Talk:Wikipedia coverage of Donald Trump

Noting
Per title of article, there is a 2004-2014 gap in content. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:07, 9 June 2023 (UTC)


 * I don't think there's any sources about Trump's article from 2004 to 2014. Wow (talk) 20:25, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
 * @Wow Thanks for expanding this article. I've started a couple discussions below, if you're interested. Also, curious if you have plans to nominate the entry for Good article status? --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 17:30, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I think the page creator @ElijahPepe should nominate this for GA since most of my edits involve archiving the sources and organizing the content. Wow (talk) 18:17, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
 * This article is not ready for good article status. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 00:06, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Necessary detail?
Right now the "Articles loosely related to Trump" section says, "In October 2016, a vandal replaced the contents of both Hillary and Bill Clinton's article with a pornographic image and explicit message encouraging readers to vote for Trump."

The articles about Bill and Hillary Clinton are not about Trump. All I'm getting from the text is that someone vandalized Wikipedia by encouraging votes for Trump.

Is this necessary detail? If not, I suggest removal. Or, perhaps this is more appropriate for the Vandalism section? --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 17:23, 31 October 2023 (UTC)


 * I just expanded this detail, but we can move it out of the section if necessary. --Wow (talk) 22:23, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

Daily Dot
Right now the Wikimedia Commons section is based on an article published by The Daily Dot.

WP:DAILYDOT says, "There is no consensus regarding the general reliability of The Daily Dot, though it is considered fine for citing non-contentious claims of fact. Some editors have objected to its tone or consider it to be biased or opinionated; there is community consensus that attribution should be used in topics where the source is known to be biased or when the source is used to support contentious claims of fact. Consider whether content from this publication constitutes due weight before citing it in an article."

I see The Daily Dot is used as an inline citation twice. Appropriately? --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 17:28, 31 October 2023 (UTC)