Talk:Donald Trump

Lead sentence - civil liability for sexual abuse, defamation, financial fraud
Recent edits of the last sentence of the lead:

The main article E. Jean Carroll v. Donald J. Trump is about both lawsuits Carroll brought against Trump. The first one ("Carroll I", Carroll v. Trump (1:20-cv-07311), filed in 2019), was for defamation. After New York passed the Adult Survivors Act in 2022, allowing "victims of sexual offenses for which the statute of limitations has lapsed to file civil suits for a one-year period from November 24, 2022, to November 24, 2023", Carrol brought a second lawsuit ("Carroll II", CARROLL v. TRUMP (2023), 22-cv-10016) for sexual battery and defamation (different incidents of defamation than those in "Carroll I"). Carroll II went to trial first, verdict in May 2023, $5 million in damages. Carroll I followed in January 2024, $83.3 million in emotional, reputational, and punitive damages. Condensing that information into one clause with the link to the main article some editors insist we absolutely need to have (because heaven forbid people should feel the need to read the body) makes for a very long Wikilink. Space4Time3Continuum2x 🖖 14:19, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Does seem wordy, but hard to see how else we can say three separate things. Slatersteven (talk) 14:40, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't know if there is a better way to do this. It's inevitably wordy. Wordings 2, 3, and 4 avoid the overly long wikilink while simultaneously being true. Cessaune   [ talk ]   22:53, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

Lead sentence: proposal to add "convicted felon"
Donald Trump is a convicted felon now, and it is important context regarding his numerous civil and criminal trials that are ongoing. BasedGigachad (talk) 03:33, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Read the FAQ. Meters (talk) 03:50, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Why can I reply to this “talk” but not Joe Biden’s? 152.86.241.175 (talk) 18:34, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
 * His felony is mentioned in detail. I don't think it's necessary to add it to the first paragraph. Frankserafini87 (talk) 01:21, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

Residence in the infobox
Hi, is it time to change the parameter from Mar-a-Lago, Palm Beach, Florida to Palm Beach, Florida? This was discussed before. Thedarkknightli (talk) 19:53, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
 * It was a discussion with very low participation, just you and me. Personally, I prefer the simpler Palm Beach, Florida. (Now that the Supreme Court has bestowed absolute royal immunity for official acts on King Former Guy, has Mar-a-Lago become the American Buckingham Palace?) Space4Time3Continuum2x 🖖 10:09, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Oh, I see. Thanks for your timely reply, @Space4Time3Continuum2x! Is it necessary to start an RfC on this, then? Thedarkknightli (talk) 10:12, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Just make the change. Who would object?  SPECIFICO talk 15:20, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Who would object? Surely you jest. But it would make sense to have tried a bold edit first. Now we have an RfC, like it or not, and we know how hard it is to abort an RfC. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  15:26, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
 * As hard as gazpacho. SPECIFICO talk 15:47, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

Added section on potential assassination attempt
Trump was just shot. See 2024 presidential campaign for my section on it. Please update it as needed as we get more information. ~ AlaskaGal~ ^_^ 22:31, 13 July 2024 (UTC)


 * There is no such evidence. Patience. O3000, Ret. (talk) 22:33, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
 * This is WP:BREAKING news. We dont know if he was hit or not, or if he was even the target. We need to wait. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:35, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
 * According to secret service he was shaken but unharmed Jtasp111 (talk) 22:37, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
 * https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:TrumpShot.jpg Newusereditaccount (talk) 23:10, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
 * What is your evidence for this assertion? Details of the impact on people other than the subject of this article belong elsewhere, and redundancy should be avoided - if we call this an attempted assassination in the first sentence, we don't need to add that it's being treated as an attempted assassination. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:20, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm not opposed to rewording some things like the redundant wording about the investigation, but removing half the subsection places this out of proper WEIGHT considering the significance of the assassination attempt. That's why I reverted your edit. The section should have a brief overview of the incident as a whole, which would include the death and two injuries. Trump's immediate response by raising his fist was directly related to the subject yet you still removed it, and those are relevant details that should be included.  R. G. Checkers talk 01:31, 16 July 2024 (UTC)


 * No, the article should not have an overview of the incident as a whole - it should have an overview of the incident as it relates to the subject of this article. The fact that someone unrelated to the subject died protecting someone unrelated to the subject is off-topic for here, pending further developments. And at this point in the unfolding narrative, a much shorter subsection is much more proportionate overall. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:39, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Are the changes I just made satisfactory to you?  R. G. Checkers talk 01:51, 16 July 2024 (UTC)


 * It's better, but there's still material that is redundant and off-topic, and it's still overly detailed. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:58, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I agree. And I question whether it needs a separate subsection here. In my view the question is not how significant it is, but how much material belongs here. Certainly details about the shooter are not relevant to Trump's bio. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  02:21, 16 July 2024 (UTC)


 * What was your rationale for this revert? I don't see consensus here for the additions. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:21, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Your edit summary just said "per talk" without link to the section, and there are five discussions about the shooting. I had forgotten about this one that started immediately after the incident, with editors saying "breaking news" and "patience". The next day I removed the subheading and shortened the text in the "2024 presidential campaign" section and was reverted less than an hour later. By now, RS have settled on "attempted assassination", and I think a five-sentence paragraph describing the incident in its own subsection is justified, based on general coverage. Space4Time3Continuum2x 🖖 12:32, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Just read Carlos Lozada's opinion on Trump's use of "fight" in the NYT, adding the archived version. Space4Time3Continuum2x 🖖 13:47, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
 * And I thought this was fake news but nope, he's selling "fight fight fight" sneakers. Space4Time3Continuum2x 🖖 22:01, 18 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Marketing gimmick aside, suggest waiting for consensus before re-expanding the section. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:02, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
 * My comment was a tad misleading. I wasn't proposing adding more "fight" text to the article, just adding the archive url to my comment for readers who don't subscribe to the NYT. Anyway, I just discovered that we now have a Trump raised-fist photographs page comparing a Trump "raised-fist with Stars and Stripes" photograph to the marines planting the flag at Iwo Jima .  Space4Time3Continuum2x 🖖 10:30, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

how would we include trump being taken off stage by secret service in the article after he was (possibly) just shot at?
for those confused on what i'm referencing: https://www.cnn.com/2024/07/13/politics/video/trump-secret-service-butler-pennsylvania-digvid

basically, shooting noises are heard while donald trump is being protected by secret service members—the crowd starts screaming while the "shots" are fired in rapid secession. do we wait for more info about this before writing? or would we write about this now with smthn along the lines of "trump was hosting a rally on january 13 2024 in pennsylvania, when sudden popping noises were heard that caused him to be rushed off stage due to a possible assassination attempt."

sorry abt the bad grammar, in a rush writing this!

RidgelantRL (talk) 22:38, 13 July 2024 (UTC)


 * We don't yet. We wait until we know what happened. O3000, Ret. (talk) 22:41, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
 * https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/world/522100/live-updates-trump-injured-after-shots-heard-at-rally-in-pennsylvania Newusereditaccount (talk) 23:12, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
 * We do now. Trump rally shooting was assassination attempt on ex-president, FBI says.
 * Source: https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2024/07/13/trump-rally-pennsylvania/ 111.249.88.166 (talk) 11:03, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Probably post-presidency section, but wait until we get more info probably Jtasp111 (talk) 22:42, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

"Trump was struck by a bullet" we say
there are reports he was struck by glass from a shattered teleprompter

https://x.com/alexsalvinews/status/1812271945401929755

https://x.com/juliegraceb/status/1812269074367320509

slow down, we are not a breaking news wire soibangla (talk) 02:05, 14 July 2024 (UTC)


 * On the one hand we have a twitter post citing Newsmax, which is described in Wikipedia as spreading conspiracy theories, which is citing an unnamed purported officer. On the other hand we have USAToday stating bullet wound in their own words: Former President Donald Trump was "fine" Saturday night after an assassination attempt left him with a bullet wound to the ear. KiharaNoukan (talk) 02:50, 14 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Re "there are reports he was struck by glass from a shattered teleprompter" — Here's the part of a C-SPAN video just after the shooting . Note that the two teleprompters are still intact. Bob K31416 (talk) 14:41, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Are two Twitter/X posts (one of which isn’t even available) really a reliable source? LordOfWalruses (talk) 19:32, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Enforced BRD
Just a reminder that this page is under enforced BRD, 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. , you may want to review this. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 02:20, 14 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Thanks, I have. Why did you ping me, specifically? Pecopteris (talk) 02:28, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I cannot restore my edit, but I think you should, based on what I wrote on your Talk page soibangla (talk) 02:30, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Because you're reverting a lot of other editors and it is easy to fall foul of the sanction. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 02:37, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
 * , to answer the question you posed to me in an edit summary, no RS call it an "assassination attempt" and therefore it is inappropriate for us to do so. It likely was, but it is "being investigated as an assassination attempt". – Muboshgu (talk) 02:41, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Just as an example, USA Today, New York Post, Johnathan Turley at The Hill and others call it an assassination attempt. By the time I finish writing this comment and press send, other RS will have said the same thing.
 * Of course, investigations are underway as to the scale and scope of the plot. But no RS has proposed a possible motive for shooting bullets at Donald Trump's head other than an assassination attempt. "Assassination" is just another term for murder. If you aim a gun at someone's head and fire 5 bullets at them, that's attempted murder. Pecopteris (talk) 02:57, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
 * That's WP:OR. Please read WP:RSBREAKING and don't consider Jonathan Turley or other op-ed columnists to be authoritative. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:59, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Per NBC and other RS, the FBI is now calling it an "attempted assassination". So, that should settle it. Pecopteris (talk) 04:55, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

Choppy Sentences
Can the section "Attempted Assassination" under "2024 Presidential Campaign" be fixed pls because the sentences are choppy and hard to read. I would edit it myself, but I'm not extended auto confirmed. InfiniteSword (talk) 02:39, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

Shooting or assassination attempt?
There is a move request discussion on whether 2024 shooting at a Donald Trump rally should be renamed and moved to 2024 assassination attempt of Donald Trump. Prcc27 (talk) 03:01, 14 July 2024 (UTC)


 * I think we should wait until we have confirmation from reliable sources. Until then people can monitor this page. Ampersand69387 (talk) 03:07, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I believe it is established as an assassination attempt now. 2601:603:381:A6F0:99A7:1ACC:1F41:CBE7 (talk) 22:25, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Mueller Report in the lead
A sentence in the lead has been edited as follows: “A special counsel investigation established that Russia had interfered in the election to favor Trump, but did not establish that the Trump campaign was involved .” I disagree with that edit, and find it quite preposterous actually. Without the last few stricken words, there is a strong implication that the Trump campaign colluded with the Russian interference.

Per the lead of our article about the Mueller special counsel investigation, the report explicitly said that "the investigation did not establish that members of the Trump campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities". NPOV requires that this finding of the Report be briefly summarized in our lead. It is this kind of slanted and selective editing that misleads readers.&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:25, 14 July 2024 (UTC)


 * I agree. Pecopteris (talk) 04:56, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Anyone have any more comments about this? I admit it’s not as fascinating as an attempted assassination.&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:20, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Almost identical discussions here and here failed. My take is, we need more editors to enter this discussion and then we should lock in the text with the rest of the consensus. IMO reverting would be fine but I also think that any short discussion just kicks the can down the road yet again. If editors had taken more responsibility in previous discussions we wouldn't have to worry about this. GordonGlottal (talk) 17:54, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks User:Pecopteris and User:GordonGlottal for you opinions about this. So we have unanimity of three editors here at the talk page for restoring the removed text, but the question remains whether it might be better to somehow lock in a more durable consensus in the list of consensus items at the top of this talk page.  User:Mandruss, you’re the guru here on such procedural matters, how do you think this matter should be handled procedurally?&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:21, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
 * lock in a more durable consensus - A list item doesn't make a consensus more durable. It makes it easier to remember and easier to find in the archive. "rv per current consensus item [x]" carries no more weight than "rv per [archived discussion]". We don't want to list every little consensus; if we did, the list would be hundreds of items long. So, one important question is how likely it is that we will need to remember and find the consensus in the future. As to this particular issue, I lack an opinion on that question. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  00:44, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Okay, thanks for the procedural information. I think the search engine for the talk page archives is pretty good, so I will go ahead and restore the deleted text, and if anyone wants to try adding a consensus item to the top of this talk page then I would likely support that as well. Incidentally, is there a way for a user to be automatically notified whenever an RFC. is opened at this talk page?  I feel obliged to get more involved in them, but find it difficult to constantly monitor this page.&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:08, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Not that I'm aware of. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  01:26, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Mandruss is of course correct that listing it is just for convenience. I didn't mean that we specifically need to list it. What we need is to establish a consensus, which neither of the previous discussions managed. This discussion is spiraling into another big fight—we must make sure that this time it's productive. GordonGlottal (talk) 23:41, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

I have restored the version without the additional words "but did not establish that the Trump campaign was involved." My edit summary: "rmv misleading and inaccurate addition. What's left is simply factual, without adding anything that can be disputed. I will comment and explain on the talk page." The added words "but did not establish that the Trump campaign was involved" are far from what Mueller found: "the investigation did not establish that members of the Trump campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities." Only those two words "conspired or coordinated".

He found a lot of other improper stuff from the campaign that helped the Russians. Mueller used some time to explain the difference between "collusion" and "conspiracy". He was unable to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt (largely because of obstruction and destruction of evidence) actual "conspiracy", but he found lots of things that fall under the heading of "collusion": cooperation, lying, covering up, aiding and abetting, welcoming, enabling, etc. The Trump campaign welcomed the interference because Trump hoped to benefit from it, and indeed he did. There was even some evidence of conspiracy, especially between Roger Stone and WikiLeaks, and there were clumsy attempts that didn't really succeed, so it wasn't for lack of trying that they weren't busted of conspiring a lot more. They were far from not "involved", as implied by the added words, which are now gone. That wording is simply misleading, so it's better to not say anything there.

The current version is the longstanding consensus version ("A special counsel investigation established that Russia had interfered in the election to favor Trump.") is factual and simpler without the added words. We can avoid a lot of controversy by just leaving it that way. -- Valjean (talk) ( PING me ) 05:26, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I would have no objection if we say “but did not establish that the Trump campaign conspired or coordinated with that interference.” I also disagree that there is any substantial difference from the version you deleted against consensus, but I am happy to use the exact language of the Mueller Report.  I have little expectation that it will be accepted here.  (Because I know what Wikipedia has sadly become.) Anyway, I will take this matter to WP:BLPN because a number of editors here continue to insinuate in our lead that Trump somehow conspired≈/coordinated in causing the Russian interference, without even including Trump’s denial.&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:41, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
 * The current version is the consensus version and doesn't imply anything at all about the campaign's actions, so leave it be. -- Valjean (talk) ( PING me ) 05:49, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Then what's it doing in the lead of an article about Trump? Bob K31416 (talk) 06:04, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
 * It is the briefest of mentions of a main finding of the Mueller report, which is also mentioned more thoroughly in the body. That's how we write articles here. It's also the longstanding consensus version, so why is someone trying to change it for no good reason? -- Valjean (talk) ( PING me ) 06:20, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Maybe because misleading anti-Trump propaganda is a danger to his life?&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 06:26, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
 * There is nothing of the kind written there. Don't try to Right Great Wrongs here. -- Valjean (talk) ( PING me ) 06:28, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
 * It's a very obvious insinuation that Trump at least may have colluded or cooperated with the Russian interference. But you seek to exclude the denial by the Mueller Report that such a thing has been established, not to mention excluding Trump's own denial.&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 06:11, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
 * The BLPN discussion has been started |here].&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 06:26, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
 * There isn't a single word that implies any such thing. Your fantasy is getting the better of you. It's the longstanding consensus version, so why are you trying to change it for no good reason? Consensus is against you. We have a super neutral and uncontroversial version.
 * If you want to change the lead, start a new thread and suggest a change. If you can get a consensus, hallelujah! -- Valjean (talk) ( PING me ) 06:27, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Anything, the added words were highly misleading and would have needed context undue for the lead to make your addition an NPOV summary of the article content. SPECIFICO talk 12:38, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Here's the current version in context. It's the second sentence.
 * Trump won the 2016 presidential election as the Republican Party nominee against Democratic Party nominee Hillary Clinton while losing the popular vote.[a] A special counsel investigation established that Russia had interfered in the election to favor Trump. During the campaign, his political positions were described as populist, protectionist, isolationist, and nationalist. His election and policies sparked numerous protests.

If you don't count the insinuations made by the sentence, it's about Russia, not Trump, and should be deleted from the lead. This is like anti-Trump candy for an obese article that just loves to snack on it. Bob K31416 (talk) 13:14, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
 * The relevant context is the WEIGHT of Mueller's findings. SPECIFICO</b> talk 14:48, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Keep it simple. We don't need to add more bloat to the lead with what the subject hasn't been shown to do. The status quo language doesn't imply wrongdoing on the subject's part. VQuakr (talk) 21:05, 15 July 2024 (UTC) ETA re Bob K31416: a sentence about how interference into Trump's election is most certainly relevant to an article about Trump. VQuakr (talk) 21:07, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

I have started a new thread below: ' -- Valjean (talk) ( PING me ') 19:12, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

ID'd
The news is reporting that was neutralized by the Secret Service while perched atop a building at American Glass Research in Butler. Delectable1 (talk) 03:55, 14 July 2024 (UTC)


 * . For now only NYPost and there's no rush, if accurate it will be confirmed by RS very soon. GordonGlottal (talk) 03:59, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
 * , I mean. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Delectable1 (talk • contribs) 04:47, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Apparently the NY Post was reliable, Thomas Matthew Crooks was reported and it was right, from Bethel Park, a Pittsburgh suburb. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Delectable1 (talk • contribs) 00:19, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

NYT does not say he was shot
nor do WaPo, CNN or BBC; Reuters and USAToday do; we should say "injured" for now, until this is clarified.

NYT: "The Secret Service and other law enforcement agencies have not yet publicly confirmed that Mr. Trump was shot in the ear, saying only that shots were fired and that the former president was “safe.”" soibangla (talk) 03:59, 14 July 2024 (UTC)


 * I agree—There is a photo by Doug Mills of a streak passing his right ear at high speed but it could still be shrapnel from some other object that got hit or of the wrong moment. GordonGlottal (talk) 04:03, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Really? CNN isn't saying it?
 * CNN: Former President Donald Trump was shot in the ear Saturday evening while speaking onstage at his rally in Butler, Pennsylvania
 * Do you have any sources contradicting? We have more than enough RS affirming he was shot in his ear in their own voice. KiharaNoukan (talk) 04:57, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
 * There is absolutely no penalty to being careful. No one has any information about what hit his ear; CNN is just making a different decision about how to treat his statement. Please immediately self-revert under arbitration restriction 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 to avoid being blocked from editing. GordonGlottal (talk) 04:59, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Sure, and here are more RS on his ear being shot, not just CNN:
 * Reuters: Donald Trump was shot in the ear during a Saturday campaign rally, in an attack that left the Republican presidential candidate's face streaked with blood and prompted his security agents to swarm him
 * USA Today (which was cited in the source): Former President Donald Trump was "fine" Saturday night after an assassination attempt left him with a bullet wound to the ear.
 * Your edit summary's claim is factually incorrect, and now we're dealing with ad hoc rationalization that, applied logically, would preclude inclusion of any details at all about this incident. The only disputing claims given were from the earlier talk section, where the original poster cited twitter posts from conspiracy theory outlet Newsmax. KiharaNoukan (talk) 05:08, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
 * but others don't and "The Secret Service and other law enforcement agencies have not yet publicly confirmed that Mr. Trump was shot in the ear, saying only that shots were fired and that the former president was "safe."
 * we need to slow down soibangla (talk) 05:13, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
 * There are dozens if not hundreds of cameras trained at the event, copious amounts of High-def video footage and photos, numerous journalists at the event, and analysts available to all these mainstream RS. They have described it in their own words as a shot in the ear based on their own expertise and newsrooms. As you mentioned, CNN even updated their description of the event after they were able to get new information. Inclusion of Trump being shot in the ear has easily met standards for inclusion. Is every detail in RS only made from Secret Service accounting?
 * Again, this is ad hoc rationalization that does not fit anywhere else. The only disputed info you have ever provided to these multiple RS is from Newsmax. How many RS need to report on this to overcome the burden of a twitter post you found that cites Newsmax?
 * Al Jazeera now as well: Former United States President Donald Trump has been shot in the ear during a campaign rally
 * a KiharaNoukan (talk) 05:24, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I'll accept it when there is unanimity among RS, which there should be if it's undoubtedly correct
 * "The Secret Service and other law enforcement agencies have not yet publicly confirmed that Mr. Trump was shot in the ear, saying only that shots were fired and that the former president was “safe.”" soibangla (talk) 05:28, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
 * So every RS imaginable needs to say something because you dug around for contradicting info and came up with a twitter post referencing Newsmax, and saw that some other RS describe the same thing in a different manner, without actually contradicting. Do you have any RS claiming that Trump was not shot in the ear, besides a WP:NEWSMAX claim nested in WP:RSPTWITTER? Perhaps the reason that this is not mentioned with extreme specificity and consistency that you are requesting in this isolated demand for rigour is because nobody has taken the Newsmax claim seriously.
 * Axios: after former President Trump was shot in the ear at a rally in Pennsylvania.
 * on top of Al Jazeera, USA Today, Reuters, CNN, KiharaNoukan (talk) 05:50, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
 * if it is indisputable he was shot, wouldn't RS unanimously and explicitly report he was shot? I say we should wait until they do. soibangla (talk) 06:01, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
 * that was not what CNN reported at the time of my edit soibangla (talk) 05:09, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
 * There is no rush to say he was shot or anything. We know he was wounded, reliable sources agree on the fact he was wounded, and there is no need to specify where the wound came from/how it came about until the sources coalesce on a cause of the wound. I have no problem with sentences like "injured during a [shooting/assassination attempt/etc as agreed upon], but there is absolutely no rush to say he himself was shot while that is not confirmed. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 05:18, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
 * it is certain he was injured
 * it is not certain he was shot
 * some RS report he was shot, others do not
 * "The Secret Service and other law enforcement agencies have not yet publicly confirmed that Mr. Trump was shot in the ear"
 * we should slow down and err on the conservative soibangla (talk) 05:23, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Agreed. There is no need to report anything more than he was injured at this time. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 05:36, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Something nicked the upper part of Trump's ear (helix), clearly visible on the WaPo photograph. The |C-SPAN video of Trump grabbing his ear and ducking at 8:09. Oddly, Trump says "Let me get my shoes" before he makes a fist and mouths "fight, fight, fight". Space4Time3Continuum2x 🖖 11:14, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
 * It wasn't a glass shard from a shattered glass teleprompter since it did not shatter. See my message at the end of the talk section "Trump was struck by a bullet" we say. You can see the unshattered teleprompter in this C-SPAN video just after the shooting . As far as I know, the false "glass shard from shattered teleprompter" theory was the only reason for thinking Trump's ear might not have been hit by a bullet. Bob K31416 (talk) 20:09, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Doesn’t matter. We aren’t in the business of second guessing reliable sources. There is no consensus in reliable sources that he was shot - while quite a few are reporting that he was shot (and he himself is claiming that), there are many others that are not reporting that - and are intentionally sticking to wording like “injured” or “wounded” or similar until the facts become clear.
 * Do I personally think it’s likely that the damage was caused by a bullet grazing him or barely missing him but the pressure wave/heat harming him? Yes, that seems like the most likely based on my medical background. But my opinion (and yours) don’t matter - we follow the reliable sources, and until they have a consensus that he was shot (or the damage was caused by a bullet), we should not be reporting that. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 21:32, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
 * It's illogical to take the fact some sources don't opine on the subject as evidence against what other sources positively state. Besides, which sources at this point are holding out on calling it a gunshot wound? Riposte97 (talk) 22:27, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
 * There is true, there is false, and there is null. That's logic. soibangla (talk) 03:07, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
 * No, it’s been widely reported that he was shot and hit in the ear. I even have an article from CBS just for you that says that he was shot. I don’t know why you’re trying so adamantly to deny this fact. LordOfWalruses (talk) 19:39, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Given the conflicting reports regarding whether Donald Trump was shot in the ear, it is crucial for Wikipedia editors to handle these sources with meticulous care. While CNN initially reported that Trump fell on stage, other sources like Reuters and USA Today have asserted he was shot. This disparity underscores the need for precision in how this incident is documented on Wikipedia. At this point, much is rather unclear about the matter except that emotions are raw.

To uphold Wikipedia's standards of verifiability and neutrality, editors should use careful language when citing these sources. Terms such as "fell", "injured" or "wounded" would be suitable until there is definitive confirmation from official sources such as the Secret Service or law enforcement agencies.

Some reliable sources have unequivocally stated that Trump was shot, while others have refrained from making definitive claims. This complexity necessitates a cautious approach to ensure that Wikipedia articles accurately reflect the current state of information, while respecting the ongoing nature of the investigation.

In summary, by acknowledging the initial reports a and choosing precise terminology such as "injured," Wikipedia editors can maintain accuracy and neutrality in documenting this significant event, while awaiting further developments and official statements. Much exists which remains unknown regarding the event. Please exercise caution and restraint until we can glean further information.Hu Nhu (talk) 23:19, 14 July 2024 (UTC)


 * with the current level of information available, and the totality of how reliable sources are reporting it, it is an egregious error for Wikipedia to conclusively state at this time that he was shot. we should say "injured" for the time being soibangla (talk) 23:31, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
 * A few editors have claimed that this is a question of RS silence vs. RS saying definitively. CBS this morning here tells us It's not yet clear whether Trump was hit by a bullet or shrapnel. GordonGlottal (talk) 01:06, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I saw John Dickerson on that CBS TV show sunday morning and he talked about the shrapnel being glass. When I later found out that the glass shrapnel story was false, it didn't look good for CBS. In a later story, CBS no longer mentioned shrapnel . Bob K31416 (talk) 02:18, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
 * This is the exact article I linked to in the previous comment. It says It's not yet clear whether Trump was hit by a bullet or shrapnel. GordonGlottal (talk) 02:44, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
 * How did you find out the glass shrapnel story was false? soibangla (talk) 03:01, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

All the news I've been watching, has been reporting that the top of Trump's right ear, was pierced by a bullet. GoodDay (talk) 02:25, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Yeah, the sources have moved past the ambiguity. Everything I've seen coming out now agrees that Trump was shot. The government seems to agree that he was shot. Our article should therefore say he was shot. QuicoleJR (talk) 14:58, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Wouldn't the bullet have penetrated the brain if it had pierced the ear? The bleeding was picturesque but appears to have stopped by the time the Service Service hustled Trump into the SUV (Politico). Space4Time3Continuum2x 🖖 15:09, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
 * If the bullet had approached perpendicular to the side of his head, it would indeed have killed him. Fortunately, it flew parallel to the side of his head and just grazed his ear. The angle is everything. He may have a little scar as a memento. -- Valjean (talk) ( PING me ) 16:21, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
 * He was treated by Ronny Jackson, his former WH physician, who said that the bullet was far enough from his head to not cause a concussion and it just "took the top of his ear off". I guess I'll continue to believe my lying eyes coz numerous photographs and videos show TFG with the top of the ear bleeding but still firmly attached to the rest of the ear. But, of course, now hidden by a large bandage. Space4Time3Continuum2x 🖖 17:02, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
 * On second thought, maybe it was a miniature cruise missile? Anyhow, the Politico article likened Trump to a gorilla, P.T Barnum, Mussolini, and Hitler. Not something you would want to come across on a dark night. It reminded me of the monster from the id in Forbidden Planet and the scene where the monster was hit over and over again by shards of glass but kept coming. Bob K31416 (talk) 17:51, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

History of BRD violation and edit warring over mention of Mueller in lead
For over a year, the lead of the Donald Trump article has contained this content with only slight variations in the wording:


 * May 21, 2023: "The 2017–2019 special counsel investigation established that Russia interfered in the 2016 election to favor his win."
 * August 15, 2023: "The 2017–2019 special counsel investigation established that Russia interfered in the 2016 election to favor his campaign."
 * December 2, 2023: "The 2017–2019 special counsel investigation established that Russia had interfered in the 2016 election to favor Trump's campaign."
 * April 9, 2024: "A special counsel investigation established that Russia had interfered in the 2016 election to favor Trump's campaign."
 * May 31, 2024: "A special counsel investigation established that Russia had interfered in the election to favor Trump."
 * July 14, 2024: "A special counsel investigation established that Russia had interfered in the election to favor Trump."

Then that was changed, without any previous discussion or consensus, by the dubious actions of.


 * 02:35, 14 July 2024: Anythingyouwant came along and changed that wording by adding "but did not establish that the Trump campaign was involved." That is very misleading.
 * 03:02, 14 July 2024‎: That addition was removed by.
 * 03:25, 14 July 2024: Anythingyouwant starts a misleading thread on the talk page that does not mention that the deleted wording was what she had added without any discussion or consensus.
 * 01:17, 15 July 2024:‎ Anythingyouwant restores her deleted content, thus violating the "enforced BRD" provision in place for the article. The edit summary cites a dubious and questioned consensus of three people on the talk page. Few had commented, and there were concerns about this fact. Yet Anythingyouwant went ahead and violated BRD.
 * 03:04, 15 July 2024: SPECIFICO warned Anythingyouwant about her violation of BRD and asked her to self-revert. Anythingyouwant refused to self-revert.
 * 05:08, 15 July 2024‎: Valjean (myself) reverted Anythingyouwant's violation, thus restoring the longstanding consensus version, which is still in place as of this writing.

CONSENSUS VERSION:


 * "A special counsel investigation established that Russia had interfered in the election to favor Trump."

That version is about as minimal a mention as possible of what's in the body on that subject, which is what we do with a lead here. Any additions to that sentence just lead to grief, so we have not added more. It is a fact that the Russians interfered in the election to help Trump. Period. That is unquestioned by reasonable editors. The lead says nothing about how Trump and his campaign reacted to that interference. (They welcomed it.) It says nothing about their proven cooperation with that interference. The lead is silent on those matters, so Anythingyouwant's claims of a BLP violation are bogus. In fact, their addition misleadingly added content which mentioned those matters. It is best to stay silent about that in the lead.

The current, very longstanding, version is super neutral, so don't fuck with it. It deals with a very delicate matter in a wise manner. If anyone wants to change that consensus version, let them start a new section and establish a clear consensus of MANY editors, preferably with an RfC, but only after a good discussion establishes the need for an RfC. If the discussion shows a clear consensus to keep the current version, an RfC would be highly improper. -- Valjean (talk) ( PING me ) 19:09, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
 * As already mentioned above, this matter is pending at WP:BLPN. So let’s keep it centralized there until that section is closed.  And you can bring your personal criticisms of me to my user talk, assuming they are significant.&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:15, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Repeated attempts to make changes to the lead without consensus is not appropriate, regardless of what happens at BLPN. DN (talk) 20:13, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
 * The uninvolved editors at BLPN say it's not a BLP violation and that this is a content dispute that should be resolved on this talk page. You made the edit two or three hours after the shooting, were reverted about half an hour later, started the discussion on the talk page about half an hour after that, and then ended it less than 24 hours later by reinserting the challenged content. One editor agreeing with you and another one saying we need further discussion is not a unanimous consensus of several editors at talk page. I, too, find it difficult to constantly monitor this page but it's part of editing this page. Space4Time3Continuum2x 🖖 13:31, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I fully agree with you . That "consensus" was rather dubious for such a radical change to a very longstanding consensus version, especially in the lead. Leads are notoriously filled with landmines, and changes should be very conservative and uncontroversial. Controversial changes should be thoroughly discussed so the change is backed by a large consensus.
 * BTW, I notice you mention the shooting. AFAIK, that doesn't have anything to do with this matter as it's not about the shooting,....BUT it may, as far as AYW is concerned. She did reveal a RGW motivation with this comment: "Maybe because misleading anti-Trump propaganda is a danger to his life? Anythingyouwant (talk) 06:26, 15 July 2024" Well, BLPN finds zero BLP problems with the sentence, and certainly no "misleading anti-Trump propaganda". That there was sweeping Russian interference is a fact. That it was performed to benefit Trump is also a fact. That is totally neutral and uncontroversial content.
 * It says NOTHING at all about the backstory, which is documented in several of our articles. Never in modern history has an American president first discussed his candidacy with America's enemies before doing it with the American people. He did that in November 2013, and the Russians then openly promised they would help him. They fulfilled their promise with their sweeping interference in our elections. Never in modern history has an American political candidate welcomed and cooperated with illegal help from the enemy of America, help that violated our national security in many ways and successfully installed PutinsPuppet as his proxy. Trump has never dared utter a single word of criticism of Russia and Putin. Never before has America been in the situation where the citizens of America's chief enemy often and openly celebrate that THEY chose and elected OUR president. They know what happened, and so do we. Trump was unable to hide all the evidence, even though he tried.
 * Yet, we say NOTHING about that in the lead, and AYW should be happy for that. It would just be undue for the lead of THIS article. We deal with it elsewhere.
 * We are not going to change our PAG just because Trump was nearly killed, bad as that was. He gets no more protection or whitewashing here because of that. We will still oppose such policy-violating actions by his fans. They need to take their RGW motives elsewhere and not pollute Wikipedia with them. -- Valjean (talk) ( PING me ) 16:48, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Shooting: I was referring to this comment. Space4Time3Continuum2x 🖖 18:06, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Okay. -- Valjean (talk) ( PING me ) 18:40, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Do we accuse him of anything? Slatersteven (talk) 13:37, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
 * We say nothing that can remotely be considered an accusation, even though AYW insists we do. BLPN doesn't find any BLP violation of any kind. I'm beginning to think we can end this thread. What do you think? -- Valjean (talk) ( PING me ) 16:48, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Agreed, this is going nowhere. Slatersteven (talk) 09:56, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

Considering an RFC to address Russia in the lead
Valjean, simply as a question of process I absolutely disagree that there is a current consensus. Previous discussions rather obviously failed to establish one, and the text remaining relatively stable doesn't change that. This is one of the few pages with as many active editors as the noticeboard, so I don't think it was necessary to punt it there. IMO it's clear that we'll need an RFC (on this page) and I encourage you to not waste too much of everyone's time, either by letting the discussion die without establishing a consensus yet again, or by asking editors to pour energy into an endless freeform discussion, before calling one. Let's get this over with, accept the result, and not talk about it again for a very long time. GordonGlottal (talk) 23:48, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
 * We normally consider such an accepted and longstanding version to be the default consensus version, but if you think we should also hammer it fast with an RfC, I have no objection. I'd also like to see it listed and numbered in the first section. I fully agree with you that we don't want to keep dealing with this type of crap again and again. -- Valjean (talk) ( PING me ) 00:09, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
 * OK great. @Anythingyouwant thanked me for the previous edit so I guess we're all agreed. I know it's a little quick to escalate to an RFC but 2 previous discussions failed and you guys are obviously not going to work this out between you. Editor time is valuable. I suggest we offer the following:
 * Option 1: A special counsel investigation established that Russia had interfered in the election to favor Trump.
 * Option 1.5: Previous, with the following added: The investigation failed to determine whether Trump had committed obstruction of justice.
 * Option 2: A special counsel investigation established that Russia had interfered in the election to favor Trump and that Trump's campaign expected to benefit from its efforts, but did not establish that the Trump campaign conspired with Russia.
 * Option 2.5: Previous, with the following added: The investigation failed to determine whether Trump had committed obstruction of justice.
 * To refresh memories, Mueller concluded (Vol. I pp. 1-2) that Although the investigation established that the Russian government perceived it would benefit from a Trump presidency and worked to secure that outcome, and that the Campaign expected it would benefit electorally from information stolen and released through Russian efforts, the investigation did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities. and that (Vol. II p. 2) [I]f we had confidence after a thorough investigation of the facts that the President clearly did not commit obstruction of justice, we would so state. Based on the facts and the applicable legal standards, however, we are unable to reach that judgment. The evidence we obtained about the President’s actions and intent presents difficult issues that prevent us from conclusively determining that no criminal conduct occurred. Accordingly, while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him. I have also gone back to the previous discussions and reviewed all proposals and concerns aired. This is the best limited balance of options I could come up with. Even if this isn't acceptable to you both, let's please switch to a discussion of what the options should be. Thanks all. GordonGlottal (talk) 02:36, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
 * There’s an ongoing discussion at WP:BLPN, so I favor waiting to see what happens there before proceeding with an RFC. As for the RFC options, one major option is leaving the matter out of the lead, seeing as how the purported purpose of the longstanding language is not to say anything about Trump or his conduct, but rather to say something about Russia and its conduct.  If it is included in the lead, I support being brief. If the intent is not to say anything in the lead about Trump or his actions, then we can rephrase it to more clearly achieve that objective.  However, if the objective is to say something about Trump or his activities, it appears that would be very controversial because the Mueller Report neither found wrongdoing by Trump nor cleared him of wrongdoing (which prosecutors almost never do anyway because proving a negative is almost impossible).  So here are some options:

At this point, my first choice would be “A” because what Russia did was Russia’s choice, not Trump’s, and this is an article about Trump, not Russia. My second choice would be “C” because it lays out the facts in a neutral manner. &#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:43, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
 * OPTION A: Don’t mention Russia or Mueller in the lead.
 * OPTION B: ”Several countries interfered in the 2016 election, including Russia which supported Trump, but Trump is not known to have conspired or coordinated with them.”
 * OPTION C: Several countries interfered in the 2016 election, including Russia which supported Trump, but Trump is not known to have conspired or coordinated with them, nor is it known that the interference affected the election outcome.”
 * OPTION D: “An investigation led by Robert Mueller confirmed that Russia had interfered in the 2016 election in support of Trump, but Mueller reached no conclusions as to whether Trump or his campaign conspired or coordinated with that Russian interference.”
 * OPTION E: “An independent counsel investigation established that Russia had interfered in the election to favor Trump, but did not establish that the Trump campaign conspired or coordinated with that interference.”
 * Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard -- Valjean (talk) ( PING me ) 20:30, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
 * There is no point in running an RFC which is entirely composed of options that would satisfy one party, and contains no options to satisfy the other. The job of an RFC is to develop consensus. If your proposal represented this discussion then we could work it out without an RFC. Re venue: this is frankly not a dispute for BLPN, as editors have told you there. In general this page has enough active editors that disputes should rarely be referred outside. I think adding an Option 0: No mention of Russian interference and Option 0.5: Add only A special counsel investigation failed to determine whether Trump had committed obstruction of justice. lower in the lede before the impeachments, could be a good idea. GordonGlottal (talk) 16:58, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
 * There were a ton of comments yesterday at BLPN on this subject, you’re right as to where that discussion seems to be going, but I’d like to see if any more comments are added there today before formulating the RFC. You’re also right that we should pick two options that reflect different opinions, and we have lots of candidate wording to choose from above.  Feel free to amend your suggestions above using strikethrough and underline, and I will too.  You’ve identified two primary suggestions including this one: “A special counsel investigation failed to determine whether Trump had committed obstruction of justice.  My main concern about that one is that “obstruction of justice” is too narrow, and would replace it with “any crime” because that would include things like conspiracy.&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:55, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Would that be okay, User: GordonGlottal?&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:39, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Gordon, my main concern is that “obstruction of justice” is too narrow, and would prefer if we replace it with “any crime” because that would include things like conspiracy. Is that okay?&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:37, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
 * No. If we add anything, it's better to use Mueller's language, especially because "crimes" is too vague and is precisely the thing Mueller was not allowed to find. Even if he had found a crime, he could not evaluate or indict it. He could only collect evidence and let Congess decide if it was a crime, which the GOP controlled Congress would not do. -- Valjean (talk) ( PING me ) 02:28, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I stated my concern, and described a way to address it. You disagree with the way I proposed to address it, so would you please suggest alternative language that addresses my concern?  Reminder: my main concern is that “obstruction of justice” is too narrow, because it would not include things like conspiracy.  Or are you saying that “obstruction of justice” is not too narrow?  I cannot figure out what your stance is, User:Valjean.  Additionally, Rosenstein’s order establishing the special counsel authorized Mueller “to prosecute federal crimes arising from the investigation of these matters” if the Special Counsel “believes it is necessary and appropriate.”  So Mueller was apparently not prevented from prosecuting any relevant crimes, right?&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:28, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I do not share your concern, and no one else does either. Your attempt at BLPN was solidly rejected. No one sees your claimed problem, so I suggest you drop the stick.
 * I have clearly stated my preference that we not get into the weeds in the lead of this article. It's too complicated an issue for the lead here. Such added content is undue in this article. Period. The mention we have is as short a mention as possible to satisfy the demands of LEAD, and (except for you) is so uncontroversial that it has been accepted as the longstanding consensus version. That history says a lot, and, barring any new information, I see no reason to touch it at all, not even to change a comma. Just leave it alone. It has served us well. "If it ain't broke, don't fix it."
 * Yes, Rosenstein did say that, but Mueller ran into a roadblock, "a long-standing policy that prevents federal prosecutors from charging the president with a crime." That tied his hands. Even if he found a crime, he could only kick the ball down the road to Congress, and, of course, the GOP-controlled Congress did nothing. Mueller had serious concerns and expressed them: "'If we had had confidence that' President Trump 'clearly did not commit a crime, we would have said so.'"
 * If we added your mention of "crime", we would be going against Mueller's concerns that Trump may well have committed crimes. Trump was never exonerated in even the slightest of senses. On the contrary, justified suspicions still exist, and those closest to Trump say he did commit crimes. Your idea that Trump committed no crimes is not based on a reading of RS. That idea is only found in unreliable sources. In fact, your attempt here seems to parallel Attorney General William Barr's criticized, and failed, attempt to whitewash Trump. See the Barr letter. Don't do that. Wikipedia is not the place to right great wrongs, even though you have expressed that our sentence puts Trump's life in danger. That's just not true. We won't change our PAG to assuage your concerns. They are groundless. -- Valjean (talk) ( PING me ) 16:15, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
 * You can 'disagree' with historical facts all you want; they will not care and neither will we. VQuakr (talk) 20:55, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
 * To say that I’m the only one concerned about the status quo is false, we had a unanimous consensus of several editors just this week for changing it (that consensus evaporated once you and a couple others got involved), and the matter has arisen repeatedly in the past year or so, as GordonGlottal has said below and above (with links). Thank you, though, for further explaining your position.  In the United States, charges are very often dropped even though the prosecutor still suspects guilt, the reason being that the prosecutor has to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt.  That would be no justification for a Wikipedia lead to say that a person was investigated while omitting that the prosecutor ultimately found no provable crime.  It would be (and is) a gross NPOV violation, and I intend to pursue it here, I’m not carrying a stick, but I am carrying a perfectly legitimate complaint.  It’s true that Mueller, even if he found a crime, could have kicked the ball down the road to Congress, and he also could have described the crime in his report, and the crime could have been prosecuted after Trump left office.  None of those things happened, and yet you insist to insinuate in the lead that they may have or should have.  That’s very bad editing, and there are ways to very concisely solve the problem.  If, as you say, the current material in the lead is not supposed to say or imply anything about Trump’s actions, then it does not belong in the lead of this particular article, just as the present lead does not mention any of the other countries that interfered in the 2016 election.  However, if we want this lead to say something about Trump’s actions (which it obviously does since we’re talking about a special counsel investigation) then we need to say something about the outcome of that investigation.  Saying someone was suspected of criminal activity without saying that the suspicions could not be proved is absurd.&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:42, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
 * You are, once again, conflating some of the many things we say on this page with what's actually in that sentence:
 * "a Wikipedia lead to say that a person was investigated while omitting that the prosecutor ultimately found no provable crime."
 * "None of those things happened, and yet you insist to insinuate in the lead that they may have or should have."
 * "Saying someone was suspected of criminal activity ..."
 * Here's the sentence again:
 * "The 2017–2019 special counsel investigation established that Russia interfered in the 2016 election to favor his win."
 * Where in that sentence do you find anything like what you mention in those three quotes of yours? You are fantasizing, again, about what is "not" there, not, as you claim, what "is" there. Just drop the stick. No one else sees what you see. We see what "is" there, not what is "not" there. -- Valjean (talk) ( PING me ) 18:28, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Obviously, there is nothing now in the lead about the outcome of the Special Counsel investigation, which overall was favorable to Trump, in that the Mueller Report concluded that no crime by Trump could be proved. This was a very historic event, and if you want to hide it from readers of the lead, then I very much urge that we remove mentioning the special counsel in the lead. A special counsel is not necessary to investigate foreign governments, so the lead very much implies now that Trump was investigated, which he was, everyone knows that he was, but you don’t want to describe the outcome of the investigation because you don’t like it.  And you badmouth and denounce any editor who says otherwise.&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:38, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
 * ...the Mueller Report concluded that no crime by Trump could be proved. that's a truism because it was a presupposition of the Mueller investigation, but it doesn't convey any information about Trump for the same reason. The claim that the MR was favorable to Trump overall is a right-wing talking point but not true (and certainly not broadly accepted as truth). VQuakr (talk) 18:49, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I disagree that Mueller presupposed that no crime by Trump could be proved. That was one of the primary purposes of the investigation, and I am not aware that Mueller went into the investigation with a predetermined conclusion.  In any event, before the lead is modified, it would probably be a good idea to make sure any change is fully supported by the article body.  Likewise, before an RFC is conducted, it wouldn’t hurt to do a talk page survey to see if there is currently a lack of cobsensus.  So that’s what I plan to do, first focus on the article body, then perhaps do a talk page survey.&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:46, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
 * ? You don't need to do anything anywhere else, because this thread is where it is already happening. Just participate here. -- Valjean (talk) ( PING me ) 20:17, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
 * This thread is about considering an RFC. The people here mostly don’t think an RFC is needed or appropriate.  However, a lot of different insertions have been suggested for the lead, and I have not settled on any one of them yet.  I have to see which is best supported by the article body, and also whether the article body needs to be improved.  Then I may do a survey.  I still stand by my view that this matter is handled atrociously in the lead, and it’s a gross NPOV violation, even if we assume it’s not a BLP violation.  But no such violation is needed to consider improvements to the lead, and to do so without an RFC.  So this is my last comment in this section about doing an RFC.&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:35, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
 * In general this page has enough active editors that disputes should rarely be referred outside. So why does this one need to be referred outside which is what an RfC does? And why now? Space4Time3Continuum2x 🖖 18:15, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Outside input is almost always valuable. Also, having a lot of active editors here doesn’t mean they have the same political balance as the whole of Wikipedia.&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:29, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Please see FAQ A1. Wikipedia disputes are not decided by partisan vote. GordonGlottal (talk) 18:40, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Of course that’s the ideal. But a person’s attitudes of all kinds often come into play, even if they try not to let that happen (which many editors do not).&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:23, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Space4Time, what we need is the structure of an RFC where main parties to a dispute stop going in circles and reformulate the question in a narrow way that makes it easy for other editors to weigh in and choose one option for consensus. I am happy to just not tag it. Usually outside editors aren't helpful to contentious pages with enough editors of their own, discussion just turns into a partisan vote. GordonGlottal (talk) 18:38, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Gordon, I agree that we should try to solve this here, without an RfC. Only if that grinds into a deadlock, without a clear consensus, should we stop the thread and create a new one as an official RfC. -- Valjean (talk) ( PING me ) 18:53, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
 * It's very frustrating that two previous discussions, involving many editors, were allowed to trail off without reaching consensus. That's what set us up for another round of this. Editor time is valuable, and duplicating discussions is wasteful. Given the amount of effort that has already gone into this topic, we have a responsibility to do our jobs (reach consensus by whatever means) so that editors in 2025 don't have to worry about this. I think it's pretty clear that open discussion will not reach a compromise, any more than it did in 2022 or 2023, and the longer it goes on the less energy remains for arranging an RFC format. Sometimes I think people try to drag these out on purpose in the hope of fatiguing opponents, which may work termporarily, but does nothing to make the next time someone reverts this simpler. Which is guaranteed to happen. Thus from the beginning of this discussion I have been singularly focused on ensuring that this discussion actually accomplishes what the last two failed. GordonGlottal (talk) 00:34, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
 * That seems sensible. DN (talk) 19:13, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

Here are my options: Number 2 slightly modifies Option 2: above, which is: A special counsel investigation established that Russia had interfered in the election to favor Trump and that Trump's campaign expected to benefit from its efforts, but did not establish that the Trump campaign conspired with Russia.
 * 1. Keep current version: "A special counsel investigation established that Russia had interfered in the election to favor Trump."
 * 2. Add to current version: "A special counsel investigation established that Russia had interfered in the election to favor Trump, and that Trump's campaign expected to benefit from its efforts, but did not establish that the campaign "conspired" or "coordinated" with Russia.
 * 3. Add to current version: "A special counsel investigation established that Russia had interfered in the election to favor Trump, that Trump's campaign welcomed and encouraged it, believing it would benefit from the Russian efforts, but did not establish that the campaign "conspired" or "coordinated" with Russia.

I predict that any addition to the current version will be extremely controversial, create a lot of debate, and will be a constant and unending target for complaints from readers and editors. I believe that's why it has existed, without any serious debate, for so long. That peaceful history speaks in its favor. AFAIK, only AYW has really complained.

I prefer we just keep our current, status quo, version. It satisfies our LEAD requirement for mention of what's in the body, but leaves all contentious aspects for the body and other articles. Other stuff, added to our short version, are undue for the lead and create more heat than light. The lead is a bad place to get into the weeds. This is not the Russian interference or Mueller special counsel investigation article where that would be appropriate.

I am a bit uncertain about the best punctuation to use. I'm a native American English speaker, but have lived in Europe for many years, where British English is spoken, and I also speak another language every single day. That makes me a bit "language confused", hence my frequent grammatical and punctuation errors. -- Valjean (talk) ( PING me ) 19:18, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I would tend to agree that there appears to be consensus for the status quo given the lack of broad support for any change. VQuakr (talk) 18:52, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Gordon, we would not need an RfC simply to satisfy a small and ill-founded minority view. Those previous discussions demonstrated the proposals failed ONUS. That is dispositive to establish that the added text would be UNDUE.<b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 19:18, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Obviously there are some outliers with a difference of opinion in how sources should be expressed. Nothing in RS seems to have changed much since the status quo was reached, so in my view, it's unclear why reexamination seems prudent at this time. Cheers. DN (talk) 19:19, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I suspect you mean "the [added] text would be UNDUE." I have bolded part of my comment above to make it clear I support keeping the status quo version. -- Valjean (talk) ( PING me ) 20:33, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes, the text I reverted, to maintain evident and longstanding consensus.<b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 21:17, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Whatever gets us to a definitive close is fine by me. I insist that we reach a consensus. I don't think there is a stable status quo. GordonGlottal (talk) 04:26, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
 * The current consensus is definitive. Please review WP:ONUS, and the many discussions of how it works, at the associated talk page. Consensus can change, but it's quite clear that it hasn't. <b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 12:50, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

A little history of this discussion. This discussion began with the section Mueller Report in the lead. Shortly after my message there, Valjean essentially ended that section by starting a new section History of BRD violation and edit warring over mention of Mueller in lead. Then Valjean suggested ending that discussion and it did. Then GordonGlottal started the current section. All of this has been in a few days.

So we have essentially lost the comments from the first section where the sentence was discussed. With various comments there I recommended deleting the sentence. Bob K31416 (talk) 21:19, 17 July 2024 (UTC)


 * I didn't start any new discussion. GordonGlottal (talk) 04:19, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
 * That isn't an accurate summary in my opinion. From the rough beginning:
 * 1. Anythingyouwant started the initial discussion following the edits to the article. (Those edits are already listed above.)
 * 2. Anythingyouwant creates the second discussion at BLPN.
 * 3. Valjean creates the third discussion on this talk page.
 * 4. During the third discussion, GordonGlottal replies to Valjean's initial comment.
 * 5. Then during the same discussion, Anythingyouwant creates a fourth discussion by splitting the third discussion in two with GordonGlottal's reply moved to being the initial comment of the new discussion.
 * 6. Valjean then suggests ending the third discussion with Slatersteven agreeing to it.
 * I believe this is the sequence of events regarding the creation of discussions. (If I missed something, call it x.5 or so in a reply.)  --Super Goku V (talk) 11:09, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

Incitement of violence
Under the main "Public Image" section of the article there is a subheading "Incitement of violence". Would it perhaps be more neutral to have the subheading of "Alleged incitement of violence" as, to date, Trump has not been convicted in court of inciting violence. He has been accused by opponents and others of inciting violence. As far as I'm aware, the accusation of inciting violence has not been independently proven. A citation in the subsection states that according to some experts "Trump's rhetoric caused an increased incidence of hate crimes." That is the view of some experts, but not all experts. Kind Tennis Fan (talk) 23:36, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
 * As wrong and horrible as the attempted assassination is, we won't change our PAG because of it. Trump's rhetoric has often encouraged physical violence, even saying he'd pay the legal expenses of his fans who carried out his requests for violent action, and RS have documented that. On January 6, he was warned that some in the crowd had weapons, yet he demanded the mags that detect weapons to be turned off. Then he ordered that crowd to go to the Capitol and "fight".
 * These are not unproven allegations. They are facts. We document what RS say. Maybe he'll learn to temper himself a bit, now that he has felt the consequences of such rhetoric, but I won't hold my breath. -- Valjean (talk) ( PING me ) 23:49, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Image in "2024 presidential campaign section"
The left image was added to the section on July 2, showing Trump with the raised fist (caption as edited in a later edit): After the shooting, editor Nick.mon replaced it with the (more peaceful?) image on the right. I challenged the edit, and Nick.mon reinserted the challenged image instead of discussing it on the Talk page (, please self-revert and take a look at the active arbitration banner). IMO, the second image is not representative of Trump rally behavior prior to the shooting. Thoughts? Space4Time3Continuum2x 🖖 12:10, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

Hi! I didn't think the reason of that image was the raised fist, I just thought it was an image about his campaign and the other one was quite better. If we want to insert a pic with Trump raising his fist I'd suggest this one: -- Nick.mon (talk) 16:56, 16 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Not super concerned about "more peaceful"/"representative of Trump rally behavior" and I do think we should use a higher-quality image than had been there. But we have him in a talking gesture for the 2016 campaign, so a fist, thumbs-up, etc. makes sense to me for variety. GordonGlottal (talk) 17:14, 16 July 2024 (UTC)



I prefer the additional information we get from the NH image (surrounded by his Secret Service detail, his fist in motion) to the image with Trump in high-res and the rest of the image blurry. We already have two pictures with Trump behind a lectern, so we can do without a third one. Space4Time3Continuum2x 🖖 18:27, 16 July 2024 (UTC)


 * +1. The image that shows the crowds and the Secret Service and everything is both more representative and better for variety than just another picture of Trump talking. The later proposal is also decent, certainly better than Trump taking behind a lectern again. QuicoleJR (talk) 18:33, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I added both "fist images" to Donald_Trump_2024_presidential_campaign. That page now has a grand total of four images, including the lowest-res video still I've ever seen, its origin apparently a Portuguese VoA tweet. Space4Time3Continuum2x 🖖 17:10, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

Trumpism
Trump seems to be in too many self referential categories. The most questionable is the one called "Trumpism". This is labeled in our Category heading among other things "neo-facist". We might as well create a category called "deplorables" and place all voters who refused to vote for Obama and Hillary in it. Labeling thse people "neo-fascist" would not survive and BLP issues, labeling them such back door is even worse. I really do not think "Trumpism" is defined enough, and it clearly is not being subject to any NPOV or BLP monitoring, so we should go. Anyway we already have Trump categorized under right wing populism in the United States. Even this is a highly debatable Category that lacks clear definitions, but at least it is slightly less invoking the name Trump. The fact that Trumpism bin the heading talks about ut bring part of a widespread populist phenomenon, existing far beyond the US, suggests that we should not so narrowly name such things.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:47, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I, for one, mostly ignore the addition and removal of categories on this page (just learned a new word: Illeists — something I would have referred to as the majestic plural or royal we) and categories in general. People born in 1946 ... who cares? Anyway, this discussion would be more appropriate on Category_talk:Trumpism. Space4Time3Continuum2x 🖖 13:41, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

Infobox, notability of parents
Edit removing parents, edit reverting removal. "Listed in the infobox for every other president" isn't a good argument, IMO. Trump's parents, as well as the parents of Obama, Clinton, Reagan, and Carter, are not notable in their own right. They got Wikipedia pages only because their son was president or, in Fred Trump's cage, because of Trump's "Apprentice" fame; it remained a stub until 2015. BTW, the parents' infoboxes list their parents, as well ... About the only recent president whose parents were notable in their own right was George W. Bush because his parents were president and first lady. Spouses, children, parents, relatives — seems a bit much. Space4Time3Continuum2x 🖖 16:31, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
 * That removal was an error that was later reversed, restoring the longstanding version, which is standard practice here (both reversal of an error and inclusion of parents). Is there some special PAG that says we should make an exception for Trump by leaving out mention of his parents from the infobox? I don't recall that notability is a requirement for infoboxes, only for article creation. -- Valjean (talk) ( PING me ) 17:23, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't particularly care, either way, just seems like overkill. How do you figure that the removal was an error, and what's a PAG? Space4Time3Continuum2x 🖖 18:09, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Let's start with the last first. PAG = WP:PAG.
 * I don't have any huge burden about this either. I just noticed that the edit summary seemed to be wrong, IOW an "error". I assumed that when wrote "rv duplicate", they were talking about a duplicate of that information in the infobox. I looked and didn't see a duplicate there. Their edit actually completely removed all mention of the parents from the infobox.
 * I don't know of any consensus saying we are not allowed to use that parameter in the infobox. We seem to have different practices for different presidents. Although this is an "other things" argument, sometimes we should standardize things, so I believe we need a sitewide consensus on this question. Can you shed more light on this situation? I'm totally open to learning more. -- Valjean (talk) ( PING me ) 19:34, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I assumed that "duplicate" referred to the links we have in the "Early life" section. I think this is a content discussion that should be left up to the editors of any given page. Space4Time3Continuum2x 🖖 19:54, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Well, if that's what was meant, it wasn't clear to me. I would agree that content in the body and lead of an article is a matter for local consensus. I don't think the same about infoboxes, since they are used everywhere. There should be firm guidelines for them that apply everywhere. -- Valjean (talk) ( PING me ) 20:07, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Agree with Space4T, it's overkill and redundant to include parents when the family link is already present, per exclude unnecessary content. The addition should be re-reverted. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:02, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

No content opinion. Process analysis: Thank you for adhering to proper process. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  14:47, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
 * On 17 July, editor boldly added the parent links.
 * Twenty-one minutes later, Nikkimaria challenged Keivan.f's edit by reversion.
 * Admin NeilN's suggested range for de facto consensus is 4–6 weeks. No other "authority figure" has suggested anything different, and we have historically subscribed to that suggestion at this article.
 * The parent links had been absent for more than 4–6 weeks, ergo the status quo ante is omission.
 * After Nikkimaria's challenge, no other edits should have occurred until there was a talk page consensus to change the status quo ante. No such consensus existed at the time of Keivan.f's re-revert, ergo it was a process violation and tantamount to actionable edit warring. I have reverted that process violation.
 * No such consensus exists now, either; ergo the parent links should be omitted pending consensus to add them.
 * To date, Keivan.f, the editor who initiated the contested change, has not cared enough to participate in this discussion. Until and unless he does so, in my view, his position should not be included in a consensus assessment here. Edit summaries are not substitutes for discussion of contested changes.
 * His parents' names were included in the infobox for as long as I can remember. That is the status quo and there has been no solid consensus to have them removed. What possible justification could there be for omitting their names from the infobox when 'notable' parents have been listed in the infobox for every other president? Keivan.f  Talk 16:00, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I trust the page history more than your memory, and for good reason. Here is the article on 19 June, six weeks before your bold edit. No parent links visible there. Unless you can show where they were added during that six weeks and remained for at least four weeks, omission is the status quo ante. What possible justification could there be for omitting their names from the infobox when 'notable' parents have been listed in the infobox for every other president? Such consistency arguments usually meet with resistance ("other stuff exists") because two situations are rarely exactly the same. That's why our editors are humans, not robots. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  16:13, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes, so their names were sitting there for years and just because somebody removed them and nobody opposed it for six weeks that is the status quo now! I don't want to go into much details but given that Nikkimaria was one of the architects behind removing the names of Napoleon's parents from his infobox I didn't expect anything different from her here either. I have yet to see what the majority of people think here. Keivan.f  Talk 16:21, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes, so their names were sitting there for years and just because somebody removed them and nobody opposed it for six weeks that is the status quo now! Yes, that's exactly the definition of de facto consensus. I think you're catching on.And it was longer than six weeks; how much longer I lack the motivation to research. Could be six months for all we know. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  16:23, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Doesn't mean it can't be challenged.
 * It was March 25 and it was Nikkimaria who removed them. And it was her who reverted my recent edit so I guess now she has the opportunity to clarify because that information is not duplicated elsewhere in the infobox. Keivan.f  Talk 16:35, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Doesn't mean it can't be challenged. Nobody ever said it couldn't be challenged. You were fine until your re-revert absent consensus for change. It was March 25 - Thanks for the research. That makes 16.2 weeks of de facto consensus, well over the minimum. she has the opportunity to clarify because that information is not duplicated elsewhere in the infobox. I think most of us understand that she (do we know they are a she?) considers the parent links redundant with the relatives link. She merely prefers the word "duplicate" to convey that. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  16:44, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Well, I look forward to seeing their input here regardless. Because based on their logic, the "spouse" and "children" parameters could be considered redundant as well, since Family of Donald Trump covers pretty much all his relations. Keivan.f  Talk 16:52, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Not a bad point. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  16:59, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
 * There's one difference. The parents are closed chapters, being dead, while two of the spouses and the children are still out there on Fox, Newsmax, various right-wing podcasts, etc. Space4Time3Continuum2x 🖖 20:05, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I mean obviously people don't live forever. That's no reason to delist them from the infobox. Based on this argument the name of his first wife should also be removed since she's been dead for two years. Keivan.f  Talk 23:56, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I have no objection to removing children and/or spouses on the same basis, though I can see Space4T's argument for keeping them. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:58, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

You may want to read this section: User talk:Valjean -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 20:08, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Not really related to our argument here. I think Trump's parents are far more notable (known) than Melania's dad on whom we don't even have an article, but we still have her mom named in the infobox. Keivan.f  Talk 23:56, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

RfC: Residence in the infobox
How should we format the infobox's "residence" parameter? 1. Mar-a-Lago, Palm Beach, Florida (current formatting)

2. Palm Beach, Florida

3. Mar-a-Lago --Thedarkknightli (talk) 17:28, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

Survey: Residence in the infobox

 * B. --Thedarkknightli (talk) 18:07, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm slightly conflicted; both have their benefits. Mar-a-Lago is specific (good) and has an article on his residence (good), but that plus "Palm Beach, Florida" is long (undesirable). Mar-a-Lago alone doesn't indicate where in the country he lives (undesirable); Palm Beach, Florida does that, but misses the specific Mar-a-Lago name and specificity. A? But with a line break? On the other hand entirely, Template:Infobox officeholder says neither are appropriate, though: Where this person lives. Only use for residences that come with the office. NOT for towns, cities, states, countries, etc. Obama does not use this parameter, and Biden has the White House. In keeping with consistency and documentation, it should be removed. But I'm on the side of including it because it can be useful for a wide array of biographies, not just here. SWinxy (talk) 20:43, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 18 July 2024
Edit Request: Donald Trump Article

Current text: "[Donald Trump] met with North Korean leader Kim Jong Un three times but made no progress on denuclearization."

Suggested change: Replace with "[Donald Trump] met with North Korean leader Kim Jong Un three times and made some progress on denuclearization efforts, as documented in the 2018 North Korea–United States Singapore Summit and the Proposed Peace Treaty on the Korean Peninsula."

Reason for change: The current statement is inaccurate. According to other Wikipedia pages, including the 2018 North Korea–United States Singapore Summit and the Proposed Peace Treaty on the Korean Peninsula, there was progress made on denuclearization efforts. Samjdbets (talk) 17:51, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
 * 2018 North Korea–United States Singapore Summit says:
 * "Trump said he was dissatisfied with the incomplete denuclearization offered by Kim, who demanded, in return, the full lifting of American sanctions on North Korea."
 * Does that sound like progress to you? It isn't. Kim just tricked Trump, and actually increased his nuclearization and testing of missiles. Trump violated a longstanding American strategy and gave Kim a huge PR victory, making America seem foolish in the world's eyes. That's what Trump always does.
 * Those of us who are so ancient we can remember the many summits, peace negotiations, and other attempts to get the North Koreans to denuclearize know that they always trick and fool the Americans. It is a fool's errand to negotiate with them. That's one big reason why no president has met with them before. Only Trump had the foolish hubris to think that his business negotiation skills, the kind that always fucked everyone over, including himself, and led to multiple bankruptcies, would actually succeed. He failed, as have all others before him. We always give them concessions, food, aid, etc., and get nothing in return.
 * The current statement is accurate, so no change will be made.
 * -- Valjean (talk) ( PING me ) 19:54, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
 * How is a proposed treaty progress? --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 20:10, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Exactly. Proposed Peace Treaty on the Korean Peninsula says this: "On November 23, 2023, North Korea terminated its 2018 agreement with South Korea." That's what they always do. -- Valjean (talk) ( PING me ) 20:30, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

False AKA miss- information
When are you going to correct the false information on Donald Trump of Russian collusion" during the 2016 presidential election.  That FALSE INFORMATION has been debunked and needs to be removed from this site. 2601:5C5:4302:9270:E93D:E7BB:B0F5:4F31 (talk) 03:31, 19 July 2024 (UTC)


 * I cannot find the terms collude or collusion in the article. What text are you referring to? TFD (talk) 03:37, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I only find it in one reference. We only write what Mueller said:
 * "A redacted version of the report, publicly released in April 2019, found that Russia interfered in 2016 to favor Trump.[531] Despite 'numerous links between the Russian government and the Trump campaign', the report found that the prevailing evidence 'did not establish' that Trump campaign members conspired or coordinated with Russian interference.[532][533] The report revealed sweeping Russian interference[533] and detailed how Trump and his campaign welcomed and encouraged it, believing it would benefit them electorally.[534][535][536][537]"
 * If we want to know what Giuliani admitted, just read how he implicated the campaign in an effort to spare Trump:
 * "Donald Trump’s personal attorney, Rudy Giuliani, has insisted that he “never said there was no collusion” between Trump’s 2016 presidential election campaign and Russia – only that Trump himself was not involved. The former New York mayor said he did not know if others involved in the campaign had worked with Russia. “I never said there was no collusion between the campaign, or between people in the campaign,” Giuliani said on CNN on Wednesday night."
 * That's quite the admission. IP2601, in the future, be more precise with your words. Mueller was unable to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that Trump's campaign "conspired" or "coordinated" with Russia. He specifically did not "exonerate" Trump. He did find a whole lot of bad things we normally consider collusion, such as cooperation, welcoming, covering up, lying about, secretly meeting with Russian intelligence agents, aiding and abetting, attempting to set up back-channel communication with Russian intelligence that the CIA and FBI could not penetrate (so foolish an idea the Russians refused to do it), sharing polling data with Russian intelligence, trying to shift blame to Ukraine, promising Assange a pardon if he would lie and say Seth Rich, not Russia, leaked the stolen DNC stuff, etc. The campaign did lots of improper things, and many were convicted and even served time. Of course, Trump pardoned them. -- Valjean (talk) ( PING me ) 04:35, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

Add Trump fist photo to attempted assasination section
It is already considered a legendary American photograph. The Evan Vucci  photograph of Trump's fist in the air is iconic, regardless of political perspective. It captures his reaction right after the gunshot. It captures a range of complex details and emotions in one still image — the defiantly raised fist, the blood, the agents clamoring to push Trump off stage and, most importantly, the flag. That’s what elevates the photo. It is shown on the attempted assasination page, but it should absolutely be shown on his main wikipedia page nestled under the attempted assasination section. Can someone please add the photo? 2603:8001:B5F0:8370:D12F:13DD:9885:FCD (talk) 06:56, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
 * The deletion of the image, which is copyrighted by Evan Vucci and/or Associated Press, is currently under discussion at Files_for_discussion/2024_July_14. Someone uploaded it with a fair use rationale for minimal use (WP:NFCC#3) to be used only once, at a low resolution. Even if it isn't deleted, we wouldn't be able to use it here because it's already used at Attempted assassination of Donald Trump and at Trump raised-fist photographs (one of those will have to go, too). We had a similar discussion last year about Trump's Fulton County mug shot. Space4Time3Continuum2x 🖖 10:14, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
 * This is an encyclopedia, not a superhero comic book. Nix the pix.<b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 12:15, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
 * You might want to see In the Wikipedia article Trump raised-fist photographs the section Reception, which shows that the picture is generally held in very high regard. Bob K31416 (talk) 16:35, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Pictures, plural. The cited commentators are talking about at least two different ones, and the image that was uploaded to WP is cropped to the point that its own creator might have problems recognizing it. Space4Time3Continuum2x 🖖 16:49, 19 July 2024 (UTC) The AP photo gallery. No. 1, 9, and 24 are close-ups of the injured ear - must have been a teensy bullet that "pierced" it, and the wound had already stopped bleeding by the time his handlers managed to wrangle him off the podium.  Space4Time3Continuum2x 🖖 17:23, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
 * The picture was reverted to the uncropped version. Crossing the Delaware — with teleprompter. Space4Time3Continuum2x 🖖 20:28, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
 * This talk page is for discussion of content, context etc. not "high regard".<b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 23:19, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

Economy: job numbers without pandemic effect?
Since the deletion by user:Space4Time3Continuum2x on 17:34, 19 November 2023, the article claimed "Trump is the only modern U.S. president to leave office with a smaller workforce than when he took office, by 3 million people" without even mentioning the effects of the 2020 pandemic that had cost some 10+ million jobs in March/April. How obvious can it be? Shame on you for letting this happen, and going on for 8 months. Matthead (talk) 17:48, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
 * You are welcome to participate here regularly. "If you want it done right, do it yourself." Dropping in to shame people (your word) is not going to be constructive. You also lack citation for content that needs it&mdash;at least for the prose, and I don't know that the file description for the graph satisfies WP:V. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  17:57, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I reverted a series of edits made a few hours earlier. The resulting content was based on a misleading interpretation of a secondary source, whose reliability I can't judge, and a primary source that doesn't mention the Trump years prior to 2020. Obvious or not, WP is based on reliable sources, and you failed to provide one. Also, Trump's presidency ended on Jan 20, 2021, not 2022. Space4Time3Continuum2x 🖖 18:19, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Okay, so you are acting deliberately. Again. Matthead (talk) 20:46, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

Extremely biased
This page is extremely biased. I will not go on, for that would make me biased. But I will just say you cannot state that Trump falsely accused the electon of being rigged as an established fact. There are people on the other side who claim to have the truth, you should include this "proof" 2600:1008:B100:C5E7:0:59:AE34:F01 (talk) 17:59, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
 * The courts has said it was not, end of story. Slatersteven (talk) 18:05, 19 July 2024 (UTC)