Bob K31416 (talk) 21:34, 27 April 2024 (UTC))

Per our discussion on prior attempts to increase coverage of AA in this article: That source should not have been added. The entire article is narrating the self-serving talking points of Trump and Netanyahu and their cohort without any journalistic treatment of AA, its history, context, or objective significance. Please remove it and if you wish to add references, please find ones that discuss AA objectively. SPECIFICO talk 02:42, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

And do it in the Presidency article, not here. Presidency stuff should only get limited and short mention here, and most should get ZERO mention here. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 02:46, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

The source was removed by another editor. diff Bob K31416 (talk) 22:58, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

The sentence doesn't need more than one RS. You can read older NYT and WaPo articles that may be paywalled at the Wayback Machine: NYT article. (Seems that Trump and Netanyahu were a little off with their glowing predictions for the future, no?) Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 09:56, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

Do you know of any way that you could put the link that you presented for the NY Times article into the cite? Thanks. Bob K31416 (talk) 13:13, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

Looking on the article page, I found this cite [4], which has a form that could be useful here. We could use your NYT link to change the NYT cite to

Crowley, Michael (September 15, 2020). "Israel, U.A.E. and Bahrain Sign Accords, With an Eager Trump Playing Host". The New York Times. Archived from the original on November 12, 2020. Retrieved April 29, 2024.

Would you be agreeable to this? Bob K31416 (talk) 14:25, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

I just now made the edit. diff Bob K31416 (talk) 03:35, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

The edit was reverted. diff Your edit summary was, "The source isn't dead. Talk:Donald_Trump#Current_consensus #25: Do not add web archives to cited sources which are not dead." Note that in a previous message I gave a link to a cite in the article that did not have a dead link but used an archived version. [5] Also I looked at the discussion for consensus item #25 and the concern there was that all cites would have archived versions. In the two cases mentioned here, there are archived versions added only because the direct link has an obstacle to viewing the source. I think in these two cases of an obstacle to viewing the source, one case that is already in the article and one proposed for the article, there should be an archived version. Bob K31416 (talk) 17:46, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

I just now restored it. diff Bob K31416 (talk) 18:49, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

The edit was reverted. diff The edit summary was "does not appear tobe necessary", which did not appear to address the reason for the edit as discussed in my previous message before the last one. Bob K31416 (talk) 21:12, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

Seeking clarity - @DannyM999x: Does the Abraham Accords have anything to do with Israel/Palestine conflicts? If so, it's a volatile topic, which we must be careful around. GoodDay (talk) 18:01, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

Wrong article

North Korea? Abraham Accords? Go to the right article. It's that way --> --> --> Presidency of Donald Trump. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 21:48, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

Operation Warp Speed

space4time3continuum2x thanks for catching those citation issues. Made that edit quickly. Presume you're fine with me re-adding the material with the proper DHHS references? Riposte97 (talk) 14:05, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

No. What's the importance of this Trump announcement for his top bio? I just found the two sentences you added in the "History" section of Operation Warp Speed, and "NIH ACTIV", "NIH RADx", and "BARDA" are as cryptic there as they were here. I assume "DHHS references" refers to DHHS press releases, i.e. primary sources, and Wikipedia articles should be based mainly on reliable secondary sources" WP:RSPRIMARY. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 14:54, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

Riposte97, FYI at Operation Warp Speed I fixed a dead link, added NIH abbreviation for National Institutes of Health, and added footnotes/refs for the acronyms ACTIV and RADx. Bob K31416 (talk) 22:35, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

Thanks Bob. I'll work up a new section using secondary sources and insert. Riposte97 (talk) 10:30, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

I saw your section on the article page [6] and I think it looks good. Thanks. Bob K31416 (talk) 14:57, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

Riposte, in view of the rejection of your proposed addition up top, it will need explicit consensus before going in the article. And I too object for the same reason and also for its miscasting of Dr. Fauci's position. SPECIFICO talk 18:44, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

In the proposed Operation Warp Speed section [7] here's the part about Fauci along with the cite, which includes a Fauci quote,

Despite initial misgivings from some experts, including the Director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, Anthony Fauci,^[462]

462. "Trump unveils 'warp-speed' effort to create coronavirus vaccine by year's end". The Guardian. 17 May 2020. Retrieved 29 April 2024. "There's no guarantee that the vaccine is actually going to be effective."

You might want to clarify why you think this miscasts Fauci's position. Bob K31416 (talk) 20:03, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

Telling folks not to get their hopes up is not misgivings about pursuing a vaccine. SPECIFICO talk 20:31, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

I looked at the transcript for Fauci's Senate testimony (see Dr. Anthony Fauci: (01:20:43) in [8]) and I would agree that the edit needs work with regard to Fauci. I think the point is that Fauci and others initially thought that the vaccine would take 12-18 months or longer to develop, whereas it was faster than expected. Bob K31416 (talk) 21:21, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

Fair enough. Happy to just cut that clause entirely. SPECIFICO, would that address your concerns? Riposte97 (talk) 21:39, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

I don't think it warrants mention in this bio, nor is it evident that the "warp speed" messaging and huge payouts to pharma providers sped the development of vaccines. The central facts of Trump's pandemic days are already covered. SPECIFICO talk 22:22, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

Operation Warp Speed sped up the process by setting up and starting manufacturing before vaccine testing was completed.

Speaking on background during a conference call today, officials said that when creating a vaccine, things such as development, clinical trials and manufacturing typically would occur one after the other. In some cases, officials said, Operation Warp Speed will do them at the same time.

"We expect to be producing large quantities of vaccines while the clinical trials are still underway," one official said. "That is, when safety and efficacy have been demonstrated, there isn't a day's delay due to manufacturing ramp-up timelines. We will still complete all of the necessary clinical trials to determine safety and efficacy."[9]

Bob K31416 (talk) 23:43, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

Riposte97, I think you did a good job of trying to include Operation Warp Speed but I do not think it has a chance of being included in the article with this kind of editing environment. There was a case of successfully including another item that met with similar opposition, but it required multiple attempts over years with a robust pursuit in the end by many editors who did not usually edit here. It got in as a minimal mention. And those editors moved on. Regards, Bob K31416 (talk) 04:05, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

Hold on, I fail to see how an executive initiative which massively sped the pace of vaccine development, saving thousands of lives, doesn't belong here. There are dozens of articles from RS on OWS, and all seem to agree that the program was pivotal to vaccine development. Vaccines were the single greatest contributor to ending the pandemic. How is that not due? Riposte97 (talk) 12:02, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

I think it should be in too. I don't think there is anything that can be done to change the minds of those here who are opposed to it. Anyhow, here's a couple of 2023 articles that I happened across.

How To Replicate The Success Of Operation Warp Speed, Federation of American Scientists (2023)

America Should Be More Like Operation Warp Speed, The Atlantic (2023)

I don't know if they will be of any help to you, but I thought they were interesting as far as how OWS is considered a success years afterward. In closing, I try to be careful about getting into discussions that take too much of my time. Lately I haven't been careful enough and I'll try to remedy that. Good luck and happy editing. Bob K31416 (talk) 16:18, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

Two U.S.-centric opinions. "Project Lightspeed" was up and rolling in January 2020; clinical trials began in April, more than three weeks before the Trump administration's announcement. See also Katalin Karikó and Pfizer–BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 13:16, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

My god. There is nothing more American than accusing others of being myopic Americans. Mate, I’m Australian.

The rest of your comment is nonsensical. The Pfizer vaccine relied heavily on the logistical advantages of Operation Warp Speed, and the guaranteed purchase agreement offered by the US government. Katalin Kariko is an academic, not involved in vaccine development - besides which, she's American! Riposte97 (talk) 14:02, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

How did you get from The experts agree that Operation Warp Speed played a significant role in Moderna's development of a potential vaccine and "This is a bright spot in the pandemic response. I mean, the rest of it has been dismal," said Goodman to the proposed text: the program was a notable success, greatly shortening the time taken to develop effective vaccines against COVID-19? The cited source says that "experts agree that Operation Warp Speed played a significant role in Moderna's development of a potential vaccine".  Did you even read the article all the way down to "Pfizer self-funded" and "Initiative done in anything but warp speed"? Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 12:30, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

Rip and Bob, you would need to present secondary RS - preferably with the benefit and perspective of hindsight - to support your claims. I've seen no such assessments. The main fact is that RS studies have found that Trump focused on his personal political interests ahead of public safety. And they found that this cost America hundreds of thousands of preventable deaths. SPECIFICO talk 12:55, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

SPECIFICO, it is a fallacy to say that, because Trump focussed on his personal political interests during covid, we cannot include any information on things he did well. Obviously, I’m not saying we shouldn't include any of the copious information on his wrongdoing during the pandemic - that's well documented in the article.

I have already provided multiple RS on what an enormous success OWS was. Here is yet another, published last year: https://www.wsj.com/articles/we-need-more-operation-warp-speed-covid-cancer-diabetes-bureaucracy-fda-ace77028 Riposte97 (talk) 19:29, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

Your source is an opinion by Casey Mulligan, former Trump appointee to head the Council of Economic Advisers and man who selectively cited stats from countries that supported his opinion of employees abusing paid sick leave while not citing stats from countries with even more generous paid sick leave that contradicted his opinion. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 12:31, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

Once again, I have provided multiple sources, including those cited in my edit.

Nevertheless, here's another: https://www.forbes.com/sites/jemimamcevoy/2021/03/21/operation-warp-speed-head-says-trump-administration-responsible-for-90-of-vaccine-rollout/?sh=53a83b751848 Riposte97 (talk) 13:12, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

"Another" i.e. another self-interested party's opinion? Please respond to the issues raised by dissenting editors. Please review WP:RS WP:V and WP:NPOV. You are getting replies, indicating a willingness to consider your proposal, but you would need to refute the criticism in the dissents. SPECIFICO talk 16:22, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

Maybe it would be more productive to discuss specific content of the reliable sources, rather than people and nationalities related to them? Bob K31416 (talk) 18:38, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

Consensus 25 and paywalled sources

Re: [10][11][12][13][14]

This consensus-by-edit-war needs to stop. After posting this, I will restore status quo ante pending talk page consensus to include the new content.

This is not an isolated exception case. The same issue exists for all paywalled sources, and there are quite a few. In my experience, Wikipedia does not worry about citing paywalled sources. Readers who do not wish to subscribe are apparently expected to trust that enough editors readers and editors do subscribe to satisfy WP:V. While some readers use citations to easily access "further reading", that is not the purpose of citations.

In any case, this addition does violate consensus 25 and should not be made without first amending that consensus. Process is important. ―Mandruss ☎ 14:06, 2 May 2024 (UTC) Redacted 15:52, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

• Indeed. Besides paywalled sources, there are also printed sources that aren't available online and geo-blocked sources. Paywalled and geo-blocked sources are usually available on the Wayback Machine - many readers are probably familiar with it or, if not, they can ask about the cite on the Talk page. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 14:41, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

The relevant policy is at WP:PAYWALL (part of V), by the way. ―Mandruss ☎ 15:29, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

WP:PAYWALL is about not rejecting reliable sources that are difficult or costly to access. That is not the issue here. The issue here is whether to make such sources easier to access by using an archived version that is not difficult or costly to access.

For reference, here's the proposed change in the cite.

From this,

Crowley, Michael (September 15, 2020). "Israel, U.A.E. and Bahrain Sign Accords, With an Eager Trump Playing Host". The New York Times. Retrieved February 9, 2024.

to this,

Crowley, Michael (September 15, 2020). "Israel, U.A.E. and Bahrain Sign Accords, With an Eager Trump Playing Host". The New York Times. Archived from the original on November 12, 2020. Retrieved April 29, 2024.

I suggest clicking on the article link in each cite and seeing which is preferable. Bob K31416 (talk) 18:50, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

This has been settled by Consensus #25, and it relates not to ease of access of sources but this superlong page being bogged down by becoming even longer. Why should we revisit Consensus #25? – Muboshgu (talk) 19:08, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

The discussion for consensus item 25 was about use of archived versions when the original version works just as well. That is not the case here. Bob K31416 (talk) 19:16, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

I'll concede that #25 did not anticipate this situation. Nevertheless, its letter precludes this addition (the source in question is not dead) and would require amendment. As I previously said, this is not an isolated case and what we're really talking about is adding archive to all paywalled sources or none; there is no rationale for carving out an exception for this case. There are so many paywalled sources (all NYT and all WaPo, just for starters) that the former option would significantly defeat the purpose of #25. Per prior comments, I support the latter option: we don't need this. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:32, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

I think I've made a good case for the archived link to be included in the cite, as indicated above, and I'll wait to see if there is any support for it. Thanks. Bob K31416 (talk) 21:46, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

I would tend to agree with Bob here. If size is an issue, we should be cutting down on prosesize first and foremost, because that's what actually matters in the long run. Sure, archive parameters make the source code a little more cluttered, but ease of access to sources is more important IMO—I actively click on citations in order to read the source, and, when so many political newspapers are behind paywalls, having an archived version of a source that I can just click on aids efficiency. Cessaune [talk] 00:56, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

I would tend to agree with Bob here. AFAICT, Bob does not accept that we're talking about far more than this one citation. It helps to be clear about the actual issue. ―Mandruss ☎ 15:25, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

Links added by editors to the English Wikipedia mainspace are automatically saved to the Wayback Machine within about 24 hours (WP:PLRT). The stated reason is prevention of link rot but the archiving also provides easy access to paywalled and geo-blocked sources, with or without an archive-url in the cite. We could add a note to the top of the Talk page with the url to the Wayback Machine for readers who are not familiar with it. I don’t see what’s so important about a source for one particular sentence that readers must be able to access it with one click. The issue here is also potentially adding up to 60,000 bytes to the article. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 10:17, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

Consensus 25 is fine. I've seen articles nearly double in size in one edit because of this practice of adding archive links for live articles. Properly-sourced content is much more important than providing an extra method of accessing the source. We need to keep our long articles accessible to readers, and archive-link bloat makes it much harder to download them. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 14:28, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

• FYI, User:Space4Time3Continuum2x made edits like the proposed edit after consensus item #25 was in place. diff diff diff Edit summaries were "Add archive-url (paywalled source)" and "Replace with accessible cites". Those cites are still in the article. 145 171 489 and appear to be the only such type of cites in the article. Bob K31416 (talk) 11:48, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

Oops — touché. I removed all three. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 12:30, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

I just now restored them since they are part of the discussion and have been around for years. Again note that you put them in while Consensus item #25 was in place. You might want to explain that. Also, you might want to explain why you thought improving the accessibility was an improvement back then but you think differently now. Thanks. Bob K31416 (talk) 14:50, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

We have never had a time limit for correction of process errors. And it's entirely unreasonable to expect an editor to remember what was in their mind for a few minutes years ago. If you really need a reason, call it temporary insanity or mere brain fart. So what? To err is human; the difference is that you're erring now. ―Mandruss ☎ 14:55, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, I don't remember what I was thinking in 2021 when I made those entries. I don't know where to get ahold of sackcloth or ashes, so mea culpa and the reverted attempts to right the wrong will have to do. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 15:22, 4 May 2024 (UTC) Or, maybe, I'm three years older now and know better? Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 15:31, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

True. Editors evolve with time. I certainly have. ―Mandruss ☎ 15:34, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

What's your point, Bob? Process errors were made years ago, and now you won't allow them to be corrected? Is this supposed to strengthen your position in this discussion? If so, it does not; it merely adds disruption. ―Mandruss ☎ 14:42, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

Jaysus, really? Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 14:45, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

• Comment: Perhaps I'm being naive but the issue seems straightforward. Yet, of course, we are in the realm of the TAW, for Trump Article Warning, whereby Beware and rethink your change! There is rarely a change to an article related to Donald Trump that will not cause heated discussion or even serious controversy.

When the source is not freely available and has not yet been archived, we mark as appropriate the link's url-access. When a source has been archived and the archive is freely available online, we link to both the original, non-freely accessible webpage and to the archive, with the former's url-access properly marked. Whence all the excitement?

P.S. Bob K31416 offered above a simple and elegant example that deserves wide support.

P.P.S. The point of WP:PAYWALL is equally straightforward: Do not be reluctant to use sources that are behind subscription paywalls, only available for a fee, etc. It does not offer any guidance on the marking of sources or using both direct & archived links, because the whole matter is obvious and there is no need for any such guidance. -The Gnome (talk) 12:25, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

Agree with Bob and Gnome. The size concerns are overblown. Riposte97 (talk) 15:13, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

@Riposte97: It would help if you, Cessaune, Bob K31416, and any others would clarify your positions here. Do you support amending #25 to allow Bob's proposed technique for live paywalled sources, or cancelling #25 entirely? ―Mandruss ☎ 15:31, 4 May 2024 (UTC) And The Gnome. ―Mandruss ☎ 15:48, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

I think you're trying to make more of this than it is for me. I had an edit that was reverted and I tried to discuss it in a previous section, and all I got was more reversions without them coming to the Talk page to respond to my points. When in my mind I had given up, another editor restored my edit again and you then started this section. So far it looks like there are 3 other articulate editors here who support my edit. I like that. Bob K31416 (talk) 16:08, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

I think you're trying to make more of this than it is for me. As I suspected. As I've said, there is no rationale for a single-case change (I see little evidence that the 3 other articulate editors support a single-case change). Unless you can persuasively articulate one, that will never fly, period. ―Mandruss ☎ 16:21, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

Riposte97, the size concerns are NOT overblown. The article is currently at 411,927 bytes. Allowing archive links for live URLs could easily add 200,000 bytes in one edit. That's a problem for many mobile users, and there are much larger articles that would be impacted even more. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 16:11, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

My memory's fuzzy, but I think 200,000 is way high. In any case, that wasn't the only basis for #25; massive clutter of the wikitext in the edit box was another. ―Mandruss ☎ 16:28, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

The last few times the bot "rescued n sources and tagged 0 as dead", it added 57,585, 57,586, and 57,577 bytes, respectively. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 16:46, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

I was totally guessing based on previous occasions where articles suddenly balooned. If EVERY single ref received this treatment, I doubt I'm very far off. If anything, I'm way too low. Doubling the size could happen. How about someone actually do it as an experiment and immediately self-revert? Then we'd know for sure. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 16:48, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

Didn't the bot add archive for EVERY single ref? How so? How about someone actually do it as an experiment and immediately self-revert? If you have the required several free hours, knock yourself out. It's a monumental task without the help of a script. ―Mandruss ☎ 16:56, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

I was under the impression that this was done with scripts or bots, so not a lot of work. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 17:02, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

Right, it was done with a script-based (I assume) bot, and added about 57,000 bytes as shown by Space4T. ―Mandruss ☎ 17:04, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

Please note that these folks are trying to make an estimate for all live links, which is different from trying to make an estimate for just paywalled live links. Bob K31416 (talk) 17:24, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

Yes, a point I'm about to make below. ―Mandruss ☎ 17:39, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

On the other hand: Immediately after the latest bot visit, the article had 844 citations and |archive-url= occurred only 304 times. That suggests that I'm full of it. 57,585 / 304 * 844 = 159,874, so you may be closer to right than wrong. Now I haven't a clue what the bot was doing, or how we could ever add archive for everything. Anyway, unless we're talking about a total repeal of #25, this is fairly academic. ―Mandruss ☎ 17:39, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

The bots added archive-urls to 290+ sources out of the more than 800. I don't think the dead sources that have archive-urls and sources that aren't available online add up to 500+ but is it worth the effort to check? 57,000 additional bytes and the added clutter in the edit box are argument enough for me to keep #25 as is. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 17:44, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

From what I read, the problem discussed in Consensus #25 came about originally when a bot was used to add archived links en masse to all live links, not just paywalled links. I think some here are trying to address a problem that has not occurred, i.e. using a bot to include archived links for only paywalled articles. I'm just looking to make an edit. If you think it requires a change in Consensus #25, then just add that archives for sites requiring registration or subscription is being allowed provisionally, as long as it does not result in excessive archiving. You could probably tweak this text as needed. I think that's about it for me. So long, thanks, and good luck. Bob K31416 (talk) 18:06, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

I think some here are trying to address a problem that has not occurred, i.e. using a bot to include archived links for only paywalled articles. It's being addressed only because some editors' comments suggest that they oppose #25 outright. I get that you don't. You could probably tweak this text as needed. Sure, if someone can suggest how we would make the decision to include archive parameters or not—beyond "one or more editors want to include them" (I just don't like the omission of the archive parameters). After all this discussion, after multiple requests to do so, you still haven't said what justifies an exception for your case, let alone future others. If you can't do so, perhaps backing away is the wise choice. ―Mandruss ☎ 18:20, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

Can't think of a reason to carve out an exception for this specific cite. It's got to be all or nothing. Cessaune [talk] 02:03, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

Consider the flip side of the coin you propose. If we did that, it would result in protracted discussions about each new case, with one side always asking, Whence all the excitement? (for evidence of that, we need look no further than #37 and #58, both sufficiently vague as to do more harm than good). That's the opposite of what consensus items seek to achieve, which is to reduce, not create, opportunities for disagreements resulting in protracted discussions. "Beware and rethink your change! There is rarely a change to an article related to Donald Trump that will not cause heated discussion or even serious controversy". That's a fact of life for those who choose to play in this sandbox, but it would be far worse if we didn't use the consensus list to mitigate it. Each item represents something we don't need to spend a lot of time debating, for the most part. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:40, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

It seems like a pretty straightforward exception to 25 to say 'except where it assists in bypassing a paywall'. In the current case, doing so has clear utility. Inferring that I or anyone else has argued for a repeal of 25 is a misunderstanding. Riposte97 (talk) 01:50, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

25. Do not add web archives to cited sources which are not dead or paywalled. Cessaune [talk] 02:02, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

^ precisely. Riposte97 (talk) 11:13, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

Links to other Wikipedia Donald Trump articles

Should this article link to all the other articles about Donald Trump? Vajzë Blu (talk) 18:21, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

See "This article is part of a series about Donald Trump" below the infobox. ―Mandruss ☎ 18:24, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

I see it thanks! But I don't believe that links to every Donald Trump article. Maybe this article should link to all of them. Vajzë Blu (talk) 18:36, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

There are category links at the bottom that will take you to every article about him. You can start with Category:Donald Trump. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 14:29, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

Thanks! Vajzë Blu (talk) 14:36, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

Template:Donald Trump series should probably contain every Trump article. You could be bold and add any missing ones. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 14:32, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

Thanks! Vajzë Blu (talk) 14:37, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

Dementia

I've added a mention of the multiple allegations that Trump has dementia to the "Health" section of the article. Unlike, for example, the allegations that Trump suffers from incontinence, this is directly relevant to his electability and suitability for high office, and belongs in this section of the article. — The Anome (talk) 12:21, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

I have reverted this per consensus 39. Riposte97 (talk) 12:35, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

I also think that consensus #39 applies. IMO, the info could be added to Donald_Trump_2024_presidential_campaign#Rhetoric in the context of Trump alleging without medical proof that President Biden, 81, is "cognitively impaired." Those attacks follow a long pattern for the former president (WAPO). I reverted the change to the subsection title. We don't have reliable sources on Trump's health, just what he said about his "primary form of exercise" and body=battery and what Bornstein said about Trump's medical records. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 13:07, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

Agreed, he has not been clinically examined, so this is not a clinical diagnosis. Slatersteven (talk) 13:10, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

Also agree. May be obvious, but there must be an examination. Similar to the Goldwater Rule. O3000, Ret. (talk) 13:18, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

This (as with the material about his "exercise" regime already there) is not about Trump's actual health, but the perception and claims thereof. In particular, the issue is not whether Trump has dementia (for which we would need WP:MEDRS standards of citation), but the extensive allegations that he has, and his counter-allegations against his opponent. Other sources (which I was about to add to the article) suggest that these allegations are unfounded, but that's part of the narrative as well. Trump has made allegations of cognitive decline a major part of his platform, asserting that "Sleepy Joe" is in a state of mental decline while he, Trump, is in the finest of neurological health, something about which he brags regularly, as he does with his (alleged) height and (alleged) weight. All of this is extremely public, and directly relevant to his public persona and career. — The Anome (talk) 13:22, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

Which I do not think we mention on Bidens page either. Slatersteven (talk) 13:42, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

Ah. I've just seen consensus #39, point taken. However, it's very strange that Wikipedia seems to have decided to avoid any mention of the elephant in the room in this campaign; surely WP:NOTCENSORED applies here. And yes, we should do this evenhandedly across both candidates, per WP:NPOV. — The Anome (talk) 13:56, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

NO, you have been told where it can go, just not here. Slatersteven (talk) 14:17, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

WP is not a newspaper, and your Reuters source cites "five aging experts" saying "that the U.S. public and media risk becoming a nation of armchair gerontologists". Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 14:32, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

Exclude, as he hasn't been medically diagnosed with dementia. GoodDay (talk) 14:02, 5 May 2024 (UTC)