Talk:Donald Trump

Current consensus

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

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

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

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

04. Superseded by #15

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 (Nov 2016, Dec 2016) (Superseded by #15 since 11 February 2017)

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

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

07. Superseded by #35

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 (Sep 2016, February 2017, wording shortened per April 2017, upheld with July 2018) (superseded by #35 since 18 February 2019)

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

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

10. Canceled

Keep Barron Trump's name in the list of children and wikilink it, which redirects to his section in Family of Donald Trump per AfD consensus. (Jan 2017, Nov 2016) Canceled: Barron's BLP has existed since June 2019. (June 2024)

11. Superseded by #17

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 (Jan 2017, Jan 2017, Jan 2017, Jan 2017, Jan 2017, Feb 2017) (superseded by #17 since 2 April 2017)

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

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

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

15. Superseded by lead rewrite

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

16. Superseded by lead rewrite

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

17. Superseded by #50

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

18. Superseded by #63

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

19. Obsolete

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

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

21. Superseded by #39

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

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

23. Superseded by #52

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

24. Superseded by #30

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

35. Superseded by #49

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

36. Superseded by #39

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

45. Superseded by #48

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

66. Omit {{infobox criminal}}. (RfC June 2024)

67. The "Health habits" section includes: "Trump says he has never drunk alcohol, smoked cigarettes, or used drugs. He sleeps about four or five hours a night." (February 2021)

Investigations, criminal charges, civil lawsuits

This section could really be trimmed down, given that many of the cases have their own articles. For example, On March 30, 2023, a New York grand jury indicted Trump on 34 felony counts of falsifying business records. On April 4, he surrendered and was arrested and arraigned; he pleaded not guilty and was released. The trial began on April 15, 2024. tells us little about the case. Jack Upland (talk) 03:10, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

It tells us that there is a criminal trial of a former U.S. president underway which is a big deal, at least until there is a verdict. If you want to trim down s.th. that has its own article and was DOA, maybe you could take a whack at this sentence in Donald_Trump#2024_presidential_campaign: In December 2023, the Colorado Supreme Court ruled that Trump was disqualified from holding office due to his role in the Capitol attack until the U.S. Supreme Court reversed the decision via Trump v. Anderson in March 2024. I didn't get any anywhere due to this 2:1 low-participation discussion . Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 12:32, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

Can someone please include DJ Trump's new official title as first convicted felon in American history..? Much appreciated.. Dynamic City (talk) 10:46, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

And in a twinkling of an eye the offending passage has vanished.--Jack Upland (talk) 01:59, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

why is reality offensive? He is the first convicted felon who was president. 162.142.106.251 (talk) 02:51, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

Remove the St. John's photo-op?

I think we should remove it, or at least shorten it. It currently gets just as much coverage here as it does at the presidency article, which makes no sense since the presidency section should be summarizing the presidency article. Since it only gets a paragraph or two there, we don't really need to mention it in the summary here. I could potentially understand giving it a sentence in a section somewhere, but we currently give way too much weight to it. This article will need to cut a few things to make room for the impending election and the impending verdicts in his cases, and it is already very large. This seems like it is something that can go, and it can stay at the presidency article. QuicoleJR (talk) 20:38, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

Agreed. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:00, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

Remove.--Jack Upland (talk) 01:06, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

Yeah I concur. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:30, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

One, maybe two sentences, with a piped section link to Presidency of Donald Trump#Photo-op at St. John's Episcopal Church. If they want even more detail, that section links to Donald Trump photo op at St. John's Church. One click for each successive level of detail. ―Mandruss ☎ 02:02, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

Disagree. It's only four sentences now, with one of the iconic images of his presidency, autocracy on the march for the purpose of a photo-op with a Bible, straight line to January 6 when the Pentagon dithered and dawdled so as not to create similar optics. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 12:06, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

User:Space4Time3Continuum2x, Re "...straight line to January 6 when the Pentagon dithered and dawdled so as not to create similar optics." — That's an interesting point that the Capitol was not properly protected Jan 6 because of the St. Johns photo op. Why isn't that point in the Trump article's St. Johns photo op section, Jan 6 section, or the Jan 6 article? Is that point made in any source? Thanks. Bob K31416 (talk) 16:43, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

It may not have been the only reason, the other being, "patriots, supporting our president, they wouldn't attack Congress, would they"? Online sources: NYT, HuffPo, Politico 2023, The Week, Politico 2021, Newsweek (William Arkin), Bloomberg, CNN, Bulwark, VF, Rollcall. Plus various books, some having been mentioned in previous discussions but both the discussions and the passages in the books would take me much longer to dig up. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 17:57, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

Good work. I looked at just the first two sources but that was enough to convince me that the idea was out there. Bob K31416 (talk) 20:05, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

the presidency section should be summarizing the presidency article: according to which WP policy? Seems we've had similar discussions before, as in "let's just use the lead of the 'Presidency' article". Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 12:39, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

@Space4Time3Continuum2x: According to the guideline WP:SYNC, which provides good guidance for writing this section. We can't follow it to the letter in this situation, but we should follow the general principles. QuicoleJR (talk) 15:13, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

The people who wrote WP:SYNC haven't met Donald Trump. A "high-level or conceptual article" this definitely ain't, it's the story of grandfather's old ram, except it's not funny, and Grandpa may nap a lot, but he keeps waking up and adding to the story. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 15:28, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

We should remove highly significant content because why? Because an editor speculates about what might happen months from now? At least wait until there actually is such cause. There are many less significant nuggets for any future trims. SPECIFICO talk 02:17, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

Which less significant nuggets are you referring to? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:25, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

For example, the whole Religion section could be cut. Most of the blow by blow of his purported business career could be summarized in 3 sentences. Etc. If future need be. SPECIFICO talk 02:26, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

Okay, made a start on that. Do you have a summary in mind for the business career piece? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:00, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

It isn't speculation to note that we will need to add things to this page on the 2024 election, such as who wins and whether or not the loser accepts the results. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:36, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

It's speculation to predetermine what might be triimed for any reason in the future. But its also jumping the gun. If the church bit were UNDUE, we wouldn't need to trade it for a player to be named later. SPECIFICO talk 03:03, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

I'm proposing two candidates for trimming. #1: As I mentioned before, this sentence in Donald_Trump#2024_presidential_campaign mentions a mere blip on the 2024 campaign radar that is forgotten by now: In December 2023, the Colorado Supreme Court ruled that Trump was disqualified from holding office due to his role in the Capitol attack until the U.S. Supreme Court reversed the decision via Trump v. Anderson in March 2024. #2: In two weeks or so, when the verdict is in, we should be able to update and shorten the section on the Manhattan criminal case considerably. Lafayette Square will keep cropping up as long as Trump is running for office. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 12:20, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

I gather you don't support my suggestion, either. The philosophical difference rears its ugly head again. Where something is covered in a sub-article, that article should be the main go-to for readers. The function of this article should be to provide an easy path to the sub-article content, and it should do so in the form of a high-level summary/overview containing a link: substantially higher-level than we currently use for this topic in this article. Side benefit: Any subjective article length issues vanish forever. ―Mandruss ☎ 02:38, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

Let's apply that to all the business deals. Keep just the core: 1) Commodore Hotel, 2) went broke, 3) pivot to The Apprentice. SPECIFICO talk 03:08, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

Remove, unsure. Reduce sure. Slatersteven (talk) 09:33, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

This section has already been reduced to the detriment of our readers. The page is indexed so that readers are not burdened by length nearly as much as by omission and cryptic framing that omits significant detail. Once we send a reader to a subpage, and maybe to a secondary sub-subpage, they are off the track of the main page. It is far easier to navigate the main page table of contents than to blow up one's browser with a fog forest of detail pages. SPECIFICO talk 11:22, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

It's only four sentences, and the picture. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 12:07, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

We should remove highly significant content because why? Because WP:SUMMARY is a guideline, and it says that we should make the presidency section summarize the important parts of the presidency article. Giving this one controversy as many words here as at that article is not compatible with the guideline. I will agree with Space4 that some of the post-presidency stuff should also be trimmed. QuicoleJR (talk) 12:33, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

"Also??" What? There is no guideline that requires us to remove or further weaken this short section. SPECIFICO talk 13:45, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

I think giving an entire section to this one controversy, with as much information about it here as at the more specific presidency page, violates SUMMARY. It also arguably violates UNDUE by giving more weight to this one incident than most sources do. It hasn't received much attention since it happened, and is not one of the controversies that I have seen any source bring up as a point against Trump, and they have brought up a lot of his old controversies from his presidency. I see no reason for this one incident to get an entire section. QuicoleJR (talk) 14:44, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

For more specific examples, we have one paragraph about his opinions on the ACA. We have one sentence about his thoughts on NATO. We have one sentence about his stance on abortion. All three of those get much more weight in the media than the photo-op. In light of that, per UNDUE, we should either increase how much room those three topics get or decrease the amount of room the photo-op gets. The first one is not feasible and would lead to serious size issues, so that leaves the second option, which is to remove most or all of the information about the photo-op. QuicoleJR (talk) 14:52, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

NATO and Abortion should indeed be expanded.Good catch. SPECIFICO talk 16:23, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

It hasn't received much attention - you probably didn't notice it when it was mentioned in some other context. Quoting myself from another discussion: Baker/Glasser's The Divider devotes an entire chapter to The Battle of Lafayette Square, where "Trump had staged what would become the most infamous photo-op of his presidency".

Work cited
Baker, Peter; Glasser, Susan (2023) [2022]. The Divider. Anchor Books. ISBN 978-0-593-08296-6.

The event was notable and iconic — using federal law enforcement to break up a lawful demonstration for the purpose of staging a show of strength/dominance, with the Bible and the highest-ranking military officer as a prop. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 16:03, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

Baker/Glasser are journalists who didn't write a biography, and didn't write a summary of Trump's presidency; they focused on one aspect of Trump's presidency: the division. DFlhb (talk) 05:45, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

I just checked Google News, it would appear that you are correct about it remaining relevant. I still feel like it should be trimmed, but count me neutral on removing it entirely. QuicoleJR (talk) 16:16, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

I googled the keywords, Lafayette Square trump. As one can see from the hits, a year after the incident there were a lot of mainstream articles saying that Trump's photo-op was not the reason the park was cleared. The section seems to be misleading. Bob K31416 (talk) 20:07, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

You can't just look at the headlines popping up in Google searches. This was similar to Barr spinning Mueller's report into "total exoneration" for Trump, and some mainstream media fell for it. Some, e.g. NBC, reported that "Attorney General William Barr urged officials to speed up the clearing process once Trump had decided to walk through the area that evening". See Donald Trump photo op at St. John's Church#Inspectors General. See also WaPo, Vox, Salon. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 11:12, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

I looked at what you presented and it doesn't show that the park was cleared because Trump wanted a photo-op. Thanks for the effort, but our article section is misleading on that point. Bob K31416 (talk) 12:03, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

No, it isn't. We merely say that federal law-enforcement officials cleared the park, and then he walked and posed. The fence was scheduled to be erected later that evening, after the curfew set to begin at 7 p.m., and it actually was put up later that evening. The Trump-appointed IG at DHS refused to initiate any audit, investigation, or even review of the actions taken by DHS personnel, the DOJ IG’s report is still pending as of this month, and the Interior Department’s IG conducted a limited review , according to their own report. See WaPO, Vox, Salon. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 17:06, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

"We merely say..."? It's a false implication supported by obsolete references that were contradicted a year later. Just the raising of questions by the sources that you just presented isn't enough compared to the many mainstream reliable sources. Those many sources didn't seem to come out to support theories and analysis that the park was cleared for the photo-op, after it was shown that it wasn't. I'll wait and see what others think and let the chips fall where they may. Again, thanks for your efforts. Bob K31416 (talk) 17:55, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

Agreed. The section clearly conveys a false implication. It needs to change. Riposte97 (talk) 01:03, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

Bob. The purpose and function of search engines is to show you that which you seek. Unfortunately in this case, it appears you searched for and found one of the many thousands of deflections. equivocations, and revisions of events covered in the NPOV content of our Trump pages. SPECIFICO talk 19:58, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

It seems to be an incident that gathered a lot of attention at the time, but on investigation wasn't that earth-shattering. It has its own article and doesn't need to be discussed here.--Jack Upland (talk) 03:18, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

• It should be like 1 sentence (2 max) tucked somewhere in this article. Not in it's own subsection. I've long supported the need for a general BLM/protest subsection where it could be, but I'm to lazy to write it right now and it probably wouldn't be accepted anyway. Iamreallygoodatcheckers ^talk 06:45, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

Don't confuse Bill Barr with Smokey the Bear. If anything, we should be more explicit to debunk the various denials. SPECIFICO talk 06:57, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

@Space4Time3Continuum2x, SPECIFICO, Iamreallygoodatcheckers, Jack Upland, Mandruss, Riposte97, Bob K31416, Slatersteven, Muboshgu, and Nikkimaria: I'm seeing a general agreement to, if not remove it, reduce it to a sentence or two. I am not currently seeing enough support to remove all mention of it. The only ones supporting the status quo are SPECIFICO and Space4. Pinging everyone to make sure I am correct in that assessment. Where do people think that the sentence should be placed in the article? QuicoleJR (talk) 18:01, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

It could go in Social issues. On balance, I'm unconcerned that it isn't covered in that section's linked "main article". It's covered in the grandparent section's main article.

Looking at the Presidency part of the table of contents, I'm struck by the glaring contrast between Lafayette Square and virtually all of the other subsections. They're all general in nature until you see section 5.5, then—BAM—a section about a single isolated event. UNDUE seems clear.

I'm inclined to change my support from 1–2 sentences to 2–3; one seems excessively low unless the sentence is made cumbersomely long. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:40, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

Yep I think reducing to a couple of sentences is appropriate. Riposte97 (talk) 21:45, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

Remove or 1-2 sentences. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:19, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

I think Mandruss makes a good point about Lafayette Square compared with other subsections.--Jack Upland (talk) 05:16, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

I support removing it altogether; it's undue and the wrong level of detail for this article. No subsection should be dedicated to individual events - DFlhb (talk) 06:03, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

I'm not saying a subsection, I'm saying a sentence or two somewhere in the article. QuicoleJR (talk) 18:28, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

And I'm saying it should be removed; that aspect of his presidency should be covered as a synthesis (by the dictionary definition; from a good recent source/sources) and it would deserve a brief mention (1 clause) as part of that - brought up as an example to illustrate a more general point, not mentioned in an isolated fashion. The latter isn't worth doing at all, since we can't expect readers to figure out that larger point all on their own - DFlhb (talk) 18:57, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

The former would be an example of moving it to another part of the article. I am simply trying to figure out where to put it. QuicoleJR (talk) 22:30, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

You didn't like my idea, I take it. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:54, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

Your idea is good. I am just making sure nobody else is opposed to that specific placement. QuicoleJR (talk) 23:08, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

Mandruss, autocratic behavior of the president as a social issue? I realize something needs to be done with the section; it doesn't reflect that this incident led or contributed to the poor preparations for and belated response to the Jan 6 rioters. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 10:51, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

Are you sure that is clear about the response when you take into account most of the discussion of causes in reliable sources, rather than just those that advance that theory? Bob K31416 (talk) 12:06, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

I think it'll do for now, unless and until there is an "Autocratic behavior" section. There are more important things at hand. ―Mandruss ☎ 16:50, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

Is this theory common among reliable sources? If so, how common. If it is only forwarded by a few reliable sources, and the majority have no mention of it, I doubt it would be DUE to mention here. QuicoleJR (talk) 16:56, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

I have performed the merge. We can work on the specific wording a bit more if needed. QuicoleJR (talk) 18:26, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

There was no consensus to do that. Please reverse your merge. SPECIFICO talk 19:48, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

Now I have looked at that edit and it is not merely a chang of section you called a merge. Key content - the content that explains the significance of Trump's role - was removed. Please yndo these edits. SPECIFICO talk 19:57, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

@SPECIFICO: There was a very clear consensus saying that only one or two sentences should be given to this incident. Only you and Space4 opposed. Consensus does not have to be unanimous. QuicoleJR (talk) 20:27, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

Y Approve of QuicoleJR's merge. Iamreallygoodatcheckers ^talk 06:26, 5 June 2024 (UTC

It's not a "merge" when the significant paragraph that explained its significance was expunged. SPECIFICO talk 09:24, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Welcome back. The place hasn't been the same without you. ―Mandruss ☎ 09:28, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

@SPECIFICO: The consensus was to reduce the amount of information given to the incident. A merge that trims out a bunch of information is still a merge. I will say it again, the vast majority of editors supported doing this. You are one of only two that did not. Consensus does not require every single person to agree. QuicoleJR (talk) 11:52, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

The before and after texts side-by-side - gone are: the image (its removal wasn’t discussed at all); mention of the Bible while leaving the cryptic text that seemingly for no apparent reason religious leaders condemned the photo-op. Added was "subsequently", implying that the violent removal of lawful demonstrators ("lawful" appears to have been removed sometime in the past) had nothing to do with Trump’s excursion to the church at that particular time. Before:

Trump and group of officials and advisors on the way from White House complex to St. John's Church

On June 1, 2020, during the George Floyd protests, federal law-enforcement officials used less lethal weapons to remove a largely peaceful crowd of protesters from Lafayette Square, outside the White House.[263][264] Trump then walked to St. John's Episcopal Church, where protesters had set a small fire the night before; he posed for photographs holding a Bible, with senior administration officials later joining him in photos.[263][265][266]

Religious leaders condemned the treatment of protesters and the photo opportunity itself.[267] Many retired military leaders and defense officials condemned Trump's proposal to use the U.S. military against anti-police-brutality protesters.[268

Post-merge:

In June 2020, during the George Floyd protests, federal law-enforcement officials controversially used less lethal weapons to remove a largely peaceful crowd of protesters from Lafayette Square, outside the White House.[258][259] Trump subsequently posed for a photo-op at the nearby St. John's Episcopal Church,[258][260][261] drawing condemnation from many religious leaders.[262]

Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 17:46, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

I replaced subsequently in the sentence and added mention of the Bible. However, the consensus was clear that we should only give this a sentence or two in this article. Most articles do not use an image to illustrate two sentences. Therefore, I think it makes sense to exclude the image. QuicoleJR (talk) 17:57, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

The more you repeat yourself as the one who should find consensus for your own proposal, the less credible it becomes. Your edit summary was inaccurate and misleading. You removed the co to t of the controversy that makes it both noteworthy and NOTABLE. Have you read the prior talk page discussions you claim to have overturned with this thinly-reasoned voting thread?. Patience is a virtue. This reversal of prior consensus is not supported at this time. SPECIFICO talk 18:17, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

@SPECIFICO: I looked through the most recent discussion I could find, being from a year ago. It seems to have had a similar dynamic, where only you and Space4 supported retaining the subsection. There are ten other users in this subsection who would disagree with that position, and the situation was similar a year ago, in that stalled discussion in archive 154. QuicoleJR (talk) 18:44, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Did you notice I asked about the discussions - plural? On reason there's diminishing response to non-policy-framed trim requests is that the longstanding consensus was settled via nearly a dozen past discussions. Your only rationale is that some new future content won't "fit" in our virtual closet here. If the content were UNDUE, you could argue that -- but you haven't. In fact, you appear to have proposed removing this key content even before reviewing RS, which you later googled. And militarized civil law enforcement is not a "social issue" anyway. It is a constitutional issue. If you can cite the other 3 times presidents wanted to shoot civilians, etc. you would have a case that this was no big deal. SPECIFICO talk 23:30, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Consensus can change, and that is still true if you do not agree with the consensus. QuicoleJR (talk) 00:01, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

Per WP:IDHT, you are repeatedly declining to respond to the points raised in favor of the status quo ante consensus. Your task is to refute those. "Consensus can change" is not in dispute here. It's one of several straw man deflections you have made. You may find it helpful also to see WP:NOTAVOTETo establish a new consensus, you or somebody, anybody, would need to provide policy- and RS-based arguments for an improved version. Have you now had a chance to review the many talk page discussions I referenced? To cut key context and reframe this event as a one at the bottom of a diverse "social issue" list, you would need to respond on the crux of the disagreement here. Otherwise, the status quo consensus will eventually be sustained. SPECIFICO talk 15:04, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

The guideline WP:SIZE says that articles over 15k words (like this one) should be trimmed or split. WP:SUMMARY, another guideline, says that we should summarize the most important parts of his presidency. We should not give as much detail to it here as in the presidency subarticle. That is my main policy argument, and has been since the beginning. QuicoleJR (talk) 15:37, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

Also, your response seems to imply that someone would have to satisfy you specifically to get this change passed, which is certainly not the case. QuicoleJR (talk) 15:39, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

Most articles do not use an image to illustrate two sentences. I'm unaware of a WP policy. Editors pretty much illustrate what they want. On Clarence Thomas's fan page, e.g., you'll find an example of a large image illustrating one sentence and another image of a building not mentioned in the body. This image illustrates that Trump "— furious about criticism that he has not done enough to stop the protests and violence that followed the death of George Floyd in Minneapolis — told senior advisers Monday that they had to show they could control the streets of Washington and the area around the White House". After his Rose Garden speech (As we speak, I am dispatching thousands and thousands of heavily armed soldiers, military personnel and law enforcement officers to stop the rioting, looting, vandalism, assaults and the wanton destruction of property. We will end it now.), he, senior cabinet members, and the U.S.'s highest military officer in combat uniform forayed across the square to the church. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 12:39, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

Here's a brief history of editors' positions in this thread:

QuicoleJR began the thread with suggesting removal from the article or shortening. Nikkimaria and Muboshgu agreed. Jack Upland suggested remove.

Mandruss suggested reducing it to 1–2 sentences.

Space4Time3Continuum2x and Specifico objected to these suggestions of removal or reduction.

Mandruss was willing to change his suggestion from 1–2 sentences to 2–3 sentences and moving it to the Social issues section.

Riposte97 agreed to reducing to 1–2 sentences.

Nikkimaria more specifically suggested remove or reduce to 1–2 sentences.

DFlhb suggested remove or have one clause elsewhere only if it adds to some other related material.

Slatersteven suggested reduce and was unsure about removal.

QuicoleJR reduced the material to two sentences and moved it to the Social issues section.

Iamreallygoodatcheckers supported QuicoleJR's edit.

I think QuicoleJR's edit is an improvement. Bob K31416 (talk) 02:13, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

I agree. Jack Upland (talk) 07:18, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

Yep. DUE applies to both text and images. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:40, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

Bypassing the Presidency article

I note that we currently link to Donald Trump photo op at St. John's Church, bypassing the far-less-detailed content in the Presidency article. That violates principles of hierarchical structure and deprives readers of the opportunity to be satisfied by the level of detail in the Presidency article. One click for each successive level of detail, without skipping any. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:52, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

Why? The hatnote says "main article", so it should logically lead to the main article. If it did not, we would be misleading readers. The Presidency article also has few details that aren't also contained in this article, while missing some that are. QuicoleJR (talk) 22:54, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

Why? Didn't I already answer that? {{Main}} allows section links; see examples there. Apparently the community is not concerned that the hatnote says "article". I'm certainly not. If this "misleads" readers, that's already happening in countless other places in the encyclopedia.

Let's not get too hung up on semantics. "Main article:" can be interpreted as "Next level of detail:" without costing me any sleep. I honestly doubt readers care.

But the semantics are not entirely unimportant. Any problem can be avoided by using {{Further}} instead of {{Main}}, creating the hatnote "Further information:". This also supports section links.

Anyway, your concern becomes moot if the topic is deprived of its own subsection; in that case, there is no hatnote but rather an inline piped section link. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:27, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

The Presidency article also has few details that aren't also contained in this article - Aren't we talking about dramatically reducing the details in this article? Similar levels of detail is precisely what should be avoided.

It goes to the system design principle that data redundancy is bad design: "Data redundancy leads to data anomalies and corruption and generally should be avoided by design [...]". Specific to our situation, we should avoid creating redundant levels of detail that have to be coordinated between articles. To some unknown degree, we surely fail to coordinate adequately, creating discrepancies ("corruption") across articles. An editor makes a change to this article and fails to look at one or more sub-articles to see if they also need changing. Cross-article coordination not being a priority for time-limited volunteers, the discrepancy no doubt often goes unnoticed for years, if not forever. Opportunities for that are to be minimized, and that's done by avoiding similar levels of detail. (It's still possible to create discrepancies, but less easy. You can make a change at the more-detailed level without affecting the less-detailed level, in which case no discrepancy is created.) ―Mandruss ☎ 02:28, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

Both the Trump article section and the Trump presidency article section refer to the same photo-op article, so there shouldn't be a problem. The interesting idea that you brought up about computer programming doesn't seem useful here. Both sections should depend on the photo-op article, which seems like the ultimate authority with regard to the subject in Wikipedia. Seems more likely that problems can occur if the Trump presidency article section is represented as the place for more information about the photo-op, e.g. an editor at the Trump presidency article may make a mistake in interpreting the photo-op article or make a mistake interpreting a source. Also, I agree with a previous point that essentially says that the link to the Trump presidency article section isn't very useful compared to the link to the photo-op article. Bob K31416 (talk) 14:59, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

Computer programming? Wikipedia is essentially a special-purpose database and most of the same concepts and principles apply here. It's about how we choose to structure and organize data. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:08, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

That would apply to every subsection and sub-subsection of the "Presidency" section. E.g., the main article for Economy is Economic policy of the Donald Trump administration, for Climate change, environment, and energy it's Environmental policy of the Donald Trump administration, etc. This is Trump's biography. It should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in those sources. We have differences of opinions on what's significant enough to be mentioned here. If there's a consensus to move content to a related article, then the editor who removes the content from this article should be the one to add it to the other article or make sure that it's already present, and then possibly discuss inclusion or not with the editors on that page. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 18:43, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

Disagree again. Conceptually, "Trump's biography" comprises a number of articles that are divided only because combining them would create an impossibly large article. If not for that, the content in the Presidency article would be in this article. Therefore it's part of "Trump's biography" (might as well be Donald Trump, Page 2), and that's very hard to dispute when a large part of this article, which you claim contains his entire biography, is about his presidency.

When you split part of this article into a new one (usually done only for size reasons), does that split content cease to be a part of his biography? I don't see how. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:21, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

You might want to clarify your position regarding the point, "That would apply to every subsection and sub-subsection of the "Presidency" section." In other words, do you want to change those links too? Thanks. Bob K31416 (talk) 20:22, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

Where we're bypassing intermediate levels of detail, that would be an "ultimately, yes". It wouldn't have to all be done now, and scope expansion is often counterproductive.

This goes hand-in-hand with reducing the level of detail in this article where there is a sub-article, which largely guarantees that we're bypassing intermediate levels of detail. The St. John's topic provides a "test case" that helps us think about the concept. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:42, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

Removal of small fire

@SPECIFICO: Please explain to me how the fact that the protestors started a small fire the night before the photo-op is relevant to our biography of Donald Trump. QuicoleJR (talk) 17:37, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

Please consult the cited sources and sub-article content. SPECIFICO talk 23:51, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

@SPECIFICO: The sub-article does not explain why it is important to include on the article for Donald Trump, only that it is relevant to the protests near the church. Like I said, please explain how the small fire that happened the day before is relevant to our biography of Donald Trump. QuicoleJR (talk) 00:24, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

References

Expanding first paragraph in general (what is notable enough to overtake chronology?)

While looking across Andrew Johnson, Franklin D. Roosevelt, Richard Nixon, Bill Clinton, and Barack Obama in service of writing my comment in discussion above,

it is clear that regardless of the outcome of conviction-specific conversations, the first paragraph here is cut significantly down from typical of U.S. Presidents, most of whom have less notability in other fields

I know (from the "current consensus" box) that several points (of specific inclusion & exclusion) have been the topic of several discussions already in the last few years, but the result seems to have been progressive minimalism, whereas it seems to me there are several useful points for inclusion that fall within precedents and NPOV.

I would propose that what currently reads:

Donald John Trump (born June 14, 1946) is an American politician, media personality and businessman who served as the 45th president of the United States from 2017 to 2021.

would be more in line with other presidents if it read something like:

Donald John Trump (born June 14, 1946) is an American politician, media personality and businessman who served as the 45th president of the United States from 2017 to 2021, and who is currently seeking a second term. Elected as the nominee of the Republican Party, he is also understood as leading his own political movement within & beyond the party.. As reflected in slogans popularized by and strongly associated with him, he has advocated an open embrace (and implemented policies consistent with) both nationalist ("America First") and reactionary ("Make America Great Again") approaches to American politics; there has been much more divergence surrounding corruption: with many perceiving him as opposing it (as "the Swamp", "the Deep State", and "the Steal") while he has also been investigated, impeached , indicted, and in one case convicted of crimes while seeking, performing, and departing the presidency.

... you know, or something like that. thoughts? Donald Guy (talk) 04:14, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

• Support* as these are all objectively factual statements.

Redditmerc (talk) 06:48, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

I think your version is a significant improvement compared to the current one. Besides some minor grammatical issues, it looks good. Opportunity Rover (talk) 09:31, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Notes

• Support this lead-for-the-lead approach, not sure on what should be included therein (AMPOL is not my forte, although I follow it closely). A one-sentence opening paragraph is extremely unusual for someone this notable, and unencyclopaedic too.

I think your proposal starts out strong with the first two sentences, but gives too much detail thereafter, which more properly belongs in later paragraphs of the lead. I would suggest something like [Your first two sentences, and then-] As president of the Trump Organization, he was involved in numerous real estate developments in New York City for a number of years, with mixed success. As US President, he implemented several conservative and economically protectionist policies, while also assailing mainstream media for its perceived bias against him. He is the only US President to have been impeached twice by the House of Representatives and to have been convicted of felonies. And then continue with the rest of the lead as is. Wilhelm Tell DCCXLVI (^{talk to me!}/_{my edits}) 05:11, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

• It may be a good idea to discuss this after the RfC. We can't have too much going on at once. Iamreallygoodatcheckers ^talk 05:21, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

  On the contrary, expanding the first paragraph will cater to both parts of emerging consensus - that it is necessary to prominently mention the conviction in the lead, and that at the same time adding the conviction to the frail one-sentence lead we have right now will fall afoul of DUE. Wilhelm Tell DCCXLVI (^{talk to me!}/_{my edits}) 05:36, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

  It is this way because of years of consensus and discussion and it won't be changing over night, and I don't expect there to be agreement on the wording. The more wording you propose the less likely consensus will be met, especially on this article. To be frank, Donald Trump is hard to explain in one paragraph, which is why we have the bloated lead section and the simple, non-controversial first sentence and paragraph. But sure, I'm open to expansion, but I really do think it would be best to see the completion of the RfC first so that its consensus may be a guiding tool and onus here. Iamreallygoodatcheckers ^talk 05:42, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

  Fair enough, and I hope the two suggestions in this thread can serve as a base for fresh discussion after the RfC.

  As an aside, is it time for the talk page to be temporarily semi-protected? None of the IPs and fresh accounts are adding anything of substance. Wilhelm Tell DCCXLVI (^{talk to me!}/_{my edits}) 05:48, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

  That's not a decision for me to make, but I've seen some substantive contributions from IP's here and, naturally, some not. Hopefully, the closer of the RfC, who should be an experienced one, can cipher the good from the bad. Iamreallygoodatcheckers ^talk 06:07, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

  query then also (and whether it hasn been discussed before) whether a different structural/hypertext approach might be more effective:

  • keep wording and structure as is but make heavier early use of links to existing articles, e.g.

  Donald John Trump (born June 14, 1946) is an American politician, media personality, and businessman who served as the 45th president of the United States from 2017 to 2021.

  • forgo traditional structure for a lede and either ("simply" front-load the table of contents instead, or admit some sort of disambiguation-like un-prosed structure, e.g.

  Donald John Trump (born June 14, 1946) is an American variously notable in his capacities as:

  • a politician — having served as the the 45th president of the United States from 2017 to 2021, currently seeking re-election to presidency, as well as competing in presidential primaries in 2000 and public ally
  • a media personality — having co-produces and hosted The Apprentice, participated in professional wrestling, and appeared (as himself) in various film & television projects
  • a businessman — overseeing the Trump Organization in developing & managing various real estate holdings, as well as developing numerous lines of personally branded merchandise
  • [pending ongoing discussions] a litigant and criminal defendant

  Donald Guy (talk) 07:05, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

  Then, if the RFC above comes out as adding convicted felon/criminal you'd have a section for that too and it's even more called out. It might be better to have just the table of contents where you can have the category simply labeled "Civil and Criminal something something". Outcast95 (talk) 22:59, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

  The table of contents does not show up for mobile users, who are a significant portion of our readers. QuicoleJR (talk) 23:11, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

  Good point, then I have to go back to thinking it's appropriate for the current single sentence lede. But a paragraph lede including it would be the most appropriate thing. Outcast95 (talk) 06:12, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

yes, despite where I ended up on that abivr draft I mostly agree that it probably shouldn't necessarily actually focus exclusively on his presidency (though focus of two sentences doesnt seem unresonable)

I kinda think The Apprentice may still deserve some mention as well. and like I think there is a viable NPOV through line here but I can't quite put my finger on it

like...

"pursuing a strategy of personal branding and celebrity, Trump succesfully grew in recognizability from real estate developer, to figure of NYC tabloid coverage, to household name of film & television, to leader of a political movement and the first person elected to presidency of the united states without prior political or military office. Concerted attempts to control image and narratives have also seen him run well afoul of the law, notably becoming also the first president convinced of a felony: 34 counts of falsification of business records in the state of New York in the commission of another crime"

that's not necessarily better... but it's differently bad at least 😅 Donald Guy (talk) 06:09, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Comment. If it's not in the body, it doesn't go into the lead. And if you don't present reliable sources, it doesn't go in the body, either. Are there RS e.g. for "leading his own political movement within & beyond the party", "reflected in slogans", etc.? Also, the first paragraph is currently under discussion in the RfC. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 15:18, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Just talking, there's definitely sources on the MAGA movement. As to that movement being "both nationalist and reactionary approaches to American politics"? That's gonna be another RFC, with sources on both sides. But also, do we take those kinds of subjective stances? It's objectively true he's leading a movement, but you'd be hard pressed to objectively determine the other stuff without Wikipedia taking a meta political science position. Sorry for the motormouth, but I do a lot more politics than I do wiki editing. Outcast95 (talk) 23:05, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Support For making the sentence an actual lede paragraph. That seems to be at least part of the problem in the discussion above. But I would hold back on some of that wording. The third sentence specifically is doing a lot of work and could be hard to support in a wiki article let alone a lede. I would suggest something like -

Donald John Trump (born June 14, 1946) is an American politician, media personality and businessman who served as the 45th president of the United States from 2017 to 2021. He is known for his real estate business and he starred on The Apprentice from 2004-2017. He is currently the 2024 Republican leading candidate and expected nominee. He is also the first American President to be convicted on felony charges.

note - I suck at the actual writing part, so this is just a rough example. Outcast95 (talk) 22:53, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

While I like Wilhelm's above example of what this would like like, in practice I could easily see the introduction of such a paragraph to be mired by multiple RFCs like the one we see above on every little detail. While I don't love the one-sentence opening paragraph, keeping the lead in chronological order helps to prevent a lot of time-wasting battles over what is more notable than what. Yeoutie (talk) 14:16, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

Isn't an RFC naturally a moot point after we have a consensus though? Also, we're going to have RFC's for quite a while on the conviction thing anyways. I'm not against sorting the lede chronologically. It would look hilarious, since his being president is obviously the most important bit. But right now the chronological paragraph that is the first actual paragraph is the normal second paragraph of a bio on Wikipedia; talking about his birth and college. That breaks with the other pages on US presidents. If we did a lede in hybrid I think it could work well. So the sentence subjects in order would be Presidency; Businessman; Media Personality; Criminal Conviction. So something more like-

Donald Trump served as the 45th President of the United States from 2017 to 2020 and is the presumptive Republican nominee for the 2024 presidential campaign. His presidency was marked by the trade war with China and the beginning of the Covid 19 Pandemic. Donald Trump is also a businessman and media personality. He runs a family real estate business and appeared on the TV show The Apprentice from 2004 to 2017. On May 31st 2024 he became the first US President to be convicted of felony charges.

Outcast95 (talk) 21:23, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

It helps if such proposals don't get far without appropriate copy edits. If they ultimately become consensus, then we're faced with the question of how much we can copy edit without violating the consensus. If you change it, the article content no longer matches what was agreed to. That's a headache. As we saw recently, an editor couldn't even remove an Oxford comma without violating consensus 50.

Donald Trump served as the 45th president of the United States from 2017 to 2020 and is the presumptive Republican nominee for the 2024 presidential election. His presidency was marked by the trade war with China and the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic. Trump is also a businessman and media personality. He runs a family real estate business and appeared on the TV show The Apprentice from 2004 to 2017. On May 31, 2024, he became the first U.S. president to be convicted of felony charges.

―Mandruss ☎ 21:37, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

I'll support this version. DN (talk) 21:45, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

@Darknipples: I've now changed "campaign" to "election". Just in case that changes your support. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:04, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

This seems to be a very neutral account for the lead. I support the changes suggested. Jurisdicta (talk) 02:45, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

Yeah I am definitely not a copy editor. I'm just trying to suggest a good neutral lede that could stand for at least the next few months without adjustment. And have that lede be in line with other articles for US Presidents. Outcast95 (talk) 05:01, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

Support this wording, which covers the most important points in a neutral fashion. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 11:58, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

Please let's refrain from changing the first sentence with this. C 50 is contentious as it is and there is an discussion to change it.

Removed mention of family business and apprentice. Those are already alluded to in the agreed upon first sentence and need no further expansion. Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section states that leads should be concise, not wordy. Revised lead below:

Donald John Trump (born June 14, 1946) is an American politician, media personality, and businessman who served as the 45th president of the United States from 2017 to 2021. His presidency was marked by the trade war with China and the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic. On May 31, 2024, he became the first U.S. president to be convicted of felony charges.

Editing-dude144 (talk) 13:38, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

Oppose any expansion, if anything we need to tighten the lede in general. Slatersteven (talk) 12:01, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

You want to tighten a lede that’s one-sentence long? Opportunity Rover (talk) 06:16, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

Oppose -- The existing single sentence is all that needs to be in the first paragraph. All of these other points should be covered chronologically in the rest of the lead. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 15:20, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

Donald J Trump convicted rapist of E. Jean Carrol

Donald J Trump is a convicted rapist for the rape/sexual assault of E. Jean Carrol 87.49.45.83 (talk) 12:19, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

He was found liable in a civil trial, not a criminal one. Wikentromere (talk) 12:21, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

He is not a convicted rapist, he was found liable in a civil trial and was not convicted by a jury of his peers in that regard. CIN I&II (talk) 05:00, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

Would it be accurate to say that he's an "adjudicated sexual abuser" or "adjudicated rapist" in the commonly understood use of the term? Jwueller (talk) 16:36, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

I believe the trial determined that Trump was (and is) a "forcible digital penetrator". Buster Seven Talk (UTC) 13:53, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

Burying the Lede

This edit is nonsense. Current consensus #50 regards the first sentence. Nothing about current consensus is violated by adding a second sentence to the first paragraph, and it is grossly irresponsible to bury something as historically significant and currently notable as the felony conviction of a former President. Rogue 9 (talk) 17:02, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

You ain't kidding, the sheer anal retentiveness is staggering Gold2040 (talk) 17:07, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

For clarity, how about a link to a diff instead of to a revision. ―Mandruss ☎ 17:11, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

Done, sorry about that. Rogue 9 (talk) 17:14, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

Granted, consensus 50 does not preclude a second sentence. So the editsum could have been better. But I can guarantee you that no BOLD edit regarding this conviction is going to be accepted without prior consensus, so it doesn't really matter. If I had seen that second sentence added, I would have reverted with the editsum "under discussion, no consensus". At this article, we don't trample on process because we feel it's "grossly irresponsible". This may differ from what you're used to elsewhere. ―Mandruss ☎ 17:31, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

We are talking about notable, verifiable facts of historic importance. If the consensus is to not include said facts, the consensus runs counter to the purpose of an encyclopedia. Rogue 9 (talk) 17:45, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

We do mention the notable, verifiable facts of historic importance in the lead. We're discussing whether and, if so, how to mention them in the first sentence or paragraph. Patience, he's going to be a convicted felon for a long time. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 17:55, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

Will he though? Considering the court case? Slamforeman (talk) 18:43, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

The signing of Trump Organization checks by a sitting president and colluding with Weisselberg to book them as business expenses as official acts? Hm — food for thought. I must have a flag around here somewhere I can fly upside down. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 19:00, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

Was it Cal Coolidge who said the business of America is business? Similarly, the business of Wikipedia is consensus. Not what individual editors claim is the purpose of an encyclopedia. That will never be seen as a legitimate argument around here, and there aren't any such trump cards in Wikipedia editing. You want to do something controversial, you get consensus for it. Period. ―Mandruss ☎ 18:17, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

Please define what is controversial about the fact that Trump is the first former President convicted of a felony. Is there a reliable source stating that some other former President was convicted first, or that the verdict read out in the Manhattan courthouse was fabricated? Rogue 9 (talk) 18:20, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

What's controversial is placing this in the first sentence, and, to a slightly lesser extent, in a second sentence. That is what you propose to do because it's the purpose of an encyclopedia. Placing it lower in the lead wouldn't be so much controversial in itself, but the exact placement and wording would likely need consensus anyway. The wheels of justice Wikipedia editing turn slowly. ―Mandruss ☎ 18:30, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

Well, you'd better hop on over to Richard Nixon and remove the statement that he's the only U.S. President to resign from the first paragraph there, then. This isn't different. Rogue 9 (talk) 18:33, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

He resigned in 1974, not two days ago. Also, he's dead, so BLP doesn't apply to him. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 18:41, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

With more experience, I think you'll find that one can find such comparisons to support pretty much anything—with interminable debates about apples and oranges (see preceding). It's a pointless waste of mental energy. ―Mandruss ☎ 18:44, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

I think the removal of the note was due to a misunderstanding — I didn't get it at first either. The editor was right in removing your bold edit since mention of the conviction in whatever shape or form to the first sentence or the first paragraph of the lead is under discussion right now. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 17:48, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

The RfC is specifically about the first sentence. Rogue 9 (talk) 18:18, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

I think you're right. Although it's not in the first sentence, I think the two editors think it's close enough to wait for a decision about the first sentence before proceeding with a discussion about putting it in the second sentence. That seems reasonable, or is there some urgency? You might try making your case at the RFC, even though it is about the first sentence. For example make the comment that you think it should be in the second sentence and why. I don't expect you'll get a consensus over there but you might get some ideas about it. In any case good luck and happy editing. Bob K31416 (talk) 18:50, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

If the closer saw a consensus for a new second sentence, I don't think they would have a problem with declaring it in their closure, regardless of the original framing of the RfC question. It's pretty common to have editors step outside the defined scope of an RfC. I'm known for saying that Wikipedia editors are cats that refuse to be herded. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:06, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

I made my position quite clear in the RfC before ever starting on this. We're here doing this because I am following Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle as directed in the notes in the edit field of the article. Rogue 9 (talk) 05:34, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying. I would recommend that you wait to see what happens with the RfC, especially since there does not seem to be any support here for your edit at this time. Bob K31416 (talk) 11:39, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

Did you really think you were being clever by adding "convicted felon" in a super-short second sentence, that this would bypass the consensus required for the opening? I mean, you really truly thought you found a silver bullet? Zaathras (talk) 18:52, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

Who said anything about a silver bullet? The consensus dictates the structure of the first sentence, not anything after it; if you want it to say something else, then it should say something else. This information belongs at the head of the article because the conviction of a former President is a notable and historic event. Rogue 9 (talk) 05:00, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

You're WP:GAMING. Let the discussion take place rather than trying to bypass it. — Czello ^(music) 19:03, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

I am most certainly not. The discussion is taking place and I have done nothing to prevent it. If it comes to the manifestly correct conclusion that Trump's singular status as a convicted former President should go in the first sentence, then great, that would be even better. Rogue 9 (talk) 05:02, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

This is gaming. By putting it into the second sentence you're simply bypassing the discussion above; it ignores the spirit of the discussion. — Czello ^(music) 08:30, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

But in that very same rfc, you have people arguing that its "only about the first sentence". the title of the rfc should be edited to reflect that Editing-dude144 (talk) 22:05, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

The presence of convicted felon/the jury's verdict in the lead is already under discussion. Yes, that discussion started as whether it should be in the first sentence or not, but it's clear from reading even the first dozen or two responses that the discussion is also over whether it should be in the second sentence, the first paragraph, a later paragraph, or not at all. Making an controversial edit while discussion is ongoing on the talk page is textbook edit warring. (ec resolved) -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 19:03, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

Current consensus page

Should the current consensus page be updated to remove all superseded or obsolete Entries? At present the current consensus page has a lot of entries which are superseded or obsolete, for example:
21. Superseded by #39
...
36. Superseded by #39
...
39. Supersedes #21 and #36. Do not include any paragraph regarding Trump's mental health or mental fitness for office. Do not bring up for discussion again until an announced formal diagnosis or WP:MEDRS-level sources are provided. This does not prevent inclusion of content about temperamental fitness for office. (RfC Aug 2019, July 2021)
The shear number of these entries makes the current consensus page longer than it otherwise would be.
Should we remove the superseded and obsolete entries such in the above example 21 and 36 would disappear and 39 would renumbered to 37 (presuming that those were the only two superseded entries in the whole list) and 37 would read:
37. Do not include any paragraph regarding Trump's mental health or mental fitness for office. Do not bring up for discussion again until an announced formal diagnosis or WP:MEDRS-level sources are provided. This does not prevent inclusion of content about temperamental fitness for office. (RfC Aug 2019, July 2021)?
Doing this would significantly reduce the current consensus page length and aid readability. TarnishedPath^talk 10:50, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

We can't renumber them as that would change which consensus people reference in existing edit summaries. --Nintendofan885^{T&Cs apply} 13:00, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

Why is that a problem? I'm sure people would be able to refer to the banner to see what number they want to use. TarnishedPath^talk 13:23, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

I think that was about past edit summaries and comments and the possibility that people will decide to make edits based on the new Consneus #54 rather than the old one. Slatersteven (talk) 13:25, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

I don't think that would be much of problem that would last more than the short term. Besides that didn't come across as what they meant. Anyway the benefits of having a much shorter Current consensus section would outweigh what you suggest as a problem. Having a shorter Current consensus section would make reading much faster and enable editors to have a grasp of consensus much faster. TarnishedPath^talk 13:32, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

I didn't mention anything about not shortened it, just about not renumbering. --Nintendofan885^{T&Cs apply} 15:28, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

We would lose the history of what was superseded or obsoleted and why that was done, and people reading the main space revision history would look up the wrong consensus items. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 14:48, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

Couldn't we move obsolete and superseded criteria to a separate subpage and then link it somewhere at the top of the consensus so people can still find the information on them? --Nintendofan885^{T&Cs apply} 15:36, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

Waaay out of my league — I can't even figure out how to continue a numbered list after adding a couple of bullet points after a numbered item. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 16:06, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

The concern could be partly addressed. Some of the superseded or obsolete items come in groups: 15–19, 23–24, 35–36. These could be respectively combined, resulting in three lines instead of nine.

FYI there was a proposal a month ago to collapse the whole consensus list [1]. 15:44, 3 June 2024 (UTC)Bob K31416 (talk)

15. Superseded by lead rewrite. 16. Superseded by lead rewrite. 17. Superseded by #50. 18. Superseded by #63. 19. Obsolete.

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

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

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

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

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

Really? To "save" four small-text lines? ―Mandruss ☎ 21:05, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time. I was thinking of this,

15. – 19. Superseded or obsolete

15. Superseded by lead rewrite

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

16. Superseded by lead rewrite

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

17. Superseded by #50

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

18. Superseded by #63

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

19. Obsolete

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

But if you don't like it, that's OK. No biggie for me. Bob K31416 (talk) 21:27, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

Fair enough, but cost exceeds benefit. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:42, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. Actually, it was pretty quick and easy. I could do it for the other two groups too, if it's OK. Bob K31416 (talk) 21:51, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

Doing it in the actual list is not OK with me, per my last. Little point in doing it in this thread; I think we get the idea. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:42, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

Oh, I thought you meant cost in the time doing it. Whatever cost you were referring to, it looks like it's not going anywhere so that's the end of it for me. Bob K31416 (talk) 22:53, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

Cost in added complexity, something often misunderstood or overlooked. Sorry for not being clear. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:57, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

Actually I think this is a good idea. Collapsing multiple entries in a row which are superseded or obsolete would address why I started this thread by a fair bit. TarnishedPath^talk 04:33, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

This is frankly silly. The superseded items used to be left "expanded" (uncollapsed) but stricken, as shown here. That worked adequately for awhile, then it was decided readability could be improved by collapsing them instead (I was initially opposed; but it has grown on me). That has worked just fine, and now we're complaining about the "difficulty" of having to visually skip the collapsed (and smaller-text) items and do a little more scrolling? Please. When it comes to trading simplicity for readability (dubious in this case), we're already past the point of diminishing returns. As Space4T indicated, we need this for history tracking, and it's fine where it is. ―Mandruss ☎ 03:57, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

I am not opposed to removing the superseded entries, but I am strongly opposed to renumbering, as it would be confusing and it would invalidate the archived discussions referring to it. So, as long as no renumbering is attempted, I support it. Melmann 08:51, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

I understand the reasons for not renumbering and think Bob has raised a great suggestion that doesn’t involve renumbering. TarnishedPath^talk 14:24, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

In case anyone is interested, the example I gave above uses the same type of source code that is already in use many times in the list. All it involved was putting before the group of items,

{{hide| 15. – 19. Superseded or obsolete |headerstyle=text-align:left; font-weight:normal; |multiline=yes |content=

and putting after the group of items,

}}

Bob K31416 (talk) 15:21, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

I'm going to do something I have never done before. I am asserting that editors who have worked with the list for years should have far more say in this matter. In this discussion to date, that's Slatersteven, Space4T, Bob K31416, and me. Others should give themselves time to get used to the list before forming judgments that would affect everyone now and future. Perspectives very often change with the passage of time. I won't give this up without doing everything in my power to prevent it. ―Mandruss ☎ 09:12, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

That’s not a policy based argument against change or cutting other editors out of discussion. Bob’s suggested above that it’s easy to implement. TarnishedPath^talk 14:20, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, we don't always need a policy to do something. And I never said it wouldn't be easy to implement. That is not the issue here. ―Mandruss ☎ 14:30, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

So, a steel-cage match between Captain Iar and Commander Randy. This should be fun. Zaathras (talk) 14:37, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

The suggestion may be easy to implement but it makes it much harder for people looking at the main space revision history to find the consensus item in question if they have to read all of them to find #22 mentioned as canceled or obsoleted in #38. And, again, I, for one, don't want to lose the history of each individual consensus item. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 15:24, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

lose the history I don't think any serious proposal would lose the history. One would move it to a different page; another would create this weird two-level collapsed structure for consecutive superseded/canceled/obsolete items; both to save some minimal eyeball travel and scrolling. Smh. I think some people should leave user interface design to people who have done that for a living. ―Mandruss ☎ 15:55, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

Why not just take all the obsolete items, and move them to a hatted section the end? That keeps all the numbering intact, and saves the most space without needing multi-level collapses. It would be more readable, keep the valid/important ones together at the top where they can be seen without scrolling through 100+ lines, and would be easier to maintain in the future. Items deprecated in the future could just be cut and pasted into the hatted section. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 23:32, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

Again, cost would exceed benefit. It would add a degree of complexity that would not be justified by the dubious, very minor at best, improvement in readability. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:48, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

An excellent idea. The added complexity would not be that great compared to the benefit. TarnishedPath^talk 00:26, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

Mention of businessman in first paragraph of lede

Since Trump was proven to have commited fraud, it is biased to highlight his business ventures without mentioning the fraud he has committed. Portraying some one as a businessman lends credibility to someone who has been proven to act in illegal capacities rather than just legitimate business. Editing-dude144 (talk) 23:03, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

 Not done See Talk:Donald Trump#Current consensus, item 50. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:48, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

Fixing the consensus list for mobile. ―Mandruss ☎ 15:14, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

how do you view the current consensus items? I honestly can't find them Editing-dude144 (talk) 00:22, 4 June 2024 (UTC) You were just provided a helpful link. Try clicking it. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:24, 4 June 2024 (UTC) Your link doesn't work. This one does Editing-dude144 (talk) 01:39, 4 June 2024 (UTC) It works for me. It has always worked for me and, presumably, everybody else (no complaints until yours). I don't know why it doesn't work for you. It's merely a section link, like Talk:Donald Trump#Home at birth. While one can link to the subpage, we usually link to the transcluded section on this page. It's also the first entry in the table of contents on this page. ―Mandruss ☎ 01:46, 4 June 2024 (UTC) None of this is visible/usable on a mobile device. This is the only link that has worked: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Donald_Trump/Current_consensus Editing-dude144 (talk) 01:49, 4 June 2024 (UTC) I did not know that, being mobile-ignorant. I wonder how mobile users have gotten by for so long, and this should be taken up with the developers, whoever they are. We do section links all the time, and not just for the consensus list. ―Mandruss ☎ 01:56, 4 June 2024 (UTC) @Mandruss: As a mobile editor, we can use section links, but we have to press an extra button to see talk page banners, like the consensus list. Section links therefore do not work for those banners. QuicoleJR (talk) 18:47, 4 June 2024 (UTC) @QuicoleJR: But our consensus list is not a banner. The transclusion is the only thing that makes it different from any other section on this page. I don't see why this would make a difference. Anyway, your comment seems to contradict Editing-dude144. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:20, 4 June 2024 (UTC) As a user who only ever edits on mobile, the mobile version of the site hides everything above the first level-2 section behind an extra click. QuicoleJR (talk) 20:24, 4 June 2024 (UTC) @QuicoleJR: I've moved the section heading from the subpage to this page. Can you see the consensus list now? ―Mandruss ☎ 20:32, 4 June 2024 (UTC) @Mandruss: Yup, that fixes the section link. QuicoleJR (talk) 20:55, 4 June 2024 (UTC) yes, ty! Editing-dude144 (talk) 14:06, 6 June 2024 (UTC) Well I'm glad we could get that fixed, some 6 or 7 years late (I've forgotten when the list became a subpage). Amazing this never came up. ―Mandruss ☎ 14:40, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

why can't we propose an addendum change to item 50 just as 50 did to #17 and just as rfc: convicted felon is attempting to do? Editing-dude144 (talk) 14:11, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

Every major company in America has convictions on record. Do you think that doesn't make them real businesses? That's just how business is conducted in the U.S. at least. TFD (talk) 01:43, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

Businesses and individuals are not treated the same way in journalism, so I fail to see how treatment of businesses is relevant to discussions about a single businessman Editing-dude144 (talk) 14:14, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

I think the point is being a crook does not stop him from being a businessman, in fact that if anything it is a given. Slatersteven (talk) 14:18, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

I agree with that point, but that doesnt conflict with my argument that mentioning one without the other is a source of bias.

The case of a business vs business man is key here b/c businesses can be reformed, leadership can be changed, and a certain amount of legal fighting is a given in the business world.

Personally commiting fraud is a different story. There is no internal restructuring, policy reform, or leadership changes to rebuild an individuals credibility.commiting fraud in your own personal capacity is a permanent blemish on one's credibility as a businessman. Note that many convicted of fraud, state it early in the lede and use terms such as "ceo" and "entrepeneur" Mehmet Aydın (fraudster) Sam Bankman-Fried. Others such Kenneth Lay refer to the person as a businessman and allude to the fraud before the info box. Trump does not deserve special treatment in comparison to other notable fraudsters Editing-dude144 (talk) 14:52, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

Ahh then I misunderstood your point, you would be OK with a mention in the second line like" and had been convicted of fraud"? Slatersteven (talk) 14:59, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

yes, 100% on board with a second line mention (although that may fall under the currently open rfc). As long as it comes before the infobox.

That being said, while the rfc on convicted felon resolves, I think we are obligated to remove mention of him being a businessman in the lede Editing-dude144 (talk) 15:10, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

Why? Even if EVERYTHING he ever did in business turned out to be illegal and corrupt, he would still have been a businessman. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 15:15, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

no one is saying he's not a businessman. I am arguing that the current description is misleading b/c it briefly touches on only the legitimate aspects of his buisiness ventures however his fraudulent business activity is not even alluded to (even though it is at least as significant if not more so.)

To eliminate bias/misinformation while the rfc resolves, we should either remove "businessman" or replace it with entrepeneur or more suitable language for cons. Editing-dude144 (talk) 16:00, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

"Businessman" says nothing about whether the business was legitimate or fraudulent, so how can it be misleading? He has businesses, he is famous because of those businesses. Whatever his criminal activity, he would still be famous just by running those businesses. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 21:06, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

No we are not, his fraud does not stop him from being a businessman. Slatersteven (talk) 15:17, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

As with convicted felon, the first sentence is not the place for such analyses. We keep it dry, bland, boring, and uncontroversial. ―Mandruss ☎ 15:27, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

Political prisoner

Trump has self-identified as a political prisoner. :Biden was asked his opinion of Trump's "political prisoner" claim, to which he smirked. Should this rhetoric be added to the article?GobsPint (talk) 18:48, 6 June 2024 (UTC) Sources:

• Piper, Jessica (May 30, 2024). "Trump campaign immediately fundraises: 'I'm a political prisoner!'". Politico. Retrieved 6 June 2024.
• "Trump in fundraising appeal: 'I'm a political prisoner'". New Vision. May 31, 2024.
• Herlihy, Brianna (31 May 2024). "Biden mocked for 'disturbing' smile after ignoring question about Trump being 'political prisoner'". Fox News. Retrieved 6 June 2024.
• Dixon, Matt (31 May 2024). "'These are bad people': Trump unloads after his historic guilty verdict". NBC News. Retrieved 6 June 2024.
• Allen, Mike (June 1, 2024). "Biden smile on Trump's 'political prisoner' claim makes campaign video". Axios. Retrieved 6 June 2024.
• "Trump claims he's a 'political prisoner' after guilty verdict". MSNBC.com. June 3, 2024. Retrieved 6 June 2024.
• CAMDESSUS, Camille (June 5, 2024). "Trump hails post-conviction fundraising bonanza | FOX 28 Spokane". Fox 28 Spokane. Retrieved 6 June 2024.
• McQuade, Barbara (June 6, 2024). "The real motivation behind GOP calls to prosecute Democrats". MSNBC.com. Retrieved 6 June 2024.
• "Column: Trump's pity party maligns America's real darkest days". Los Angeles Times. 6 June 2024. Retrieved 6 June 2024.

He says a lot of things so I don't think this is automatically a yes but if this becomes an significant and ongoing talking point for him, and it gets non-trivial coverage from Reliable Sources, then maybe. DanielRigal (talk) 22:13, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Lol, no. The Wikipedia does not traffic in delusion. Zaathras (talk) 22:15, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

I don't think the OP is proposing wikivoice. If there is adequate RS support, we can report delusions. As always, one question is (1) this article and a sub-article, or (2) only a sub-article. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:26, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Why did the OP add this article to Category:Political prisoners in the United States? – Muboshgu (talk) 04:14, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

Trump self-identified as a political prisoner per WP:RS to raise capital: [2], [3], [4], [5], [6]. GobsPint (talk) 06:03, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

He did self-identify that way, yes, but that doesn't make it so. WP:MANDY applies. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:21, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

Only if it receives sufficient on-going coverage. That would probably only happen if he became an actual prisoner. TFD (talk) 23:20, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Perhaps we need a new article on delusional claims. O3000, Ret. (talk) 00:02, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

That's what annotations are for.GobsPint (talk) 04:07, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

I self-identify as someone who doesn't believe this should be in the article. (I'm trans, I can make that joke.) LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 06:18, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

NO, as said he says a lot of things, many of them not true. Slatersteven (talk) 08:32, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

Following that logic, we'd best get rid of this section. And others. We shouldn't give him voice, but we should document his voice if DUE. The more partisan tack: If he's delusional, shouldn't our readers know that?

Sure, we've used your logic to omit lots of things Trump said, but only because they failed the DUE test (not because they weren't true). I'm not convinced that's the case here—and claiming that the entire American justice/legal system is corrupt, controlled by Democrats, and out to get him seems pretty significant to me—but I'll leave that to others. ―Mandruss ☎ 09:42, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

Not really as court cases were launched over those. This is just his opinion. By the way we can say "The entire American justice/legal system is corrupt, controlled by Democrats, and out to get him" using those very words, and not put in his claim he is a political prisoner. Slatersteven (talk) 10:41, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

Not that it matters for our purposes, but I don't think he's really delusional or paranoid. He's just shrewd enough to know that's his best strategy for re-election. The master at work. ―Mandruss ☎ 10:00, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

No. Seems to have been ignored by most RS. Politico mentions it in one sentence about the campaign fundraising page. Way down in a June 1 AP article I found one sentence mentioning that the Trump campaign had sent a fundraising text message calling him a "political prisoner" (AP’s quotation marks) and pointing out that he hasn’t been sentenced yet. PolitiFact appears to have fact-checked proactively, seeing as he’s currently missing the essential part of being a political prisoner, not having been sentenced to a prison term. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 11:47, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

Have you considered taking it to Donald_Trump_2024_presidential_campaign#Rhetoric or maybe a new Donald_Trump_2024_presidential_campaign#Platform subsection? Self-styled victim of deep-state persecution seems to be one of his recurring main talking points these days. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 15:52, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

• Note. For clarity, OP altered the timestamp of their first post after others had commented and added a bulleted list purportedly of sources where the "political prisoner" term is mentioned. (amended) (original). Zaathras (talk) 20:05, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

Do any of those sources say any thing other than "he has said"? Slatersteven (talk) 09:59, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

"...hush money payments to Stormy Daniels..." - request for more accurate description!

The lead presently has the words: a jury in New York found Trump guilty on 34 felony counts of falsifying business records related to a hush-money payment to Stormy Daniels, and the section on this issue in the article has the title Criminal conviction in Stormy Daniels hush money case. While the phrasing "hush money case" is popularly used, there are numerous citations that object to that depiction in the NY criminal case. The main issue, what made it a felony, was that the business records were falsified in an attempt to cover another crime - in this case, the crime was that $130,000 was "given" to the Trump campaign under the table, in violation of election law. The article at present does not describe this important aspect of the case. I would prefer a statement in the lead something like a jury in New York found Trump guilty on 34 felony counts of falsifying business records related an illegal contribution to the Trump campaign as a hush-money payment to Stormy Daniels. The Trump trial jury found that the payments violated election law, I believe; the payments to Daniels themselves were not illegal. This nuance is important given the extraordinary disinformation floating around! Bdushaw (talk) 01:54, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

I have personally heard multiple Trump supporters say things like "this is a made up case, because paying hush money isn't illegal!" - I've even heard non-supporters say things like that. It appears that some previous fence-sitters are now planning to vote for Trump, because they think this legal case is BS, and their misunderstanding is exactly as you describe, @Bdushaw. so I agree that some more clarity and specificity here would be good for our readers. Pecopteris (talk) 02:45, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

Well, the case is commonly referred to as the Stormy Daniels hush money case. If we call it something else, will readers find it?

• Courtesy of the New York Times's annotation of the indictment: Trump made and caused a false entry in the business records of an enterprise "with intent to defraud and intent to commit another crime and aid and conceal the commission thereof", the other crime — unnamed unspecified in the this indictment and not mentioned on the verdict sheet — being the scheme to violate election laws and to mischaracterize the hush-money payments for tax purposes. Cohen went to jail for the "other crime"; Trump wasn't indicted for it, but the prosecution used it to bump up the charges, 34 x falsifying business records, from a misdemeanor to an E felony, the lowest class of felony in New York State law.
• The verdict was commented by most media outlets as "34 felony counts of falsifying business records in his New York hush money criminal trial" or similar wording. Manhattan DA Bragg said at a press conference after the indictment that the alleged scheme was intended to cover up violations of New York election law, which makes it a crime to conspire to illegally promote a candidate and that the $130,000 payment exceeded the federal campaign contribution cap.

We could add the gist of Bragg's statement to the second paragraph of Donald Trump#Criminal conviction in Stormy Daniels hush money case but I oppose adding more detail to the lead. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 09:54, 7 June 2024 (UTC) Bold content added for clarification. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 14:44, 7 June 2024 (UTC) Adding further clarification in bold italics. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 17:43, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

References

Thanks for that extra clarification! It seems like an interesting situation regarding the other crime, if it's the one that is a violation of campaign finance law by Cohen. It appears that it is one of various crimes that Michael Cohen pled guilty to in a previous prosecution as part of a plea agreement. It's the one of paying hush money that was alleged at the time to be a violation of campaign finance law. So the crime was never proved, and was part of a plea deal with various other unrelated crimes of Michael Cohen that may have been accepted by Cohen to get the plea deal. So Trump's charge was upped to a felony, based on a crime that was never proved, but was stated by the prosecutor in another case and by the defendant as part of a plea deal that involved several other unrelated crimes. I think this is in a reliable source somewhere but I'm not sure. Maybe it will appear more prominently in reliable sources when the case is appealed. Bob K31416 (talk) 15:02, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

He was convicted. I hope we're not going to get in the situation we have at Ahmaud Arbery and George Floyd with years of editors claiming they weren't murdered. O3000, Ret. (talk) 15:30, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

Huh? You mean the plea bargain that excised Trump's name from the proceedings, proved that — deal-wise — Cohen was no match for Trump's Justice Department, and sent him into solitary confinement? Cohen pleaded guilty to "charges of tax evasion, making false statements to a federally-insured bank, and campaign finance violations", per the Southern District of NY. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 18:00, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

BTW, in New York, misdemeanors are criminal offenses that can get you up to one year in jail, not just a slap on the wrist. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 21:03, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

Is it necessary to include he's a Teetotal?

Underneath the health section is it possible to include that he is a teetotal. He said in a recent interview and I found this article from the New York Times [7] Serrwinner (talk) 20:44, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

 Done Iamreallygoodatcheckers ^talk 00:36, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

Undone. Biden is one as well. It is an unimportant piece of trivia. Zaathras (talk) 01:28, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

@Zaathras: Yea, Biden is one, and it's also in his article and in more detail than what I inserted for this article. Maybe you should hop over there and remove it too. Iamreallygoodatcheckers ^talk 01:32, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

That won't be necessary, I just did. The mention on Biden’s page was added to the "Early life" section on April 10, 2024, no reason given. The source was a post Mark Leibovich wrote in the NY Times "Caucus" blog in 2008, "Riding the Rails with Amtrak Joe". Leibovich cites Biden answering a reporter in the large pulk that started to accompany Biden after Obama picked him for VP. The reporter had asked Biden why he ordered cranberry juice. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 11:18, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

I don't think it's unimportant. It's been a significant part of discussions and information about him for a long time. As to whether Biden has similar reasons for not drinking or doing drugs is entirely irrelevant in relationship to an article about Trump, because the article is about Trump, not about Biden, and the article is not a comparison of the two. As to whether it's true or not? I don't know. We do know that Trump's Whitehouse had a lot of prescription medications being given out in recent reporting on the subject, but I don't know if we have any information on who this medication was given to or prescribed for. Centerone (talk) 01:38, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

@Zaathras: that is utterly irrelevant, and frankly, betrays an overtly political perspective on editing. Riposte97 (talk) 05:18, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

It is not at all irrelevant, and your comment addresses nothing in what I said. Kindly refrain from pinging me if you have nothing to say, please. Zaathras (talk) 01:16, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

There's no shortage of discussion about this in the archives. I see consensuses to include different specific content in 2018 and in 2021, but I haven't done exhaustive (and exhausting) research and didn't run across a later consensus to say nothing. I encourage someone to look deeper, someone who's better at that than I. Certainly, previous consensus should carry weight even if there is no item in the consensus list. This does not meet our traditional criteria for revisitation of a consensus: the situation has not changed, and there are no significant new arguments.

Once we have determined what the existing consensus is, perhaps a consensus item would be in order to avoid spending further time on this. ―Mandruss ☎ 02:13, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

The article is more than three years old, and it says that both major party candidates abstaining from alcohol has drawn so little notice is to some extent evidence of how the once hard-drinking culture of politics is changing, and Mr. Biden and Mr. Trump rarely discuss their non-drinking ways, much less present their abstinence as any kind of virtue. WP:WEIGHT applies. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 12:14, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

I'd argue that "hard-drinking culture of politics is changing" lends weight in a historical context. That it isn't a campaign topic does not mean much to a wiki-bio. Historical context does. JackTheSecond (talk) 15:11, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

For comparison, there's Iamreallygoodatcheckers addition,

Trump is a teetotaler,[23][24]

which would have preceded this item that is currently in the article,

Trump has called golfing his "primary form of exercise" but usually does not walk the course.[23] He believes exercise depletes the body's energy "like a battery, with a finite amount of energy".[24]

which can be compared to the presentation of this item in the article,

In 2020, the White House hosted the signing of agreements, named Abraham Accords, between Israel and the United Arab Emirates and Bahrain to normalize their foreign relations.[376]

Bob K31416 (talk) 03:02, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

Here's the "Health habits" section in 2021. It was gradually reduced. The last time Trump’s claim of never having smoked or drunk alcohol was mentioned was on April 25, 2022. It was gone the next day, and this is the edit that removed it. I went through the archives until the end of 2022, didn’t find any discussion. Looks as though the general reaction was either "meh" or "good riddance" or both. We don’t actually know whether Trump ever drank alcohol or smoked. He was reported as saying that he never did, and we know the man has never uttered a lie in his life, though 30,000+ falsehoods during his presidency alone. It’s a trivial detail, and I oppose reinserting it. Also, remarkable how some of the editors who keep cutting content now want to add this. What’s next, his hair? We mentioned that, too, at one time. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 11:18, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

Trivial Slatersteven (talk) 11:23, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

Should obviously be included. The article even has a seperate health section --FMSky (talk) 23:23, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

Agree it should be mentioned. It's a rather unusual detail, and that makes it significant. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 23:44, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

Agreed that it is notable and should be mentioned, but rather than saying "Donald Trump is a teetotal", something like "Donald Trump has stated that he has never consumed alcohol" would be better. Pecopteris (talk) 23:50, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

It's not unusual, according to the source cited by the OP: has drawn so little notice is to some extent evidence of how the once hard-drinking culture of politics is changing. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 11:07, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

It should be included, per Valjean. Fred Trump Jr. died from alcoholism in 1981, fwiw soibangla (talk) 23:57, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

Undue and trivial. Unusual != significant. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:21, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

The very term we're talking about ("teetotaler") is a near 200-year-old euphemism of Temperance societies. It does not belong in an encyclopedia to describe a person of the 21-st century. Beyond that, Donald Trump's life does not center on alcohol awareness or avoidance. He has proposed no legislation, advances no agenda, and does not regularly give lectures or speeches on abstinence. It is just a piece of trivia, on par with a favorite color or favorite food. Zaathras (talk) 01:16, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

@Zaathras, I agree about the term teetotaler, which is why I proposed a different wording. I disagree with your other statements.

Trump has also never proposed legislation, advanced an agenda, or regularly given lectures or speeches on the topic of bankruptcy. Ditto for multiple other topics that are covered in the article, so I don't think your criteria from inclusion stands up to scrutiny. He has discussed his choice to abstain from alcohol multiple times over the years, due to his family history, and if you want to really understand who the man is, that's one piece of the puzzle. I can see how adding it to the article would benefit our readers, but I cannot see how consciously excluding it benefits our readers at all. On the contrary. Pecopteris (talk) 02:12, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

1. Identify the most recent consensus in the archives. I believe this will be a consensus to include, and to include something very specific. 2. Re-implement that consensus. 3. Add an item to the consensus list to prevent this from happening again. 4. Move on to the next earth-shattering issue.

The fact that people forgot about a consensus is not a valid reason to revisit it. A change in the editor mix is not a valid reason to revisit it. Process errors are to be corrected, even if discovered years later. ―Mandruss ☎ 02:23, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

The section identified by SpaceTime above is the most recent in-depth discussion I could find. Riposte97 (talk) 04:20, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

Good. Step 1 is completed, and discussion should cease at this point. ―Mandruss ☎ 04:34, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

The discussion took place in February 2021 and didn't make it onto the consensus list. The BOLD edit in April 2022 wasn't challenged for two years, i.e., any reinsertion of the content now is another BOLD edit, according to you and NeilN. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 11:07, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

The consensus list is a convenience tool; it doesn't add strength to a consensus (people trying to make that so has been one of the objections to consensus lists, as we saw recently at AN; don't be that guy). And a consensus doesn't have to be in the list to count.

Unless you claim that Feb21 was not a consensus, Apr22 was a process error. Process errors are never legitimate process, no matter how long it takes to discover them. So the de facto consensus argument doesn't hold water. Let's not compound one error with another. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:17, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

I agree with Space4T - at this point the restoration is the process error, particularly the restoration of material other than drinking which is not addressed in this discussion. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:26, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

@Mandruss: Your edit here breaches the 24h BRD requirement - please self-revert. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:26, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

First, I agree with Space4T may be asserting support that you don't have. He has not commented since my last, so it's just as likely he was swayed by my reasoning. Not that it matters, but I received explicit support from Valjean and a "thank" from Riposte97.

Your rationale appears to be that a process error ceases to be one if it is not detected for two years. That is a rationale I will never accept, since it means process is as flawed as the humans using it. Process errors must be correctable without a time limit.

Had the Feb2021 consensus been in the consensus list, the Apr22 change would never have been accepted without a superseding consensus. The fact that nobody chose to add it to the list, while unfortunate in hindsight, changes nothing.

As for revisiting the consensus, I would oppose that since I don't see that anything has changed except the editor mix. I have never thought that was a valid reason to revisit a consensus, since it allows consensus to swing back and forth with the wind, resulting in supersessions upon supersessions theoretically without end as editors come and go. There's no reason to believe that Group B's judgment is better than Group A's merely because it comes later. However, unlike the rest of this, that's just one editor's strong viewpoint. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:32, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

If you want to put forward an argument based on the inviolability of process, then it becomes even more necessary for you to self-revert. You made an edit and it was reverted; you cannot immediately restore it, as there isn't an exemption in the CTOP process for edits that you believe to be correct.

The existence of a previous discussion neither precludes any further edits nor requires that any such edits be reverted. These were not, establishing a new status quo. This quite simply is not a process error at all - this is how Wikipedia works. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:11, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

@Nikkimaria: No. BOLD edits against documented consensus are not allowed, never have been allowed, never will be allowed. The fact that it was missed in Apr22 is completely irrelevant. This is not something subject to consensus, and it certainly is NOT how Wikipedia works. As I said here, you are free to argue that the situation surrounding the Feb21 consensus has changed. You have yet to argue that, let alone get consensus for it. You are not free to trample process because it gets in your way. This can go to AE if necessary, and, if they ruled against me, it might be a good time for my full retirement. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:29, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

@Mandruss: What are you basing your assertions here on? I don't see anything in the CTOP provision to support your edit, nor anything in policy that agrees with the assertions you've made in this discussion. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:35, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

@Nikkimaria: I am basing my assertions on nine years of widely, almost universally accepted practice at this article. At least one admin actively participates here, other admins have in the past (MelanieN, NeilN, etc.) and no doubt more than a few others pay enough attention to know what's been going on for nine years. To my knowledge, none—zero—have voiced any objection to how things have been done here. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:45, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

@Mandruss: "How things have been done here" is not a policy that you can require others to follow, particularly not when it contradicts actual written rules - and particularly not if you want it to be "not something subject to consensus". Nikkimaria (talk) 00:56, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

Please quote the policy that an editor can BOLDly edit against an established consensus because they disagree with it. ―Mandruss ☎ 01:23, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

BOLD invites editors to be bold in editing articles; it doesn't include a limitation of "unless the section has ever been discussed". That's because Wikipedia evolves over time, and so does consensus. The fact that something was discussed years ago doesn't outweigh the fact that a different version was in place for years after that. And it definitely doesn't justify contravening CTOP requirements. That is the process error here, and I'd ask again that you revert yourself. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:55, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

I'll ask again that you Please quote the policy that an editor can BOLDly edit against an established consensus because they disagree with it. The fact that you haven't done so after my challenge strongly suggests that you can't because no such policy exists. You're demanding policy from me while refusing to offer any yourself, not a good look. I'll decline your request for self-revert in the article and counter with a request to self-revert in the consensus list. ―Mandruss ☎ 02:50, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

I've pointed you to BOLD, where you can plainly see that the hard-and-fast limits you've proposed don't exist. That's more than you've put forward to support your position.

The 2021 discussion was superseded by a subsequent version unchallenged for years, so at this point adding the 2021 discussion to the consensus list would be inappropriate.

On the other hand, CTOP does have a hard-and-fast rule: "an edit that is challenged by reversion may not be reinstated by the editor who originally made it until the editor (a) posts a talk page message discussing the edit and (b) waits 24 hours from the time of the talk page message." You'll note there's no reference there to exceptions based on the basis for the edit. This edit was a process error even if every other word you've posted here were correct. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:19, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

I have now read BOLD from top to bottom. I see nothing saying or implying that an editor can BOLDly edit against an established consensus because they disagree with it. It does say: "On controversial articles, the safest course is to be cautious and find consensus before making changes [...]"—and that's without an existing consensus in place. Sorry, but it's insufficient to throw shortcuts around and tie your own interpretations to them. That is a newbie mistake unworthy of you. But it appears we're at an impasse pending other participation. I'd be interested to hear from admin Awilley, for one. ―Mandruss ☎ 03:29, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

Mandruss, for as long as I can remember, there was some small print at the bottom of the American Politics template listing the "discretionary sanctions" for this page. That small print had some exceptions to the 1RR, Consensus Required, and later BRD rules that allowed reverting things like vandalism and edits that went against an explicit consensus. I think the consensus list at the top of this page became a thing because of that exemption. But I don't know if those exemptions made it through ArbCom's more recent rewrite of DS/contentious topic restrictions. I checked the template at the top of this page, and I don't see the exemptions anymore. I haven't been tracking things very closely for the past couple of years, so I'm probably not the best person to ask about recent meta here. ~Awilley (talk) 05:59, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

Note this phrase at the top of the consensus list: It is recommended to link to this list in your edit summary when reverting.... That phrase has been unchanged and unchallenged since it was added in December 2016, showing that it's routine to revert a BOLD edit against an existing consensus. Exactly that has been done without objection hundreds or thousands of times; it could not possibly be any more accepted. Since a list item adds no special status to a consensus, my revert per the unlisted Feb21 consensus was no different and no less legitimate. That leaves you with nothing but a dubious claim about a 24-hr BRD vio—I don't think that applies in this situation, and it seems like wikilawyering at best—but I'd be happy to join you at AE if you want to press the point. Anything further between you and me would likely be circular and repetitive, so let's see if we can avoid that. ―Mandruss ☎ 05:24, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

Leaving aside the rest of that comment for the moment, why do you believe CTOP does not apply to you? Nikkimaria (talk) 05:40, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

I object to your premise that I do. I don't recall seeing anyone taken to AE for enforcing well-established process too aggressively, let alone successfully. I'm prepared to be the first. As I suggested, I don't need Wikipedia—and Wikipedia certainly does not need me. ―Mandruss ☎ 05:48, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

You assert that "I don't think that [CTOP] applies in this situation". Is the basis for this assertion simply that you haven't seen it enforced, or do you have a rationale for why it actually doesn't apply? Nikkimaria (talk) 05:53, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

I just checked Mandruss's edits and I can't see the alleged BRD violation. I see one revert followed immediately by a talk page post, then another revert more than 24 hours later, with both reverts pointing to a past discussion. That seems, to me, to be within the letter and the spirit of the BRD rule. In any case, I think it may be best to just move forward from here. It doesn't matter if this particular sentence is in the article while you hammer out the details here. ~Awilley (talk) 06:17, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

@Awilley: It doesn't matter if this particular sentence is in the article while you hammer out the details here. Sure, as long as it's understood that the consensus content will be retained/restored if there is no consensus to change it here. My way seems more straightforward and less likely to be abused because the process has been muddied (editors supporting "status quo" without understanding the history of the issue), but the end result would be the same if it's handled correctly. ―Mandruss ☎ 06:40, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

Absolutely not. Should the discussion end with no consensus the preceding status quo prevails. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:10, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

I'll take that as strong disagreement with what I said. "Absolutely not" sort of implies you have some authority in the matter. As I've said previously, process errors must be correctable without a time limit. There is little question that the "preceding status quo" was a process error. I don't think even you dispute that. Or do you? ―Mandruss ☎ 20:53, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I do. There is no rule on Wikipedia that requires anyone to revert. While I appreciate you would prefer that someone had, the fact that no one did is not an error, and does not support ignoring the consensus arrived at through editing since the last discussion. Nor does it change the result of a no-consensus outcome. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:23, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

As I've said previously, the Apr22 change would've been immediately reverted—as a process error—had the Feb21 consensus been in the list. I don't think even you would've objected to that revert. Or would you? Your logic that it stopped being a process error because it wasn't detected for two years just does not hold water. I will accept that logic when you point to PAG language to the effect: "Process errors cease being process errors if not detected for years." Until then, this is nothing more than your opinion, so please stop claiming policy support for it. I'm very sorry this situation is not addressed in PAGs one way or the other; absent that, we are left to what actually makes sense. It does not make sense to give content (or removal/absence of content) legitimacy because it slipped through the cracks due to human error.

For a recent precedent, you can refer to Talk:Donald Trump/Archive 167#Net worth update, where consensus item 5 was found to be in error (not an accurate summary of the underlying discussions) ~six years late. Instead of changing the item to reflect longstanding article content, we changed it to reflect the discussions without objection. Now the article content, the consensus item, and the discussions are all in alignment, as it should always be. So correct process, NOT article content, is the primary arbiter around here. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:58, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

What you're describing as my logic is not my logic at all. The Apr22 change could have been reverted then. It was not required to be reverted, then or now. That something that was not required did not happen is not an error, then or now. To assert that it requires reverting back to a years-old discussion and ignoring everything that's transpired since then is not "what actually makes sense". And even that pales in comparison to your last assertion. One of the fundamental principles upon which Wikipedia is based is that if a rule prevents you from improving Wikipedia, ignore it. Not "if article content gets in the way of correct process, ignore it". That assertion is incompatible with what we're all meant to be doing here, and any argument based on it "just does not hold water". Nikkimaria (talk) 23:44, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

At the end of the day, your views are incompatible with nine years of practice at this article, and that practice is not going to change until there is widespread editor support to change it or there is an ArbCom dictate to change it. Here, a talk page consensus is in effect until cancelled or superseded by subsequent talk page consensus, even if that's five years or fifty. We do not allow attempts to supersede talk page consensus by BOLD editing (hence all the "DO NOT CHANGE WITHOUT PRIOR CONSENSUS PER CONSENSUS X" hidden comments in the article). It is pointless for us to continue arguing about it. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:25, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

Be extremely careful with any argument based on WP:IAR in a contentious article. Consensus is hard fought in these articles requiring huge amounts of editor time. If text has existed for a lengthy period, it is disruptive to boldly change it. Gain consensus. O3000, Ret. (talk) 00:33, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

Unless it has existed (or not existed) clearly out of process. In that case we don't need consensus to change it. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:47, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

It seems to me your options are:

• Grudgingly adapt to how we do things here, like everybody else. None of us get the Wikipedia we want. This is my preference since I think someone with your experience could be a valuable contributor here.
• Try to get widespread editor support for a change.
• Try to get ArbCom to issue a dictate for a change. If you're as obviously right as you think you are, that shouldn't be too difficult.
• Find an article more to your liking.

That's a lot of options. Not an option:

• Continue to argue about this, loudly and at great length, every time it comes up, which will be fairly often. That would likely be seen as disruption. ―Mandruss ☎ 01:34, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

I don't think that 24-hr BRD applies in this situation. Nine years of actual practice outweighs any written rules, including CTOP. I honestly doubt the community means for 24-hr BRD to apply to process enforcement. It's about content issues, maybe sometimes fuzzy process issues, but never in my experience clear process issues. When EditorB reverts EditorA per an existing consensus, and EditorA re-reverts, EditorA will be re-re-reverted and will end up at AE if they persist (which has virtually never happened). As I indicated, I've yet to see EditorB go to the talk page to discuss their revert, let alone taken to AE with a 24-hr BRD vio complaint. If EditorB's revert was correct, no discussion or 24-hr wait is required. Very little at Wikipedia is so absolute, nor would we want it to be. That's just how it has to be until there is an independent Wikipedia police force.

And you're still wielding acronyms without pointing to specific language; where is it written that our nine years of actual practice has been wrong? Please stop doing that. ―Mandruss ☎ 06:22, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

You provided that answer yourself, with your claim that "Nine years of actual practice outweighs any written rules, including CTOP". You're preferencing your interpretation of common practice at the page, which is apparently documented nowhere, over documented, site-wide procedure. What's more, you're doing it to defend an action that is not common practice at this page or anywhere else that I'm aware of - to revert to a years-old discussion version when a different version was accepted and remained stable for years in the interim. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:10, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

• It's just as significant as him playing golf as exercise or the battery thing. It adds 4 words to the article. I mean it's whatever I guess 🤷 Iamreallygoodatcheckers ^talk 04:29, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

  I'd object to "teetotaler", too, and the sources only have Trump's word for it, so we'd have to attribute the info to him. Meanwhile his golfing habit is extremely visible, and "the battery thing" along with his habit of not exercising has been reported by numerous sources as outlandishly weird (in Kranish/Fisher and O'Donnell (works cited), I'll have to check other books on Trump; New Yorker, CNN, Vox. People abstaining from alcohol isn't unusual these days. On the other hand: "a relaxing glass of schnapps might have kept him out of Poland" in NATO? Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 12:16, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

"It does not belong in an encyclopedia to describe a person of the 21-st century" It's mentioned in other articles like Warren Buffett and Cristiano Ronaldo though, and I'm sure others too. Serrwinner (talk) 04:29, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

Step 2 completed.[8] ―Mandruss ☎ 03:52, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

Well done. Thanks for restoring that consensus version. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 04:05, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

Step 3 completed.[9] Step 4 is up to individual editors and beyond my control. ―Mandruss ☎ 05:04, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

USMCA/Trade agreement section of lead

Currently the lead has a sentence related to trade and international agreements: 'Trump initiated a trade war with China and withdrew the U.S. from the proposed Trans-Pacific Partnership trade agreement, the Paris Agreement on climate change, and the Iran nuclear deal.'

Given that the question of withdrawing from or replacing NAFTA was an extremely prominent feature of the 2016 campaign and heavily featured in mainstream media sources that meet Wikipedia's criteria for reliability, I modified this sentence to 'Trump initiated a trade war with China, replaced NAFTA with the United States–Mexico–Canada Agreement, and withdrew the U.S. from the proposed Trans-Pacific Partnership trade agreement, the Paris Agreement on climate change, and the Iran nuclear deal.'

This edit was reverted on the grounds that the USMCA/replacement of NAFTA is not leadworthy. It seems as notable if not more notable than the decision to withdraw from the Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement, which is mentioned in the lead. If the lead is going to have a sentence on trade agreements, the trade agreement that was most prominent throughout Trump's presidency should likely be included. Onyxqk (talk) 19:46, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

Of course this is notable and leadworthy. No brainer. I liked your edit and I'm surprised it was reverted. Pecopteris (talk) 19:50, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

As did I. I thought it added important information. Riposte97 (talk) 00:03, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

Considering that USMCA "largely maintains or updates the provisions of its predecessor", I don't see the point. Little has changed, whether NAFTA or USMCA. This is not the large-scale change that the other things mentioned were. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 12:54, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

This exactly. Even the article on the USMCA states in it's opening that it's largely just NAFTA again, just with a different name. It's not nearly as impactful as the trade war with China. Cortador (talk) 11:50, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

The impact of USMCA seems larger than some of the other items included in the lead that only existed for brief periods of time/had limited actual impact (such as the withdrawal from the Paris Agreement, which was only in effect for a period of a few months before being reversed by President Biden). It was one of the main topics pertaining to trade discussed in reliable sources during the presidential campaign and Trump's presidency, and still is in place impacting trade relations across North America.

From the Wikipedia page on the Paris agreement: 'The U.S. government deposited the notification with the Secretary General of the United Nations and officially withdrew one year later on 4 November 2020. President Joe Biden signed an executive order on his first day in office, 20 January 2021, to re-admit the United States into the Paris Agreement. Following the 30-day period set by Article 21.3, the U.S. was readmitted to the agreement.' Onyxqk (talk) 21:02, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

Trump made a big noise about renegotiating or cancelling NAFTA, but the outcome was basically NAFTA-with-streamers-on-the-handlebars. Yawn. Trump withdrew from the Paris Agreement, sending shockwaves throughout the international community. Rejoining was part of Biden's strategy to reassure the world that the US was back to normal. User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 18:33, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

Trump's involvement in this was minimal. It's UNDUE. See previous talk page discussions. SPECIFICO talk 14:11, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

From the Wikipedia page on USMCA, Trump's involvement in the agreement at a high level does not appear to be minimal (presumably Trump's personal involvement in the specific details of the final trade agreement was limited, as is fairly typical for trade agreements): 'The present agreement was the result of more than a year of negotiations including possible tariffs by the United States against Canada in addition to the possibility of separate bilateral deals instead. During the 2016 U.S. presidential election, Donald Trump's campaign included the promise to renegotiate NAFTA, or cancel it if re-negotiations were to fail. Upon election, Trump proceeded to make a number of changes affecting trade relations with other countries — withdrawing from the Paris Agreement, ceasing to be part of negotiations for the Trans-Pacific Partnership, and significantly increasing tariffs with China — reinforcing that he was serious about seeking changes to NAFTA, while drawing wide criticism as well.' Onyxqk (talk) 20:49, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

RfC: Should consensus 22 (not calling Trump a "liar" in Wikipedia's voice) be cancelled?

Issue: In a 2017 RfC, it was determined that this article should not refer to Donald Trump as a "liar" or statements by Trump as "lies". This consensus has recently been challenged in this discussion.

Question: Should consensus 22 (not calling Trump a "liar" in Wikipedia's voice) be cancelled?

Cortador (talk) 19:53, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

Tagging editors involved in the above discussion:@Iamreallygoodatcheckers @Space4Time3Continuum2x @Riposte97 @Mandruss @Valjean Cortador (talk) 19:56, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

Discussion

• No (Summoned by bot) "Canceled" in favor of what exactly? Where is the place in the article you think we should call Trump a liar? I don't see a neutral, encyclopedic way to refer to someone as a liar, when we have "makes false statements" right there. As for calling individual falsehoods lies, I'm a bit more open to that, and it's fine if it's a direct quotation. But honestly, I think this RfC isn't stated clearly and you could do a whole RfC just for "lies". TheSavageNorwegian 23:52, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

  In favour of not having an article-specific editorial policy stating that subject of the article cannot be called a "liar" in Wikivoice independently from what RS state, just like basically any other article on Wikipedia. This RfC wasn't opened to replace this policy with another specific one, but to see whether there is consensus to cancel it. Cortador (talk) 06:43, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

  I'm pretty sure we don't call other article subjects liars in their articles either. It's just that in this one, the topic keeps getting raised repeatedly. It's just an extension of no contentious MOS:LABELs. My instinct is the minute we remove such a policy the topic will immediately arise again. It's doing no harm as-is. TheSavageNorwegian 14:50, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

  What other subjects are called liars or people who lie by RS? Effectively banning a description used by RS isn't avoiding labels, it's a NPOV violation. Cortador (talk) 17:18, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

• No This is an encyclopedia entry, not a persuasive essay. There is already an entire article about Donald Trump's false or misleading statements, which is linked in this article. That will suffice. Pecopteris (talk) 23:55, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

No (bot summons) As Pecopteris points out, his false or misleading statements are extensively documented, and when was the last time WP called anyone a liar in wikivoice? Reading the linked discussion, I see nothing really novel or convincing. Cheers, RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 00:23, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

Comment We would need to see evidence that "Donald Trump is a liar" has become an oft-repeated mainstream point-of-view since 2017, in reliable sources. Has it? Zaathras (talk) 01:02, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

There is list of sources that is part of the discussion I liked to, as well as a list of sources in the original 2017 discussion. Cortador (talk) 06:46, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

• No/Bad RfC - I don't think this RfC is needed right now, especially with two other fairly significant and contentious ones going on at the same time, and this is an already settled issue and I'm not seeing wide call to rehash it. Otherwise, no, Trump should not be called a "liar" in wiki voice. Being called such would constitute a contentious label, which are "best avoided unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject" and even still "in-text attribution" ought to be used, not placing the label in wiki voice. I've quickly searched for reliable source's characterizing Trump as a liar and have been left empty handed. Also, no reliable sourcing has been provided by those who support characterizing Trump as such in wiki voice. Furthermore, the existence of consensus item 22, as pointed out by Mandrus, Valjean, Space4Time, among others in the above discussion, does not conflict with calling many of the false statements by Trump "lies." There is a distinction between labeling someone as a "liar" and reporting how reliable sources have characterized someone's false statement's as lies. The latter is permissible if deemed to be due weight and neutral; though I think it's neutral, I've raised weight concerns for this specific article in the above discussion since I find it to be a largely semantic thing for an article in summary-level detail. Even though reporting something as a lie does imply the person is a liar, implying something is not the same as stating something, and it's also possible to lie and not be a full-fledged liar, and whether or not Trump is that is not a decision for us to make. Iamreallygoodatcheckers ^talk 07:23, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

• No. Not encyclopedic language, and the lack of veracity around Trump's statements is already abudently clear. I can't see what benefit there would be to adding the word 'lie' in Wikivoice, and would make the NPoV arguments about this article considerably worse. — Czello ^(music) 07:02, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
• No/Bad RfC I am unsure that any politicians tell the truth (or any businessman), I am unsure therefore that Trump is unique there. Also I dislike RFC's that ask open questions. Slatersteven (talk) 11:21, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

  I don't understand you position. If you are unsure if Trump is unique, why do you support a special editorial policy that only exists for the article about him? Cortador (talk) 13:00, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

• No How is this not a MOS:CONTENTIOUS label? – Muboshgu (talk) 15:20, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
• No - Best to leave it as is. GoodDay (talk) 20:07, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
• No In an effort to WP:Dropthestick, I simply add my voice to the chorus here and move on my merry way. Penguino35 (talk) 13:42, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
• Yes/support of partial revision. We should not use the word "liar" but the word "lie(s) " is justified when the claim is shown to be a falsehood and it is shown that the subject knew it was false at the time of making it. By partially revising C22 to only apply to "liar" we can make the rules concise such that it *would* be MOS:CONTENTIOUS to override it. But as it stands now, the word "lie" is not a value-laden descriptor.

Editing-dude144 (talk) 13:47, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

Jk misread c22. But it is exceedingly confusingly worded. We should revise it to mention that the word "lie" is permitted when intent is provenEditing-dude144 (talk) 14:56, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

• No. There is no justifiable reason to overturn the previous consensus. JoseJan89 (talk) 20:19, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
• Partial yes - if he lied, and it’s reported as a lie or falsehood in reliable sources, there is no reason editors should have to juggle words and call it “a false statement” rather than “a lie”. That is a simple synonym that will save space in this article when discussing his false statements. That said, there is no reason that we should be calling him a liar in wikivoice. As House MD says, Everybody Lies. Find me someone who hasn’t told a lie in their life, and I’ve found your newest liar to add to the list (or something like that). So yes, it’s inappropriate to label him as a “liar” - but it’s not inappropriate to call specific statements he made lies if that is the shortest/most concise way to express their falsehood. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 20:28, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

  To clarify, and I’m making this comment after preview so I’m indenting it, but I think there should be no restriction on calling a false statement a lie if and only if reliable sources call it a lie or a known falsehood. The consensus currently makes it sound like things should not be called lies in the article at all - and I think there should be a different discussion over when things should be called lies or not. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 20:28, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

  The difference between a false statement and a lie is that the term lie implies intention to deceive. You would need a psychiatric assessment to determine that, not just a reporter with a BA in communications. A conviction of perjury, lying to federal officials etc. would probably be sufficient as well. TFD (talk) 16:13, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

  I don't believe most readers interpret lie to be "intention to deceive". Anything known to be false, even if used as hyperbole, is a "lie" in the common use of the word. Wiktionary (meaning 3, noun), M-W meaning noun2-1b, and other dictionaries don't universally require that it be done with intent to deceive either. The common meaning of the word "lie" is "falsehood", not that it's intending to deceive, and we should allow editors to call things lies with 3-4 characters rather than having to dance around their words. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 00:51, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

  I don't believe most readers interpret lie to be "intention to deceive". Believe what you want but I don't think either of us knows what most readers are thinking. We can only speak for ourselves and intent is what has always distinguished lie from falsehood for me. (If it doesn't, we need a new word for that.) Back to the M-W entry you cited: Verb(2)-1 "to make an untrue statement with intent to deceive". As for Wiktionary, I don't care much about a dictionary that anyone can edit, especially if it differs from people who do vocabulary research for a living. ―Mandruss ☎ 01:04, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

  Maybe for clarity I need to state this - I am discussing the use of the noun "lie" to describe lies he has told. Not using the word lie as a verb to say "trump lied" or similar. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 01:15, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

  Distinction without difference in my book. First noun sense at M-W: "an assertion of something known or believed by the speaker or writer to be untrue with intent to deceive". Subsequent noun senses omit intent, but the first one is usually the most prevalent in common usage. In a BLP, any error should be on the side of caution and saving a few characters is hardly a worthwhile priority. ―Mandruss ☎ 01:32, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

• Bad RfC. I'd love to see us clamp down on "should consensus item #X" be changed RfCs. Just propose an actual article change. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 02:28, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
• Comment. "Lies" is less controversial. But at what number does he become a "liar"? That would be more difficult to decide. Senorangel (talk) 04:45, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
• Comment It mainly depends on context, however Trump is associated with some of the most notable lies in recent American history according to recent mainstream sources like NBC News and Slate. Cheers. DN (talk) 10:07, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
• Yes. It's not justifiable that the subject gets special editorial protection in what amounts to a NPOV violation. Cortador (talk) 13:45, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

  I'll have a bundled reply to some of the comments made here:

  "It's not encyclopedic" - Wikipedia's policy is to reflect what RS state. Consensus 22 violates that principle.

  "No/Bad RfC/Propose an actual article change" - I don't understand this argument, as it labels this RfC as bad, but supports the previous one, which revolves about the exact same question.

  "It's a contentious label" - The article on labels names "cult" and "racist" as examples of such labels, yet Wikipedia calls Trumpism a cult of personality in Wikivoice, as it is backed up by sources. MOS:CONTENTIOUS doesn't ban the use of any specific descriptor. Cortador (talk) 13:55, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

  You have two arguments here. (1) to label Trump as a "liar" is a reflection of RS; and (2) That it is not a MOS:CONTENTIOUS issue because Trumpism is labeled a cult of personality. First of all, I do believe there is a distinction in contention between a cult of personality and a cult, but it's not really important anyway because what the Trumpism argument says about something that is not at issue in this discussion is irrelevant. Also, it could very well be possible that the Trumpism article should not say this anyway because of the MoS. Now, even if you believe that MOS:CONTENTION allows for such labels to be said it wikivoice (which it very clearly doesn't, but I'll regress), you'd still need to prove that the label "liar" is "widely used by reliable sources," and this has not been done. No sources have been provided and it would take many before the label could even be considered. R. G. Checkers ^talk 06:17, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

  Sources have been provided. I've already done that above.

  The onus is not on me to prove that this article shouldn't have a special rule that excludes content regardless of what RS say. The question of the RfC isn't "Should this article call Trump a liar" but "Should be remove an previous consensus" because that consensus violates Wikipedia's NPOV policy. Cortador (talk) 14:02, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

  Removing the consensus isn't going to change anything. We aren't going to call Donald Trump a liar in Wikivoice regardless of whether this consensus exists, because 1) widely used in reliable sources hasn't been satisfied and 2) per MOS:CONTENTIOUS, we couldn't call him a liar in Wikivoice anyway (in which case use in-text attribution). The only argument that could be made here is that "liar" isn't a contentious term. I consider it to be. Cessaune [talk] 14:52, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

• Yes - This may be done only in the situation that multiple WP:RS use the term in a consistent manner, and even then, restricted to the context in which the WP:RS use it. This is consistent with wikipedia policy on any label applied to a person, including negative ones. Absolutely no WP:OR should be allowed here, so again, only when backed by reliable sources using the term, and only in the same context and scope said reliable sources use it in. Fieari (talk) 01:29, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
• Comment — If you're concerned about the article losing credibility by appearing biased against Trump, there's nothing you can do about that. That ship has already sailed. Also, the article already essentially says that Trump is a liar. So this discussion may be of no significance with regard to those points. Bob K31416 (talk) 15:01, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
• Yes Donald Trump is a liar. That fact is, at this point, indisputable. How can any article about him claim accuracy without stating this salient fact?Coalcity58 (talk) 14:41, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
• It doesn't matter; bad RfC: MOS:CONTENTIOUS precludes us from calling Trump a liar in Wikivoice (...unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject, in which case use in-text attribution). Since I consider "liar" to be the very definition of a contentious label, cancelling this consensus item doesn't mean much, at least in practice. Note that this consensus item only refers to Wikivoice.
  This is a misuse of the RfC system. RfCs on whether a specific item should be "cancelled" are RfCs that shouldn't exist. Unless there is a process issue within the original RfC (in which case the discussion outcome should be brought to WP:AN), one cannot simply hold a discussion on whether or not they can cancel the results of a previous discussion, because this is a practice that is reserved for AN. This circumvents the system in a gross way, because this suggests that if I disagree with the outcome of an RfC I can simply hold another RfC to 'retry' and see if the editor mix this time around is in my favor. No. You can't do that. That's essentially what's happening here, without any malice of course. Cessaune [talk] 15:09, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

  As the editor who suggested/recommended this RfC framing, I feel a responsibility to respond. It sounds like you're talking about closure review, which is not what this is. Nobody is challenging the correctness, propriety, or legitimacy of #22's closure. Rather, it's simply a group of editors deciding whether the original consensus should be negated based on a change in the external situation—whether #22 should be "superseded" by "nothing". Absent such change—if this were nothing but a change in editor mix—I would oppose the existence of this RfC. The change in the external situation, in case you missed it: At the time #22 was reached, MSM avoided the word lie in droves; now they don't. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:21, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

  Nobody is challenging the correctness, propriety, or legitimacy of #22's closure. Actually it looks like some might be doing just that. To them, I'd say that ship sailed in 2017. But that's insufficient reason to shut down the RfC, and I see nothing wrong with bringing up policy questions here. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:47, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

  In that case, I stick with my original point: cancelling the outcome of the original RfC will have no impact. Cessaune [talk] 17:55, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

• No, the previous consensus calling him a liar should not be cancelled. There is nothing wrong with calling a spade a spade. Actually, this is one of his defining characteristics, something he is famous for. That would be different for most other BLP pages. This is a nearly unique case. A note to closer. This RfC question was framed in a tricky way. Some contributors who voted "Yes" actually meant "no". My very best wishes (talk) 15:52, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

  It appears maybe you have also been tripped up by the question - your comments seem to reflect mine, that if he's a spade, we should be able to call him a spade. The RfC asks "should we cancel the consensus item that prevents us from calling him a spade". -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 18:47, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

Discussion

Idea to consider

As a candidate and as president, Trump frequently made false statements in public remarks to an extent unprecedented in American politics.

References

Notes

This change would merge the sentence I've disputed as an undue semantic issue with the first sentence of the false and misleading statement's section. Another option may be for the first sentence to say "...Trump frequently made false statements and lies in public remarks..." as a substitute for the sentence I've disputed, but this would remove context of the shift over time I suppose. So it could be more NPOV-problematic. Iamreallygoodatcheckers ^talk 07:41, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

"despite losing the popular vote"

This clause in the lead reads like a partisan dig. This is not the relevant test in a presidential election. He did not win 'despite' lacking some kind of broader mandate. He won the election, and we should acknowledge that without caveat in the lead. If someone feels the need to explain the electoral college in the body, that might be more appropriate, but I have my doubts. Riposte97 (talk) 04:08, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

I agree. Jack Upland (talk) 07:19, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

I think it's notable, because it's a very rare quirk of the American electoral system. The last two presidents that lost the popular vote were George W. Bush in 2000 and Benjamin Harrison in 1888. Both of their lead sections mention the fact that they lost the popular vote.

The only other two cases are John Quincy Adams in 1824 and Rutherford B. Hayes in the Compromise of 1877. Both of those were special cases, which are explained in the lead sections of the two biographies. It seems reasonable to mention it in this lead section, too.

It's not a "partisan rip" if you accept the legitimacy of US electoral law. It's simply pointing out a notable fact. Pecopteris (talk) 07:30, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

It’s a tough call. Yes it’s very notable, but if I had to trim the lead I think it would be among the first things to go. Iamreallygoodatcheckers ^talk 08:16, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

I agree “while” is more neutral compared to “despite” Iamreallygoodatcheckers ^talk 00:07, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

I think I have an idea on how to rewrite that sentence. End the sentence at Hillary Clinton and split into a new sentence. Remove the efn that clarifies how the election system works, as it will now be fully visible. It would now read something along the lines of Trump won the 2016 presidential election as the Republican Party nominee. Although his primary opponent, Democratic Party nominee Hillary Clinton, won the popular vote, Trump won the presidency via the electoral college. Unnamed anon (talk) 08:32, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

A president winning the election while losing the popular vote is notable because it rarely happens, and especially so if said president is an incredibly divisive figure. Cortador (talk) 11:14, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

As said above, it is a peculiarity of the US electoral system this can happen, thus is notable so that non-Americans can understand how he won. Slatersteven (talk) 11:17, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

Repeating what I said when I reverted the bold edit: removing the information that he did not win the popular vote is whitewashing, especially considering that he doesn't just claim to have won the election in 2020, he also claims that he won the popular vote in 2016 — never mind that his opponents got 3 million more votes in 2016 and 7 million more in 2020. Non-Americans need an explanation why the person who received the majority of the votes in 2016 did not win the election. The note is the best and shortest way to do this, and it was much discussed and amended several times. Alternative wording without the alleged MOS:EDITORIAL words "while" or "despite": Trump, the Republican Party nominee, won the 2016 presidential election; Hillary Clinton, the Democratic Party nominee, won the popular vote. Whether current or alternative wording, the note is needed. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 12:55, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

1) It's not whitewashing to observe the election result. It's blackwashing (if this term doesn't yet exist, I’m coining it) to add a caveat to a lawful election. Trump's false claims are irrrelevant to assessing that question.

2) Most democracies have an internal executive, so most non-Americans would immediately intuit this. The 'popular vote' is a myopic American preoccupation.

3) It doesn't belong in the lead. Riposte97 (talk) 03:54, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

Most democracies have a what? The U.S. is a presidential republic where the president is not elected by popular vote but by an electoral college that favors the smaller states with more electoral votes per person. E.g., in 2016 California had one elector per 712,000 people while Wyoming had one elector per 195,000, i.e., a vote cast in Wyoming was worth 3.6 votes cast in California. I’m fairly certain that many Americans can’t intuit this, let alone people living in presidential republics such as Brazil, where the president is elected by direct vote and each vote is worth exactly one vote, or in parliamentary republics where a parliament elected by popular vote elects a head of government. Anyway, I kind of like Giovanosky's cogent bold edit, so I didn't bother to count my reverts and left it as is. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 11:08, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

Your explanation of parliamentary democracy is incorrect. An internal executive means that the executive is formed by the parliamentary party with the most seats. The parliament does not elect the head of government. This means that the 'popular vote' can have little to do with who heads the government. For an American, compare it to an electoral college, where the electors are also congressmen. That is the more usual system around the world, and why I say that the 'popular vote' is a very specific preoccupation mostly found on the American left.

Giovanosky's edit certainly reads better, but the material simply does not belong in the lead. It is superfluous for most readers. Riposte97 (talk) 11:31, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

Parliamentary democracies have different ways of forming governments. In Poland, e.g., the president and head of state is elected by popular vote and appoints the prime minister and the cabinet members. Their appointments must be confirmed by more than half of the members of parliament. In Germany, the ceremonial head of state/president nominates the candidate for the chancellorship proposed by the party or coalition of parties with the most votes, and the full parliament then votes. The coalition of parties may not include the party with the most votes (e.g. 30%), but it still represents the majority of popular votes cast. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 13:22, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

Changed the preposition from "despite" to "while". 1) "while" is already used in the body. 2) "despite" gives the impression that there's something nefarious about winning the election and losing the popular vote. 3) We had a discussion about this a while ago (can't be bothered to comb through the archives) and there was tentative support to change the preposition from "despite" to "while". Cessaune [talk] 18:14, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

The lead initially said "although" and "but" in 2020, then "while" until it was changed to "despite" in Oct 22. After this discussion in June 2023 it reverted to "while". Changed to "despite" on June 1, 2024, I reverted to "while" on June 9, and was reverted a few hours later. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 20:19, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

Seems like while was the long term version and I see no compelling evidence that there’s consensus to change it - so it should be restored to 'while' and if editor(s) want to open a discussion to change that they can do so. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 20:31, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

Best to restore long-term version. GoodDay (talk) 20:22, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

Removal of motivation for hush-money payment

@Space4Time3Continuum2x, you've removed the sourced statement about that the payments involved an attempt to influence the 2016 presidential election. The reason it was previously removed was "this is unsourced beyond a statement from Michael Cohen", but to avoid edit warring would you mind explaining your reasoning here? It seems like a substantial and factual detail that stayed up for quite a long time and it was edited once in a week, so your edit summary wasn't particularly helpful in in explaining why it shouldn't be there. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 13:44, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

Trump was convicted on May 30, and Checkers challenged the sentence on June 4 because the body only mentions it as something Cohen said. We shouldn't say it in Wikivoice in the lead when the body doesn't. Cc Iamreallygoodatcheckers. With the RfC and other discussions about the "convicted felon" and bits and pieces in the lead getting edited, this got lost in the shuffle. Also, on this page, the sources should go in the body, and the press release you cited is a primary source, so we'd need secondary RS. I'm not sure that in an attempt to influence the 2016 presidential election belongs in the lead, not because I think it's controversial (I don't) but because the verdict doesn't specify the "other charge" that got the misdemeanor bumped up to an E felony, and the lead is already rather long. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 14:15, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

It's widely reported in RS, wrt both state and Federal election law. It's disappointing that the initial removal would be pinned on the Cohen source rather than a SOFIXIT. With all the non-RS narratives circulating to obscure this, it really should be made clear to our readers why this was a felony. SPECIFICO talk

Easier said than done. I'm dumb, I need the sources to spell it out for me. (How did you manage to publish without a time stamp? I checked to make sure I didn't unintentionally delete it.:) Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 19:12, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

For a secondary source, there's this:

"The prosecutors argued that Trump had falsified business records to hide a sexual affair from voters and corrupt the 2016 election."

and this is pretty clearly distinct from the "convicted felon" discussion. If it's not in the body that's probably something that should be remedied after the RfC above, but it's clearly an important detail. I think it belongs back in, not all article improvements/changes are pending the above RfC. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 15:04, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

The convicted felon RFC was closed and the closer made it clear that we achieved no consensus for that issue and that the rfc only applied to the first sentence. There are no other applicable rfcs to my knowledge.

I support adding this sentence in the body and then the lead. However, I do not have access rights to add it in. Editing-dude144 (talk) 17:15, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

From two WaPo articles:

• May 29: In Trump’s case, prosecutors have offered three types of crimes that would make the state election-meddling charge come into play: federal election law crimes, tax crimes or false business records. The jury must be unanimous when it comes to determining whether Trump is guilty or not guilty of each specific falsifying business records count, and whether he did so in an effort to unlawfully impact an election, New York Supreme Court Justice Juan Merchan said. He added, however, that the panel did not have to be unanimous about which of those three types of crimes could serve as the underlying violation that brings the state election charge into play.
• After the verdict: The jury in Manhattan was tasked with deciding whether Trump was guilty on each specific count of falsifying business records and whether he did so in an effort to unlawfully impact an election. Prosecutors offered three types of underlying crimes that could raise the unlawful election-meddling allegation; jurors did not have to be unanimous about which of those they felt was at play. ... Jurors looked solemn as they filed into the jury box to reveal their verdict. All eyes in the courtroom were on the jury foreman as he rose from his seat to deliver their findings count by count. After he repeated "guilty" 34 times, once for each count, the jurors were individually polled by the clerk to confirm they were unanimous.

Suggestions for wording in the body? Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 19:12, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

Probably the same as before, secondary source cite? I really aimed for brevity and neutrality there. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 21:07, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

Body wording option:

In March 2023, a New York grand jury indicted Trump on 34 felony counts of falsifying business records to book the hush money payments to Daniels as business expenses, in an attempt to influence the 2016 election.

And cite the wapost article above as well as primary source. Editing-dude144 (talk) 17:11, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

 Done, also reinserted clause in lead sentence. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 13:35, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

References

Mention of his conviction in second sentence?

This was a serious suggestion with a lot of support in the RfC. Just wondering what y'all think: if it's even warranted, and how it should read. Cessaune [talk] 19:20, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

Personally I think that it's fine the way it is. As the closer of the RfC duly noted, we shouldn't be in the business of predicting the future. If there is a serious proposal to rework the entire lead to make the first paragraph longer, I could support this being included potentially, but it'd be based on the wording proposed. I think it would be a good idea for anyone considering proposing changes (not saying you are Cessaune, this discussion is a good next step before proposing specific changes) to put specific wording up for debate - for the whole lead, not just a second sentence. Only then would I think it's a good idea to go to another RfC - because without specific wording to support or oppose with reasoning, any new RfC is likely to result in the same lack of consensus as the last one, as the reasons would be almost the same. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 19:41, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

Trump was convicted in arguably the most legally tenuous case of the 4 that were pending. I'd leave it where it is for now pending the outcome of the appeals, and the progress in the remaining cases (and possible future ones). The more convictions that stick, the higher the mention should go, going forward. Zaathras (talk) 21:14, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

Meh. I wouldn't mess with the current position. O3000, Ret. (talk) 00:08, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

• No -- the current version of the WP:LEDE with the paragraph at the end works by describing his work chronologically. Please keep in mind that readers often read the first and last sentences or paragraph of an article. If you are trying to get attention to the conviction, it is there already.--David Tornheim (talk) 06:35, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

Second "meh". He'll be sentenced on July 11; it's pretty certain that there'll be another discussion on how and where to mention the conviction and sentence. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 12:36, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

• No, and suggest a WP:SPEEDY close to this discussion, as it's likely to re-treat a lot of the same discussions as the very laborious discussion which only just closed. It's worth reminding that mention of Trump's conviction is already in the lead and has a whole paragraph dedicated to it. — Czello ^(music) 12:43, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
• Lets wait till the RFC is closed, as that could make this a moot point. Slatersteven (talk) 13:09, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

It already closed, there was no consensus to add it[10]. — Czello ^(music) 13:13, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

Did not see it had been closed. I see no reason not to mention in in the second sentence, as it is very very notable. Slatersteven (talk) 13:48, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

• No. What's currently in the lead, at the location that it's been placed, is fine IMO. Cessaune [talk] 16:33, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
• No - per TomStar81. This will undoubtedly be revisited on July 11th, and my position then will be the same. "Let it lie, and you can try again once some history has passed between the event and the next thing we get attached to politically." Pecopteris (talk) 20:11, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
• No - the current status is best. GoodDay (talk) 21:40, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
• Come on. What's next, we'll discuss the idea of having it in the third sentence? LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 23:48, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

As an observation here, the previous president with such a storied history would be Richard Nixon, who opted to resign from office rather than face impeachment over the Watergate scandal. Despite the fact that this scandal was a major aspect of his presidency, it is not mentioned until the third sentence of the lead paragraph, and not elaborated on until the fourth paragraph of the article. In a more recent example, Bill Clinton's sex scandal was a major defining moment of his presidency, yet the article we have for Bill does not mention the scandal at all until the fourth paragraph. Given this, I feel the closing summary was correct, we don;t need a mention of this right out of the gate. Let it lie, and you can try again once some history has passed between the event and the next thing we get attached to politically. TomStar81 (Talk) 20:05, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

It would be more informative to cite the 2020 election complaints and insurrection ahead of golf, etc in the first or better the second paragraph. SPECIFICO talk 20:23, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

I know we’ve had our disagreements before but this is a good summary of my view too. If the whole lead is being reworked, this is ripe for inclusion in an expanded first paragraph. But if the lead is to continue being chronological (mostly), then it’s fine where it is. I’m not against an earlier mention - I just want to see it proposed with a major rework of the lead to improve it overall, rather than shoehorn another “consensus has been made” sentence into the lead that continues to piecemeal the lead up. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 20:26, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

• No - Putting it as the second sentence of the article would be placing it as more emphasized than every give action of his whole presidency, business career, or media career. And, without a crystal ball, it cannot know with any certainty how prominent this will be for Trump's legacy. The argument for having it as the second sentence will be "but this is historic and no president has been convicted as a felony" and so on and so forth. But Trump is also the first when it comes to having two impeachments, his unique rise to political power with no experience, etc. Trump is just too peculiar of a figure in American politics, with his ability to garner scandals and controversies, to know to what degree these convictions will be prominent in his legacy. For now, I can only see them as a brick in a giant wall of interesting bricks that make up Donald Trump. I think the way the convictions are handled in the article and lead now is appropriate, due weight. Also, I think TomStar81 makes good observations above. R. G. Checkers ^talk 01:06, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

  It seems like your point is that Trump may be worse than a convicted felon in other ways. Bob K31416 (talk) 05:03, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

  Doing a bit of crystal balling there yourself, aren't you? We're not talking legacy, we're talking current WP:WEIGHT. (Changed your name, Iamreallygoodatcheckers?) Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 13:47, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

  Yea I changed my name. The only argument for DUE weight of this recent event in Trump's life is just a judgment call on its significance, which I see as crystal balling. R. G. Checkers ^talk 21:07, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

More in depth Coronavirus Policy should be added.

There should be mention of the CARES Act (the largest stimulus bill in American history) and Operation Warp Speed (The plan governing Vaccine Research and Manufacturing) within the Presidency Section of Donald Trump. specifically relating to his handling of the Covid-19 Pandemic. I do think they fit the qualifications that have been mentioned on this talk page of him personally lauding them as achievements as he did heavily campaign on the stimulus checks provided by the legislation alongside vaccine production during his 2020 campaign (alongside general pandemic downplaying of course). It should be noted I do not expect the citations that I presented regarding him taking credit for them to be used as a reference in any actual proposed addition to it as, like most interviews Trump permits, they are usually only through interviewers who are pretty lightweight when it comes to journalism. I am presenting them regardless as Trump's "personal involvement" in a policy appears to be a requirement for it's mention in the 'Presidency' section of his article. Despite the lack of hard-hitting journalism of his interviewers, they're still accurate indicators of what he thinks of the policies since he's literally taking credit for them in the interviews and saying that he's proud of them. The references are as follows:

Additionally, both the actual legislative policy that passed under his administration and the background policy of vaccine research and distribution are obviously important given they were half of the U.S. government's response to the pandemic (the other half being Biden's). I have provided additional citations that should verify that these actions taken by the administration are in fact notable given, once again, they were half of the U.S. Government's response to a global pandemic and the second worse economic downturn in American history only after the Great Depression. The references are as follows: LosPajaros (talk) 10:17, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

References

No. Quoting U.S. federal government response to the COVID-19 pandemic: During 2020 and 2021, the U.S. Congress passed major stimulus packages as part of an aggressive effort to fight both the pandemic and its economic impact. Three major bills were passed: the CARES Act, the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2021, and the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 13:18, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

How does that purport they are not relevant for mention though? All legislation passes through Congress so that's not specifically unique. Two out of three acts you mentioned passed and were supported by the Trump administration and, with the addition of Operation Warp Speed, all of them are still big chunks of the U.S. government's policy towards COVID-19 that Trump has openly taken credit for. LosPajaros (talk) 17:48, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

@Space4Time3Continuum2x and 🖖: Could you elaborate on the reasoning behind your opposition to it's inclusion? I'm sorry if I'm missing something but I'm not seeing a reason for why it should not be included via the quote that you provided. Mention of the American Rescue Plan is also mentioned on Joe Biden's 'Presidency' section of his page so I'm not sure how mention of the CARES Act or the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2021 would be a significant deviation from expected material in Trump's respective 'Presidency' section. You had previously stated that inclusion of material on this article must relate to information that is both notable and had personal support from Trump himself. The references I have provided should meet both of those requirements. LosPajaros (talk) 09:14, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Regarding the covid vaccine, see reference 7. "Getting the facts right on Operation Warp Speed". The Hill. March 20, 2021. Bob K31416 (talk) 22:38, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

Scholarly analysts e.g. the Columbia study, have concluded that Trump's negligence and willful misrepresentations led to hundreds of thousands of needless American deaths. We also have his own words to Bob Woodward on this point. Those could both be more prominently conveyed, along with the maladministration of the relief funds that was largely responsible for the subsequent inflation. SPECIFICO talk 02:00, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

That may very well be an accurate assessment. I'm not going to make a claim they were objectively good or bad. Even if the conclusion made in this Talk section is that the legislation and vaccine programs were ill-formed and laced with problems, notable failed policy is still notable policy. Whether it's Ford's WIN, Reagan's Star Wars, or Clinton/Bush's respective proposals to healthcare and social security, even unsuccessful policy, if notable enough, should be mentioned in relation to their Presidencies. LosPajaros (talk) 02:34, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

"should be mentioned in relation to their Presidencies" We have separate articles about their respective presidencies. It is unclear why the policies should also be mentioned in the bio articles. Dimadick (talk) 07:07, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

Reason: They were rooted only in Trump's personal proclivities, elevated above any policy or administrative objective. SPECIFICO talk 17:47, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

Notable policy associated with a President is always mentioned in the 'Presidency' section of their Wikipedia article. There's no reason why Trump should be the exception to that rule. Especially since He has expressed personal support for them occurring. LosPajaros (talk) 20:10, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

covid-19 spending package

"since no reason was provided in the Talk section in opposition"

No consensus. I'm not confident everything in this edit is due, but that isn't to say a consensus isn't possible. DN (talk) 05:07, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

Sure thing. The points I presented I believe still stand regarding notability of the legislation alongside the personal involvement and support of Trump himself. Those were the requirements previously laid out by @Space4Time3Continuum2x: in terms of whether or not policy should be mentioned on his Wikipedia page. Additionally, in prior Talk page discussions relating to the possible addition of the Abraham Accords he has himself stated that a simple 'No' or 'Yes' comment was not significant enough to be counted as a 'vote'. My apologies if my following of those instructions may have in any way come off in a negative or insolent manner.

The Quotes I have provided relating to Trump's personal support of the legislation are as follows:

The Quotes I have provided relating to notability of the legislation in addition to Operation Warp Speed are as follows: LosPajaros (talk) 05:45, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

Does it necessarily need it's own sub-section? Could it be integrated into to existing COVID-19 pandemic section, as it is extensive. DN (talk) 06:28, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

I am not opposed to it being integrated into the existing subsection. My contention was that it should qualify for mention in this Wikipedia article. LosPajaros (talk) 06:51, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

Sources

no reason was provided — no reason you accept? Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 11:54, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for providing the ABC source. I had forgotten how Trump's name ended up on the IRS checks. I don't know too much about it ... I'm sure people will be very happy to get a big, fat, beautiful check and my name is on it. So, "personal support" by sharpie or, in this case, the IRS, without precedent, printing the sitting president's name "on a payment from the IRS, an agency that has often sought to maintain its independence from partisan politics". Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 12:28, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, when I said 'no reason provided' I was referring to the initial response you made where you just said 'No' and provided a quote without elaboration of the reason behind it. I understand you probably had a decent reasoning behind your opposition but the only statement in opposition that was made was a 'No' and there wasn't an explanation the point you were trying to make. The personal support of Trump is shown in both how he takes credit for the bills, and how he used them to campaign in 2020. I thought both rose to the level of support you had previously said was necessary. LosPajaros (talk) 18:11, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

Yes, but we cannot present his false narratives without identifying them as such, and that's pointless. SPECIFICO talk 19:54, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

Trump taking credit for and supporting legislation he has lied about its effects of like the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act are already mentioned in this article. In both, he lied about its effects, openly supported it, and campaigned on it. Trump lies quite often, that's nothing new. But both of the qualifications of notability and personal support have been met. If there is consensus that he lied or mislead the public about this policy and such a note is added that is fine also and I would support that because it would provide added nuance.LosPajaros (talk) 22:07, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

I myself what? SPECIFICO talk 22:12, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

sorry my apologies. I thought you were a different user. I agree that further context should be provided to indicate nuance about these policies LosPajaros (talk) 22:15, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

You reverted twice to your preferred version, despite the rather prominent "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" warning. Be thankful you didn't earn a block for that. Zaathras (talk) 22:25, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

Yes I understand. I'm still not super used to how edits for Talk discussions work. I'll revert my edits. Is there a rule set I can look at to see the rules that are typically followed for Talk discussion posts? thank you. LosPajaros (talk) 22:28, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

@LosPajaros: Re: [11][12]. If you choose to make substantive changes to your comment after replies, especially when such changes destroy context, you have to do it by deleting (striking) and inserting (underscoring) text per the instructions at WP:REDACT. After your changes, SPECIFICO's comment "I myself what?" makes no sense; hence the destroyed context. I'm half inclined to fix this for you, but I'll settle for your agreement not to do this again. ―Mandruss ☎ 03:18, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

Okay thank you for that information. I'll make sure to use it in the future. LosPajaros (talk) 03:49, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

Continuing on the topic of discussion, I agree that context should be provided to address false narratives. If there were to be an addition of such context regarding Trump's support of the stimulus spending I would be perfectly fine with that. The notability of the legislation and the fact that Trump did express open support for the legislation has not been questioned though. And both of those qualities were what was previously required for addition onto this page. The legislation is the most sizeable passed during his presidency and he openly supported its provisions both during the drafting of it and on the campaign trail. LosPajaros (talk) 22:54, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

Specific proposed wording for moderately expanded lede

During the RFC about the potential use of "convicted felon" in the first sentence, there was talk of mentioning his conviction in the second sentence. In the course of this discussion, I wrote up a draft of how the first paragraph might look with this change, which a few people liked as a starting point — one even suggested starting a new RfC with my proposal. I don't want to open that can of worms unless there's demand for it, but I do at least want to put it here to get people's thoughts, rather than leaving it mired in the previous RFC. In its original wording, it read:

Donald John Trump (born June 14, 1946) is an American politician, media personality, and businessman who served as the 45th president of the United States from 2017 to 2021. A member of the Republican Party, he is known for his commanding influence over that party's politics beginning in the mid-2010s, as well as being the first former president to be convicted of a crime.

Thinking more about it, and reading the section above where Cessaune mentioned the same idea, I might revise my initial draft to:

Donald John Trump (born June 14, 1946) is an American politician, media personality, and businessman who served as the 45th president of the United States from 2017 to 2021. A member of the Republican Party, he is known for his commanding influence over that party's politics beginning in the mid-2010s, his attempts to overturn the 2020 presidential election, and his status as the first former president to be convicted of a crime.

The proposal would be to change the first paragraph to include this sentence or something like it, while leaving the rest of the lead section as it is.

This is still a rough draft, but is it worth exploring? Or should this discussion be laid to rest for the time being?

Agreeable-absurdist (talk) 17:28, 15 June 2024 (UTC) Agreeable-absurdist (talk) 17:28, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

Support the structure, particularly the first version. I would support "convicted on felony crimes," not just a crime, which is highly notable. Overturning the 2020 election is already in the lead in more detail. JohnAdams1800 (talk) 00:32, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

Support / Comment - despite my highlighting of a potentially-incompatible alternative below, I still think these quickly hit the important points and bring it more into what is a de facto standard form for all POTUS articles I've compared.

Also you've done a probably better (and probably adequate for this moment of history) job of touching on something I struggled to cleanly articulate when I was writing my long-winded version [13] back on the 31st.

Which is: does "A member of the Republican party' communicate a fact clearly (at least in the same way it does when party affiliation is brought up early in other articles).

Because like … look at the state of Sixth Party System (with a `- 2016?` in the infobox and everything). It seems at once clearly accurate to say that he is a member (and indeed leader) of the Republican Party as it exists today (and at least for the next 5 months, and if he wins one presumes ~4 years); but I'm less clear that its meaningfully accurate to say the same (that he was a member) of the party from which he was elevated to the presidency. And its too early to know whether this is official-names-of-organizations-lagging a durable schism that has already happened (akin to equating the modern Democratic Party to the Democratic-Republicans )

anyway, </psuedo-academic musing>

Donald Guy (talk) 07:17, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

References

RfC: Supreme Court justices appointed by Trump and Roe v. Wade

This sentence had been added in the lead section of the article but a user removed it. Do you agree with adding this in the lead section of the article?

«He appointed Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett to the U.S. Supreme Court; they were crucial in overturning Roe v. Wade, which had established the constitutional right to abortion.» Esterau16 (talk) 13:27, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

Doesn't belong in the lead section, IMHO. Also, Trump nominated them for the Supreme Court. By saying he appointed them, it suggests they didn't need US Senate confirmation. GoodDay (talk) 14:26, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

No, it does not belong in the lead. It's not an unimportant detail and is included in the body, but does not belong in the lead section which is supposed to be very concise. R. G. Checkers ^talk 20:11, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

Not important enough for the lead. Can be mentioned in the body like most other controversies and events. QuicoleJR (talk) 21:00, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

3J is OK for lead Highly unusual 3 appointments, highly consequential shift of court, and a key 2016 campaign promise fulfilled. Roe and justices' names do not need to be in lead. Better to trim trivia like college, renaming Trump Org, etc. SPECIFICO talk 21:18, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

I agree, we can name the justices, but shouldn't mention Roe or other cases. Pecopteris (talk) 01:29, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

Name appointments, exclude Dobbs v. Jackson W.H.O., though it can go in the "Judiciary" section of the presidency. Roe was overturned during Biden's presidency by Trump's justices + Thomas & Alito, not Trump himself. JohnAdams1800 (talk) 00:30, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

This isn't a dig at anyone - but we don't always need bolded !votes, and it encourages people to not engage in more substantial discussion in my opinion. I agree that the justices he appointed are completely due for the body, and the fact he appointed 3 justices may be due for the lead. There is zero reason any of SCOTUS' decisions that they made after his appointment(s) should be included here. To do so is to trivialize SCOTUS and to try and predict what would've happened without or with different appointments by Trump. Overall I haven't seen much persuasive reasoning why the names of the justices themselves are important for the lead, but I'm also not really opposed to them being included as they all have their own articles that provide context. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 01:58, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

We should name the justices.--Jack Upland (talk) 05:58, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

I agree that we should name the appointees. Three justices in four years in atypical (recall that Carter made no appointments to the Supreme Court). I would not specifically name the overturning of Roe. I might say instead that Trump's appointments shifted the direction of the Court. Neutrality^talk 21:02, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

Donald Trump series template

Per talk on Joe Biden's page, should this template be removed from this page? ThingsCanOnlyGetWetter (talk) 15:38, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

I can't imagine why. If the template doesn't have a place in the top-level Trump article, we might as well delete it. Is there another way to easily locate all Trump articles organized by subtopic area? If so, I'm not aware of it. ―Mandruss ☎ 02:31, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

Yeah I've since understood the importance of these series articles. Especially true in Trump's case as there's so many articles about him. --ThingsCanOnlyGetWetter (talk) 07:06, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

Early inlining of extant relevant main article links (or "Compact disambiguation as lede")

Hello, I was checking back in on what if anything had been elaborated on with my expansion proposal from the 31st (and managed to spend quite a while looking for where it got lost in history before archiving before realizing it was still actively on here 😅) [It's above my payvolunteer-grade to make such a call, but it doesn't look like its trending towards consensus, and I see the valid arguments against (textual) expansion via consensus process.]

(But/therefore) I wanted to bubble up / highlight as separable and tighter scoped for specific consideration the last point(s) I made on the 31st:

— attempting to respond specifically to R. G. Checkers's point ~To be frank, Donald Trump is hard to explain in one paragraph, — I said

"query then also (and whether it hasn't been discussed before) whether a different structural/hypertext approach might be more effective… keep wording and structure as is but make heavier early use of links to existing articles, e.g.

"Donald John Trump (born June 14, 1946) is an American politician, media personality, and businessman who served as the 45th president of the United States from 2017 to 2021."

…"

[I then also gave a more dramatic restructured-as-not-prose alternative, but that is a much WP:BOLDer move for a contested article than adding links to existing articles to existing wording).]

So consider this potentially a concrete proposal;

but perhaps first a point of order from a less-than-expert editor as to if, in fact, there is existing specific policy/style opposing use of such an approach for a multi-faceted subject that pre-empts serious consideration

Thanks, Donald Guy (talk) 06:24, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

Acknowledgment of argument in the alternative I also (still) equally-to-stronger support the similar-but-more-concise-than-my-proposal approach being looked at two sections up,

but despite all the anchored words being retained in that, I'm not fully sure that and this are practically compatible: as that probably amounts to a more decisive editorial decision to singularly center his presidency - whereas this would be, to my mind, trying to improve relevant-info-accessibility for visitors to the article researching the man for "any of his 3 careers"

and like … as a proposal now and 2 weeks ago, it kinda amounts to an attempt to practically improve-as-a-tool-for-navigation what I think is something of a … Nash equilibrium of a compromise as, per se, a lede. Donald Guy (talk) 06:53, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

I may be a bit woozy from lack of sleep, but huh? And why are you starting a new discussion when your earlier one (#Expanding_first_paragraph_in_general_(what_is_notable_enough_to_overtake_chronology?) is still open? Also, you're proposing three MOS:EGGs for the first sentence. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 10:48, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

> Why are you starting a new discussion when your earlier one is still opoen?

Like I said in <small>, I spent an embarrassing amount of time before writing this thinking that discussion had already been archived (or had been errantly deleted instead when I failed to find it in the archive), so maybe remained captured in that perspective.

And/but that seems just on the cusp of auto-archiving without any sort of resolution, so I wanted to pull this somewhat separable proposal out before it got lost. But It's very possible that was either premature or a bad cal

> Also, you're proposing three MOS:EGGs for the first sentence.

I wanted to clarify whether this sort of thing was actually against policy or just uncommon.

That (MOS:EGGs) is a valid referent/citation (but not one I was familiar with before, per se).

Reasonable minds may differ; Personally, While, I freely acknowledge that the links are not to the articles for the broadest refrants of the terms, I personally would never expect them to resolve that way in this context.

I know this because I did/do find the link to POTUS there itself pretty confusing. I'll admit that I wouldn't necessarily a priori think of Presidency of Donald Trump as the target of that link instead, but only because I was unaware keeping articles on a presidency separate from the president was established practice. Now that I do know that, that is my adjusted expectation. (nevertheless I did seek to clarify this in that case by shifting from "45th president of the United States" to " 45th president of the United States")

And I think that follows clear enough for "is an American politician, media personality, and businessman" as well; but I don't suggest no one could be confused.

I'd suggest any frustration experienced there could substantially be ameliorated by making sure those targets carry themselves an early link to the Donald Trump independent concept in their respective ledes to facilitate rapid movement from the specific to general if that _was_ what was wanted.

_But_ if that is a definite no-no then I return to my second referenced but not quoted more dramatic suggestion, the possibility of treating the multi-hyphenate subject as worthy of personal disambiguation to these main articles (if not in/as the lede than perhaps as a hatnote?

or a novel kind of <ref> alike. (cf. Template:Citation_needed, but perhaps like ^{[main article]} or ^[focus] or ^{[more info]} )

> huh?

At core is my frustration that so much accessible information is left on the table as is.

If the outcome of NPOV-and-consensus process applied to the lede is to refuse to characterize the man as primarily any one role from his life (on the basis of recency or relative-notability-as-practiced-by-others), then it seems to follow to me, for consistency of application of that editorial stance, that further efforts could and should be taken to offer the ways those are already broken out (either the main articles, again all of which already independently pre-exist; or skipping ahead to the relevant section of this article)

---

but anyway, I am probably overdue to stop having opinions about this article in particular and perhaps should go be of use elsewhere Donald Guy (talk) 06:24, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

The editing suggestion is, frankly, not good. MOS:EGG is a valid concern here. Zaathras (talk) 22:30, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

Use the wide name!

The name Donald J. Trump is widely used in official documents, social media and newspapers. Please stop insisting on the original name. 81.214.81.191 (talk) 09:23, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

We go by wp:commonname. Slatersteven (talk) 09:38, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

See current consensus item 12. ―Mandruss ☎ 10:40, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

You misunderstand our WP guidelines. Please, take a look at WP:COMMONNAME and the WP Manual of Style. Donald Trump without the middle initial is still by far the most commonly used name. I'm pretty sure that Michael R. Pence does not qualify as WP:COMMONNAME, either, your [editsum] in that case being Pence's Vice Presidential title is that. In other articles we can say "Mike Pence" but we have to use Vice Presidential Title (Michael R. Pence) in describing as Vice President and Donald J. Trump's running mate. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 12:35, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

Felon

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I believe FELON should be added to his BIO McDNife (talk) 14:40, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.