Talk:Donald Trump

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 Superseded by #15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 (Nov 2016, Dec 2016) (Superseded by #15 since 11 February 2017)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 Superseded by #35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 (Sep 2016, February 2017, wording shortened per April 2017, upheld with July 2018) (superseded by #35 since 18 February 2019)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 Superseded by #17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 (Jan 2017, Jan 2017, Jan 2017, Jan 2017, Jan 2017, Feb 2017) (superseded by #17 since 2 April 2017)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, upheld by RfC July 2024)

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. In citations, do not code the archive-related parameters for sources that 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)

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. (RfC October 2021)

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

Lead: Consensus 43 vio?

Consensus #43 indicates that for the lead section, "the mere fact that an edit has not been discussed is not a valid reason to revert it." With that in mind, Space4Time3Continuum2x, could you provide a rationale for this edit? The lead is well in excess of an appropriate length and level of detail. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:09, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

I still think that when your removal of longstanding content from the lead is challenged, you need to provide a rationale for the removal on the Talk page. (Your edit summary merely says "rework lead".) Per MOS:LEAD, the lead gives the basics in a nutshell, and six words defining the successful side ventures seem appropriate to me. Ditto the seven words explaining which families were affected by the family separation policy, the three words detailing the kind of Covid misinformation he spread, the sheer number of felony counts, and the sentence on the rollback of environmental policies. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 12:53, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

What do you think of Nikkimaria's comment, "The lead is well in excess of an appropriate length and level of detail." Bob K31416 (talk) 20:05, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

This. Adding a handful of words about every single topic adds up to a lot more than a handful, and when the lead is so overlong there would need to be a much stronger justification for doing that. In fact it would be appropriate to do more reworking. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:35, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

Well this has taken a strange turn. Good luck. Bob K31416 (talk) 03:08, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

• @Space4Time3Continuum2xSo why is there an issue with adding "just a handful of words" about the causes of death on January 6? Now it is highly misleading:

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

This statement saying "resulting in multiple deaths" is MISSING CONTEXT. This source I cite below clearly spells out that all deaths were either natural causes or suicide or Ashley Babbit, not the result of violence of the rioters. The average reader, including over half of the students I showed this, is led into thinking that the deaths were violent after mentioning an "attack."

These Are the People Who Died in Connection With the Capitol Riot https://www.nytimes.com/2022/01/05/us/politics/jan-6-capitol-deaths.html?smid=nytcore-android-share

(Personal attack removed) 68.234.168.22 (talk) 16:02, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

Do we say "violence by rioters"? Slatersteven (talk) 16:18, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the personal attack. You already uttered your opinion in "This is biased and false", above (here, here, and here). Consensus #62 applies. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 16:53, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, where is the personal attack? Has a comment been removed?

I agree that the current wording is misleading. 'Resulting in' can clearly be read two ways, one of which contradicts #62, as it essentially means the attackers killed them. Riposte97 (talk) 23:06, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

The personal attack was removed per WP:RPA. To point you to that edit would largely defeat the purpose of the removal. It's in the page history if you have the time and the interest. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:35, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

Hmm. I don't think that was an appropriate removal, but I don't care enough to argue the point.

Focussing on the issue, the current wording can be read to violate consensus. The simplest way to fix that is probably just to end the sentence at 'attacked', but open to suggestions. Riposte97 (talk) 10:40, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

Space4T, I have difficulty reconciling your editsum with #43. It seems to me you should've provided separate editsum rationale for each and every change item you reverted, even if that required 10+ edits. I know that's a lot of work.

It also seems to me that Nikkimaria should have facilitated that by splitting their edit into discrete pieces. Mass changes like this are always a problem, to the point I might support a consensus item forbidding them in the lead or anywhere else. Minimizing page history entries is not a priority. (It would also force editors to slow down a little with their bold edits, never a Bad Thing.) ―Mandruss ☎ 22:15, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

How exactly would we go about forbidding mass changes? Just curious. Cessaune [talk] 22:29, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

Hey, I don't do details: the devil's in them. Lol. Yeah, I asked myself the same question. I'm not the smartest guy in the room, as you know, and I think it would be doable if we put our collective mind to it. I don't think it could be codified with precision, and Wikipedia hates that kind of thing anyway. It's one of those things where there are three areas or zones: a clear "yes" (i.e., the vast majority of bold edits here), a clear "no" (e.g., Nikkimaria's edit), and a gray area in between. For the most part, the only disputes would occur in the gray area, and it might not be excessively large. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:48, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

I think this is a good idea. It would potentially save a lot of time, because people could get down to discussing the real issues in dispute. Riposte97 (talk) 23:03, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

It was one bulk edit involving removals, changes of sentence order, and copy edits, and I challenged most of it. My objection wasn't that an edit to the lead hadn't been discussed beforehand. From now on, I won't ask editors to take edits I challenge to the Talk page; I'll leave it to the author to figure out what to do. In this case, it was also redundant because the editor isn't new and has been active on this page for a while. Instead, my editsum should have said s.th. like "partial rvt - challenging rmv of info vital to understand e.g. fam. sep., type of covid misinformation, rollback of environm. policies, the astounding number of felony counts …". It's not as if editors (not just me) hadn't complained about mass edits before. If there had been 10+ separate edits, I or other editors could have objected to individual ones. Editsum "rework lead": I know we're not required to state a reason, but it's a courtesy to do so, especially in a much-litigated article such as this one. Maybe the reason for removing e.g. mention that he separated migrant families at the border would have convinced me or other editors not to challenge it? (First time I heard of minimization of page history - is that a thing?) Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 11:47, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

(First time I heard of minimization of page history - is that a thing?) Assuming you're serious, I meant "minimizing the number of page history entries". It's really the only reason one would do such a mass edit, beyond saving the wee bit of time required to start each smaller edit. ―Mandruss ☎ 14:34, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

I left out a word - can't really call it a typo. Brain spasm? I was referring to your sentence Minimizing page history entries is not a priority. Off-topic: today's NYT has an aerial view of the swirls and eddies on top of Trump's head. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 14:51, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

So I gathered, but I guess I misunderstood you, thinking you were thinking of "minimizing" as in minimizing a window or something.

I suppose I could be more cynical and say that an editor might do a mass edit to make it more difficult to challenge (all the more reason to ban mass edits). ―Mandruss ☎ 15:31, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

I do recall discussion along the lines of, "If you edit en masse, don't complain about being challenged en masse." What we're considering above is simply formalizing that and giving it teeth. Your editsum would have been "rv per consensus 66" and #43 would not have been in play. Or, better yet, Nikkimaria would've been aware of #66 and refrained from the mass edit in the first place. I think it's worth pursuing. ―Mandruss ☎ 14:19, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

• FYI, the Trump lead is about twice as large as the Biden lead. Bob K31416 (talk) 16:01, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

My take: The lead is too long because lead summarizes body and body is too long. You can't fix the former without first fixing the latter. This well-intentioned reduction is occurring in the wrong place.

But we're mixing a process dispute, which is how this thread started, with a content dispute, and it might be more useful to separate them. ―Mandruss ☎ 16:17, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

It's like obesity leads to all sorts of medical problems. Bob K31416 (talk) 16:28, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

Mos def. ―Mandruss ☎ 16:37, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

@Space4Time3Continuum2x: Regarding this edit: your edit summary is absolutely correct that he spread other misinformation, which is why your revert is incorrect - specifying one kind of misinformation makes it appear that that was the only kind, when in fact it was a much broader issue. Similarly with the "slowly" piece: the problem was his immediate reaction was denial or contradiction, which is what the text goes on to say. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:23, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

@Nikkimaria: We had a ginormous discussion about this sentence almost exactly a year ago, and the current version is what we landed on. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 20:58, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

That ginormous discussion didn't find consensus for this version so much as it fell back on it as a default, because editors struggled to balance concision with the nuance of describing the various misinformation at play. The reverted version solves the issues raised in that discussion: it is concise without misleading, it is correct in a more comprehensive way than the current version, and it leaves discussion of those nuances to the linked article for those who wish to learn more. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:43, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

I'm afraid not. Consensus version restored. Zaathras (talk) 01:53, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

As the item you cited indicates, there is no consensus on specific wording; the only requirement is that his reaction is mentioned, which it was prior to your revert. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:11, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

As the wording has remained largely as-is since, I'm afraid it is. Feel free to see if there's support for your proposed change. Otherwise, status quo ante. Zaathras (talk) 21:26, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

At best, your editsum rationale was incorrect per the cited consensus item. IMNSHO, any editor would be within process to revert you on that basis alone. ―Mandruss ☎ 02:29, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

@Zaathras: In addition to the above, your most recent revert violates the arbitration remedy; please self-revert. Do you have a substantive objection to the change? Nikkimaria (talk) 00:16, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

@Zaathras: Re: [1][2] Just how much consensus do you require for this relatively inconsequential issue? Do you propose pinning this section with the hope of substantially more participation? Starting an RfC? Dispute resolution? What? I'm seeing a need to WP:WIN and WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality that we don't often see at this article in recent years.

As I said previously, an editor would be within process to revert you on the basis of your incorrect edit summary. You could not dispute that fact, so you resorted to other tactics: a de facto consensus argument and a no consensus argument, neither having any merit in this situation. Even if you claim they have merit, you can't play them like trump cards against the opposition of two editors. That's not how it works, and I think you know that. It's like linking to WP:NPOV and expecting all others to bow in deference—a common newbie mistake. ―Mandruss ☎ 05:11, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

All that said, if Space4Time3Continuum2x sides with you, that makes it 2–2 and in fact no consensus. It's not entirely clear to me that he does, so let's ask him. If there is no consensus and status quo ante is clear enough (I haven't checked), you WP:WIN.

Even so, you and others went about it the wrong way: disputes should be addressed on this page, not by re-re-re-reversions on the article page, and edit summaries are a very poor substitute for collaborative discussion. Only after the discussion has played out should the article be touched, if then. I don't much care how things are done elsewhere, or even what the guidelines say (guidelines have to be written for the general case); I've spent enough time elsewhere to know that method doesn't work very well for highly contentious subject areas. It favors and rewards the aggressive, thereby encouraging aggressiveness. ―Mandruss ☎ 06:02, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Sequence of edits: Nikkimaria, my rvt, NikkiMaria rvt, Zaathras rvt, Nikkimaria rvt, Zaathras rvt. Seems to me that Nikkimaria shouldn’t have made their first revert after I challenged their first edit because there was no consensus for a change at the time, and there isn’t one now (are you the second editor supporting removal)? I still think that "promoted misinformation about testing and unproven treatments" would have been the better version but one year isn't long enough for me to want to go through s.th. like that archived discussion again. What about consensus #48? Completely ignored by every editor in the 2023 discussion (I plead non-involvement in the 2020 RfC with resulting unawareness of #48 , and I'm aware of ignorance of the law not being an excuse) that, in practice, appears to have resulted (who can tell?) in a new consensus and new wording of the lead. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 11:30, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Ok, I'll buy your process analysis. I'll also drop out of the !voting, since I don't have a content opinion here (my error). That makes it 2–1 in favor of status quo ante.

This kerfuffle points to the importance of stricter adherence to BRD, and I arrived late causing me to read the situation wrong. Apologies to Zaathras for some of what I said.

Nikkimaria: When one's bold edit is reverted, it goes to the talk page until there is a consensus for the change (or the bold editor chooses not to challenge the challenge). As we've seen, there is some disagreement about what constitutes a consensus, but we weren't close to one at the time of your first revert. Disruption ensued. Zaathras's reverts were also wrong IMO (the remedy for article disruption is not more article disruption), but yours was wrong first. ―Mandruss ☎ 01:21, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

We may disagree about what constitutes a consensus, but what is clear is that it's not a vote. At the time of my first revert, the only argument put forward in favour of status quo here was a previous discussion that arrived at no consensus. That hadn't changed by the second. Space4Time: do you have a rationale for your preferred version? Nikkimaria (talk) 00:54, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

"Your argument is invalid, so it doesn't count, so I win." I don't think I've ever seen that logic succeed, nor should it. Except in cases where no rationale whatsoever was given (that's what a vote is), we accept the numbers or appeal to a higher power, such as RfC or dispute resolution. Space4T's rationale is here.

Or, we can try to change the numbers by swaying others. If that fails after a reasonable amount of time, see above. ―Mandruss ☎ 01:09, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

We discount invalid arguments all the time - there's several items in the consensus list along those lines.

I responded to Space4T's edit summary in my post above; I'd be interested in seeing further discussion around that, if anyone has counterpoints. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:38, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

It's not enough to be right in your view; you have to persuade others that you're right. If you can't do that, you're not right by Wikipedia's definition of right. Very little is so cut-and-dried black-and-white. ―Mandruss ☎ 01:42, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

I agree. I'm very interested in anyone weighing in on why they feel I'm wrong on the substance of the edit under discussion. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:45, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

Sure, the only question being how much more time you want to commit to such a small issue, both yours and others'. Nobody is required to respond to you, as I'm sure you know, and a failure to respond does NOT constitute surrender. I know it can be damned frustrating, but we don't have to keep talking until you think we've talked enough. If others have had enough—and until you successfully pursue another avenue—and unless other editors jump in before auto-archival of this section—this is a settled issue against your bold edit. Gaming the system? Depends on one's perspective.

But your first revert was still wrong. ―Mandruss ☎ 02:58, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

Lead tags excessive detail

I reverted the deletion of the Trump rollback of environmental policies and of the number of felony counts, among other changes to the lead. Now the sentences have been tagged as excessive details. Are the tags justified?

• Environment. Sentenced proposed for removal: He weakened environmental protections, rolling back more than 100 environmental policies and regulations.
• Felony counts. Current version:

  He is on trial in New York on 34 felony counts of falsifying business records, and was indicted in Florida on 40 felony counts related to his mishandling of classified documents; in Washington, D.C., on four felony counts of conspiracy and obstruction for efforts to overturn the 2020 presidential election; and in Georgia on ten charges of racketeering and other felonies committed in an effort to overturn the state's 2020 election results.

  Proposed version:

  He is on trial in New York for falsifying business records, and was indicted in Florida for mishandling of classified documents, in Washington, D.C., for conspiracy and obstruction for efforts to overturn the 2020 presidential election, and in Georgia for racketeering and other felonies committed in an effort to overturn the state's 2020 election results.

Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 17:30, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

Survey: Lead tags excessive detail

• Remove both tags. Environment: Keep the sentence. The NYT lists 100 environmental rules that were officially reversed, revoked or otherwise rolled back and more than a dozen other potential rollbacks in progress but were not finalized by the end of his term. Felony counts: Keep the numbers. That's an astonishing number of felony counts for anyone, let alone a former president currently running for another term. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 17:42, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
• Keep tags

  In the first one, I would keep part of it: He weakened environmental protections.

  In the second one, I would reduce it to: He is currently on trial in several criminal courts for activities related to his presidency and business.

  Bob K31416 (talk) 20:08, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

  That misstates the crux of the crimes. SPECIFICO talk 02:22, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

  Could you explain? Thanks. Bob K31416 (talk) 15:37, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

• The tags are currently appropriate, but I would support Bob's resolution. The purpose of the lead is not to collect things that are astonishing, but to present a balanced and proportionate summary of the article. Given the length of this content in the article body relative to the article as a whole, Bob's version is much closer to proportional than the tagged version. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:33, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

  I agree. Bob's version is an improvement. Riposte97 (talk) 21:46, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

  I agree with Bob’s version. Convictions are more serious than accusations, so mere accusations should not be detailed in the lead. Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:05, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

• No tags, retain current version of text A few editors exhibit a zeal to trim this article in a belief that sacrificing detail in exchange for some nebulous, ill-defined goal of "readability" is a desirable goal. It is not. The subject of this article is a complex and extensively, extensively-written about individual. There's a lot to say, and we do the readers a disservice if incomplete coverage is presented to them. Zaathras (talk) 13:07, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

  Readers would not be ill-served by having to go to linked Trump sub-articles for much of the detail currently in this article. It's less about readability than proper hierarchical structure and reduction of redundant detail that has to be coordinated between articles. Many editors find it difficult to grasp that this article is merely the trunk of a large Trump tree, and the sub-articles are there to be read by interested readers.

  And who knows how many readers want that level of detail? I probably would not, preferring the executive summary. I'm solidly uninterested that Trump withdrew the U.S. from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (multiply by ~200 in the Foreign policy section alone), but I might want a four-sentence summary of Trump's foreign policy vis-a-vis Iran (which I can't get at any other article). The "disservice" is in not giving me the kind of information I seek. If a reader doesn't want that much detail, yes, it does get in the way and readability does become an issue.

  "Summary" does not mean redundantly duplicating the most important details, which is what this article currently does; rather, it means substantially reducing the level of detail—providing an overview. No doubt, it requires a skill not possessed by many editors, certainly including me. But it is not un-doable. We've got some smart and talented people around here. All it takes is a change in mind set, which is years overdue. (Inserted 21:06, 12 May 2024 (UTC) after replies.)

  Otherwise, no opinion on this specific issue. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:20, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

  FYI, it's about items in the lead. Bob K31416 (talk) 12:23, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

  I think Zaathras is too competent to refer to "incomplete coverage" in the context of the lead alone. That's a newbie mistake approaching absurdity. If I rambled into an off-topic tangent, apologies, but Zaathras opened the door. ―Mandruss ☎ 01:36, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

  It was about everything, Bobs. You know what they say about assumptions. Zaathras (talk) 02:40, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

• No tags, no further trimming needed. The subject is possibly the most-covered politician of recent years, and as such the level of detail is justified. Cortador (talk) 09:05, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

  The level of detail in these particular statements is disproportionate. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:37, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

• Remove tags to prevent misleading omissions in trimming. SPECIFICO talk 02:22, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

  Is there a version that is more proportional that would not, in your view, result in "misleading omissions"? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:30, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

  @SPECIFICO: ↑? Nikkimaria (talk) 00:18, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

• Keep the environment sentence the same, but enact the proposed version (not Bob's version) of the felony sentence. The lead should be a less-detailed summary of the article, explaining the important bits. The important bits to the section about felony charges are why he is being prosecuted, not the exact list of charges. This should be obvious. @Cortador: This level of detail may be justified in the body, but the lead should be a quick, short summary of the whole article. We would still mention all of this in detail in the body. QuicoleJR (talk) 14:44, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

  "Obvious" is just about the worst argument one can make. Here, it is both self-contradictory and incorrect. SPECIFICO talk 17:28, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

• @Bob K31416, Riposte97, and Anythingyouwant: Is this version amenable to you also? Nikkimaria (talk) 01:03, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

  Your "this version" says, "He is on trial in New York on 34 felony counts, and has been indicted on 54 additional felony counts in other jurisdictions. Trump pleaded not guilty." Yes, I'm amenable to that, it's simple, and of course the trial result in NY will be coming soon, and that result will be more notable than mere charges. Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:25, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

  Looks good to me. Riposte97 (talk) 08:05, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

  I think it's an improvement. Bob K31416 (talk) 19:25, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

• @Firefangledfeathers: work for you? Nikkimaria (talk) 01:23, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

  The current version (starting at "He is on trial" and ending with "all charges" at the end of the paragraph) comes in at 79 words. Your proposal gets it down to 27, but we lose all description of the charges. I'd prefer a 50ish-word summary along the lines of

  He is on trial in New York on 34 felony counts, and has been indicted on 54 additional felony counts in other jurisdictions—he is charged with falsifying business records, mishandling classified documents, and multiple offenses related to his efforts to overturn the 2020 election results. Trump pleaded not guilty.

  Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 03:17, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

• I have no opinion on the tags for now, but I do hope we can agree to removal when this discussion is concluded (even if the conclusion is a petering out). I think the environmental line is fine as is, but I would like to see the criminal case content trimmed down. I think we can present the indicted charges in aggregate (is "state-level" too imprecise a descriptor if DC is included?) and I don't think we need to mention which states are associated with which charges. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 19:25, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

Revert of official nomination

See edit

According to these RS Trump is the official nominee...PBS March 2024 - NBC March 2024 - AP News March 2024 etc...etc...

Unless a majority of sources use the word "dominate" I don't think it deserves to be in wikivoice...

I thought about including citations but that isn't where they go. DN (talk) 01:51, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

• Nomination. "Presumptive" until certified. Quoting AP: "But the magnitude of their wins gave each man the delegate majority he needed to claim his party’s nomination at the summertime national conventions." That just means the delegates at the Republican nominating convention will be bound by party rules to vote for Trump to be certified as the party's presidential candidate to get on each state's ballot. (See also the Ohio Republican legislature's attempt to keep Biden off their state ballot because the Democratic nominating convention will take place after Ohio's certification deadline for presidential major party nominees of 90 days before the election, a deadline they gladly amended to 60 days the last time the Republican National Convention took place after the certification deadline (RNC and DNC take turns holding the conventions in July and August). As for the certainty of the nomination, in theory the party could change the rules, the candidate could drop out ...
• Dominate. Are there any RS for the proposed wording "strongly influence"? The subheading of the NYT article says that "Hoarding cash, doling out favors and seeking to crush rivals, the former president is dominating the G.O.P., preparing for another race and helping loyalists oust officials who thwarted his attempted subversion of the 2020 election." CNN: "a look at the data reveals that Trump now is the [Republican] establishment". FT editorial: "Donald Trump now owns the Republicans". Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 16:22, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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

Charges in the Miami case

@Space4Time3Continuum2x: I don't think we need to list each and every individual charge in the documents case, when "among other charges" will summarize it. We already use similar wording for the Georgia racketeering case. QuicoleJR (talk) 14:40, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

I disagree. Georgia indicted Trump for felonies concerning Georgia, i.e., attempting to overturn the election results in Georgia ("I just need x votes"), attempting to gain access to voting machines, etc., and we only name one charge (racketeering). The charges on the federal level are different, and replacing jointly with a personal aide, single counts of conspiracy to obstruct justice, withholding government documents, corruptly concealing records, concealing a document in a federal investigation and scheming to conceal their efforts with along with several other charges, some being joint charges with a personal aide may not be intended to whitewash but sure looks like it. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 15:16, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

That makes sense. I am fine with keeping the list of charges. QuicoleJR (talk) 15:23, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

Facts are facts...list each and every charge..let the courts decide Anonymous8206 (talk) 23:32, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

Wealth

You have me at a disadvantage with an unlimited number of bold edits per day vs. three reverts, so for now I'm just venting. The self-funding billionaire business whiz paying $750 in taxes per year because of business losses is not an unimportant detail. As for the WWE, let's wait and see if the wrestling enthusiasts who think it's an important part of his bio will weigh in. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 16:13, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

@Space4Time3Continuum2x: I self-reverted on the income tax part, since I did not realize that that sentence referred to how much he paid for all taxes. As for the WWE, do you actually object to this removal? I really do not see how it is important enough to include here. QuicoleJR (talk) 17:31, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the self-revert. WWE: I vaguely remember trimming that section considerably some time ago which was met with considerable resistance. WWE is big in the U.S., and Trump used it to market his persona just like the other shows (Howard Stern, Trumped, Fox and Friends), so IMO the two sentences are justified. But if nobody else objects to their removal, I'm not going to revert. It may result in something wordier, less well sourced being added. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 18:12, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

About the Jan 6 commission

@SPECIFICO: I removed the criminal referral by the Jan 6 commission because AFAICT, the DOJ did not follow it up and actually charge Trump. If my assessment was incorrect, please inform me. QuicoleJR (talk) 17:27, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

?? Yes he has been charged. Such referrals do not supercede prosecutors' discretion as to various details. SPECIFICO talk 17:38, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

Were the charges actually related to the Jan 6 referral? Currently, they do not seem related. If they are not related, the referral did not directly lead to charges and my original point stands. QuicoleJR (talk) 17:40, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

Inline tag in the lead after being reverted

@Nikkimaria: You made a bold edit to the lead, were reverted, and then tagged the reverted material instead of starting a discussion about the merits of your bold edit on the Talk page. Seems to me that that is an improper use of a tag. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 17:13, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

Don't we already have an active discussion about this going above? QuicoleJR (talk) 21:48, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

You're right. I didn't even notice that this is the same content Nikkimaria had removed before. Doing it again while the content is under discussion? I started a new discussion because it didn't seem right to add this new tag to a discussion that's been ongoing (slowly) for two weeks, and this tag is for undue weight, not excessive detail. Not sure what to do about this now. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 10:14, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

As far as I'm concerned, such tagging is for articles that don't have a lot of competent editors around, and it feels more than a little WP:POINTy. I'd like to see a lot less of it here. Instead, use the damn talk page. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:01, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

One of the purposes of that particular tag is to direct people to the talk page. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:31, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

"People" already here don't need directing, and I don't recall ever seeing such a tag attract attention from "outside". If that's happened a handful of times, that doesn't justify the article clutter. It's little different from the {{Very long}} tag, which we have already decided to omit as consensus 64. ―Mandruss ☎ 01:49, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

Home at birth

I am going to revert Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk · contribs)'s removal of the mention of 85-15 Wareham Place. Besides having a Wikipedia article, the location is (as the cite says) the address on Trump's birth certificate. I will reword to clarify this. Ylee (talk) 23:30, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

Looks to me like he was born while his parents lived on Wareham and they moved to Midland Parkway a few years later, exact date unknown. I don't see why the article couldn't convey both; it doesn't get much more "biographical" than this, and virtually anything pre-presidency is some improvement (where there is no sub-article, as here). Space4T: "Is WP at least getting paid for advertising real estate?" Really? ―Mandruss ☎ 00:33, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

Really. Did you look at the cite, Newsday Classifieds? You can rent the place at Wareham, fully furnished, comes with a life-size cardboard cutout of Trump. There is a sub-article, Residences of Donald Trump, gets an average of 150 to 200 views per day. It has the addresses of both houses. moved to Midland Parkway a few years later, exact date unknown: 1950. Adding the info that Trump's parents were living at 85-15 Wareham Place is a biographical improvement — really? This won't be the next Lincoln's birthplace historical monument. Trump's birthplace is Jamaica Hospital, and somehow I can't picture them even affixing a plaque honoring the event. The house on Wareham Place made its way into the bio in 2016, wrongly claiming that Trump lived there until Junior High. The cite for this false claim, this NYT article, does not verify it; it says he grew up in the mansion on Midland Parkway. No idea why the place where Trump's parents lived from 1940 to 1950 (with Trump from 1946 until 1950) even has a WP page; seems undue to me. There's a long list of biographical stuff that we cut due to size. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 11:30, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

House flipping 1, house flipping 2, Trump Media stock house flipping 2.5 Quote: Mr. Trump’s childhood home was briefly available for rent on Airbnb, and a plaque memorialized his conception. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 14:49, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

@Ylee: Your reinsertion of the challenged bold edit violated BRD restrictions in effect on this page (see the banner "Warning: active arbitration remedies", above). Please self-revert.
Status quo ante:

Donald John Trump was born on June 14, 1946, at Jamaica Hospital in Queens, New York City,[1] the fourth child of Fred Trump and Mary Anne MacLeod Trump. Trump grew up with older siblings Maryanne, Fred Jr., and Elizabeth and younger brother Robert in the Jamaica Estates neighborhood of Queens, and attended the private Kew-Forest School from kindergarten through seventh grade.[2][3][4] Trump.

Your original edit, addition in bold:

Donald John Trump was born on June 14, 1946, at Jamaica Hospital in Queens, New York City,[1] the fourth child of Fred Trump and Mary Anne MacLeod Trump. Trump grew up with older siblings Maryanne, Fred Jr., and Elizabeth and younger brother Robert at 85-15 Wareham Place in the Jamaica Estates neighborhood of Queens, and attended the private Kew-Forest School from kindergarten through seventh grade.[2][3][4][5]

Current edit:

Donald John Trump was born on June 14, 1946, at Jamaica Hospital in Queens, New York City,[1] the fourth child of Fred Trump and Mary Anne MacLeod Trump, living at 85-15 Wareham Place in Jamaica Estates, Queens, New York. Trump grew up with older siblings Maryanne, Fred Jr., and Elizabeth and younger brother Robert, and attended the private Kew-Forest School from kindergarten through seventh grade.[2][3][4][5]

I challenged the insertion of the content, i.e., the address, both as an undue detail and because it is incorrect - he lived in the mansion much longer than in the Tudor. The current iteration is even worse, IMO, adding his parents' address at the time he was born. I fail to see the significance of either. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 11:36, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

Interesting tidbit I would not be aware of if it wasn't in the article for a few hours..... now lost to history because someone doesn't like a link. Moxy🍁 13:51, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

Many interesting tidbits were lost to history because reasons. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 14:01, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

I'm wondering if they all involve the stewards of this article? Moxy🍁 17:15, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

Again? Kind of funny, 'though. I'm usually one of the "stewards" who catch flak for opposing the removal of details. Can't win for losing. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 17:18, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

I don't think someone's parents address when they were born belongs in articles unless there is something significant about the address, for example if his parents had lived in Gracie Mansion or Blenheim Palace. TFD (talk) 17:28, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

+1. Is it really that important when we are already at the point of trying to save space? QuicoleJR (talk) 17:49, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

I apologize for violating BRD; I thought that opening a Talk thread would be sufficient compliance for the rule (which I knew applies to the article) for something relatively innocuous as this. I think that the address of Trump's family at the time of his birth is relevant; Trump lived there until the age of four, so it's not like a temporary residency in which his family happened to be on vacation in that week or something, either. I agree that not every home he lived in while growing up is relevant here, or (say) the addresses of his dorms at Fordham and Wharton; residences of Donald Trump, as noted, exists. Trump Tower does appear in this article; it is notable both on its own and as Trump's primary residence for decades. While not quite on that level, I submit that the closest thing to his birthplace is also relevant here.

As for "real estate advertisement", I echo Mandruss (talk · contribs)'s incredulity at the accusation. Since when is Newsday not a RS? I didn't create the Wikipedia article on 85-15 Wareham, so some degree of notability has already been established. Ylee (talk) 19:58, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

I apologize for the facetious wording, seemingly directed at you. I was commenting on the most trivial minutiae in Trump's life having been memorialized with WP articles. The house isn't notable. After Trump became the presumptive GOP nominee in 2016, real estate speculators hyped it as Trump's childhood home, and it became part of Trump's "self-made billionaire from humble origins" persona, never mind that he grew up in the 23-room mansion with cook and chauffeur on the other side of the block. I just proposed merging 85-15 Wareham Place into Residences of Donald Trump which already mentions both places. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 14:40, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

Media use of the word "lies"

Until 2018, the media rarely referred to Trump's falsehoods as lies, including when he repeated demonstrably false statements.

This has more to do with the media than Trump "the man" or whatever the standard is for inclusion here. Iamreallygoodatcheckers ^talk 06:52, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

Referring to Donald Trump#False or misleading statements: I believe the standard was that Trump the man got a pass from the media for a long time. Quoting the AP source: President Donald Trump has been accused of dishonesty, spreading falsehoods, misrepresenting facts, distorting news, passing on inaccuracies and being loose with the truth. But does he lie? Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 11:44, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

Yeah this seems like a consensus 22 vio. Riposte97 (talk) 13:02, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

It's not. We're not calling Trump a "liar" in Wikipedia voice. The question is whether the media referring to Trump's falsehoods as lies is a viewpoint in proportion to its prominence in reliable sources. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 13:40, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

On the contrary, we are implying two things: 1) that he lies, and 2) that since 2018, the media have called his false statements lies. Neither of those things is justifiable. Riposte97 (talk) 04:26, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

Even if what you say is correct, it still doesn't violate 22. Wikivoice isn't about (subjectively) "implying" something, it's about saying something. Anyway, it's false to say we are implying that he lies. We're simply observing and reporting media behavior (supported by sources, so no OR). As for the precise year, I don't know how verifiable that is, and we could maybe reword to eliminate that. (Unless sources actually say 2018 was the year of the sea change, that is OR.) The essential point is that media avoided the word for some number of years; then they stopped avoiding it. There's little room for dispute about that. ―Mandruss ☎ 06:47, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

Rip, we need to reflect the current mainstream view, not an average over the past six years. Current mainstream RS have indeed gotten comfortable dropping the euphemistic framing he enjoyed for most of his charmed life. SPECIFICO talk 19:38, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

Riposte97, we are not "implying" "that he lies". Rather, we are documenting that RS say "that he lies". That is a fact, and it is our duty to report what RS say. Also, when backed by RS (and we have myriad of them), it is totally "justifiable" to write that "the media have called his false statements lies." It is not only "justifiable", we must do it. That's our job. Whitewashing violates NPOV. (Frankly, IRL, it would be dishonest for anyone to imply that he doesn't lie, but that's another matter. This is about editing here.) -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 19:52, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

Gotta say you're overstating the case. WP:ONUS: "While information must be verifiable for inclusion in an article, not all verifiable information must be included. Consensus may determine that certain information does not improve an article." Thus, choosing to omit something doesn't constitute whitewashing. You might as well claim that consensus 22 is whitewashing. Even while media uses the word "lies", we have decided not to do so in wikivoice. I think that shows a healthy degree of restraint. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:33, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

Of course we don't include literally "everything". We leave out trivia. This happens to be pretty important, and that's what I'm talking about. We may not use wikivoice in this article for that particular word, but we still document that RS show he lies an awful lot. We can use the word when cited. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 00:58, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

Other examples: consensuses 14, 26, 31, 39, and 59 (some decidedly NOT "trivia"). This list excludes a number of consensuses where Trump-negative things are omitted from the lead alone. ―Mandruss ☎ 01:02, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

We can use the word when cited. Not in wikivoice, per 22. And the sentence under discussion here is sufficient; we're not going to report that on Junetember 33, 2021, the Washington Post said Trump lies (etc., etc.). ―Mandruss ☎ 01:14, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

Mandruss, we're talking about #22, so I am obviously not suggesting we can say it in wikivoice. #22 does not forbid the existence of the word(s) when quoting RS. It just forbids the use of the word(s) in wikivoice.

BTW, you're supplying good evidence that some of these items likely seriously violate NPOV and BLP by giving preferential and protective treatment, far beyond BLP's WP:PUBLICFIGURE, to Trump that we do not extend to other subjects. Editorial neutrality, the core of NPOV, is being suspended just to protect Trump. That's so wrong. The existence of a "Trump exemption" giving him favorable treatment is long practice here, and it needs to stop. By 2018, mainstream RS finally had had enough and stopped protecting him, and we are supposed to use RS as our guiding star here. We should not ignore what they are doing. The whitewashing must stop. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 15:24, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

22 is based on a 2017 RfC. That's quite a while ago now. If there are indeed a significant number of RS either stating that Trump has lied (more likely) or that Trump is a liar (less likely), it seems a new RfC is in order to establish whether sourcing is strong enough to state that in wikivoice. Cortador (talk) 10:44, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

Cortador, per my reply to Mandruss, I think you're right. Editorial neutrality is being suspended just to protect Trump. That's so wrong. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 15:24, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

We should review all of the items on that list that reflect RS' early reluctance to use straightforward language about people and things MAGA. SPECIFICO talk 15:31, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

Agree. This is not about trivia, which rightfully should not clutter a lead. It's about Trump's primary modus operandi, the foundation of his business and political careers, the Kool-Aid that is the primary nourishment of his MAGA cult, and his overarching and dominant character trait. Its due weight is enormous, so rather than minimize it, it should be profiled as prominently as RS do it, which is how the body should also treat it, and then the lead reflect the body. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 15:36, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

it seems a new RfC is in order to establish whether sourcing is strong enough to state that in wikivoice. No objection from a process standpoint, although I would probably oppose. It does appear to meet the "situation has changed" standard that we have historically required for revisitation of a consensus. It's also a very dramatic change, the most dramatic in my memory, and I think it should require not only an RfC but an RfC with high participation. I.e., if we don't have, say, 30 editors by the time it's de-listed, it should be kept open and re-listed, continuing to re-list until we do. Even if it's trending strongly one way or the other.

The election year timing is unfortunate. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:07, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

Whether or not it's an election year is entirely irrelevant. The sole relevant factor here is whether the number of reliable sources calling Trump a liar or someone who lies is sufficient to state so in wikivoice. Cortador (talk) 19:20, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

I didn't say it's relevant; I said it's unfortunate. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:24, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

Off-topic about what's wrong with Wikipedia in general. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:36, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
issue comes from RS being left wing, that’s what’s wrong with Wikipedia in general 2A04:4A43:529F:D394:7008:E480:EA06:1920 (talk) 11:31, 30 May 2024 (UTC) You mean that RS present ACTUAL facts, instead of "alternative facts". --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 13:13, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

Source assessment: I check which sources actually stated in their voice that Trump lied or is a liar. I excluded opinion pieces and only went with sources that are not marked as unreliable as per Wikipedia's list of perennial sources. I did not exclude sources considered to be opinionated by some editors. Pieces that exclusively cite someone else stating that Trump lied were excluded as well. However, if those sources additionally called Trump a liar or claimed he lied in their own voice, I included them. This list is not exhaustive.

CBS News: Donald Trump lied about gaming and Florida casinos

Mother Jones: Trump Lied More Than 30,000 Times During His Presidency. No Wonder We’re Exhausted

CNN: Numerous articles e.g. 1 2 3 4 5

Mediaite: Reporter Fact-Checks Trump’s Claim Cops Are Keeping Out Crowds of MAGA Protestors: ‘There is One Pro-Trump Person Here’

Forbes: Numerous articles e.g. 1 2 3

Business Insider: Trump lied during his big abortion announcement and said Democrats want to be able to execute babies and Trump lied about the 2020 election and recycled conspiracy theories in a letter to the Jan. 6 committee after it voted to subpoena him

Daily Beast: Donald Trump Lied, and Mike Pence Could Have Died

The Wrap: Old Tweet Proves Donald Trump Lied About Global Warming

Vogue: Donald Trump Lied About Stormy Daniels. Why Should We Believe He Isn’t Still Lying?

Fortune: Why Donald Trump’s Lies During the Presidential Debate Don’t Matter

Vox: Donald Trump just lied again about opposing the Iraq War before it started. Here’s proof

Slate: Trump Lied About COVID to Protect the Markets, Not Human Beings

Vanity Fair: Surprise: Donald Trump Lied About His Nasty Little Toilet-Clogging Habit

Here's some non-American sources as well:

CBC: How Donald Trump lied his way onto the Forbes 400 richest people list

Hindustan Times: New Hampshire Primary: All the things Donald Trump lied about in the Primary

The Guardian: Trump’s CNN town hall was a mess of lies – and it was utterly predictable

Frankfurter Rundschau: Donald Trump lügt am laufenden Band - Ex-Präsident im Faktencheck

Tagesspiegel: Donald Trump und seine Lügen

Aftnonbladet: Experten: Här är klippet som avslöjar Trumps lögn

Sveska Dagbladet: Så ska vi tänka när Trump ljuger världen i ansiktet

Göteborgs-Posten: Forskare: Trumps lögner liknar en diktators

El País: Trump miente cuatro veces más que al comienzo de su presidencia

Tagesschau: Herr der Lügen and Lügen, Spott und große Versprechen Cortador (talk) 22:12, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

Hmm. Seems like prima Davie evidence that not only should the media paragraph be stronger, but potentially, 22 should be revisited. Riposte97 (talk) 22:35, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

There's little disagreement that the situation has changed, in fact the article already states that. That's all we need to justify revisitation. We're certainly not going to cancel 22 in this thread, and any source assessments should be saved for the RfC, if any. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:41, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

Speaking of which: That's how any RfC should be framed, in my opinion... canceling 22 rather than superseding it. We don't need a consensus item to allow something: if it's not banned, it's allowed by default. The link to the RfC would be placed at the end of the canceled item 22, identified as e.g. "Canceled: RfC July 2024".

If there were subsequent disputes about specific content using the L-word, they might warrant new consensus items; but that's different. That probably should be "when", not "if". ―Mandruss ☎ 00:12, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard § Are these "/current consensus" pages even real?

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard § Are these "/current consensus" pages even real?. –Novem Linguae (talk) 10:20, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

Erroneous date for hush money jury conviction

I don't have extend protection privileges but the date on the article currently says June 30, 2024 instead of May. SeizureSaladdd (talk) 21:17, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

Felon

THIS IS BIASED he might be convicted but the jury was paid threatened or are wastes of breath 2600:8807:8886:5700:7889:8D71:6BCD:D9F8 (talk) 21:24, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

He was convicted. It is fair to say he is a convicted felon. BroadcastPs4 (talk) 21:25, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

He was convicted of felonies by a jury of her peers, whatever you think of the verdict. His conviction is a fact. Aresef (talk) 21:26, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

Reliable sources say otherwise. hr is convicted. Babysharkboss2 was here!! ^{Dr. Wu is NOT a Doctor!} 21:26, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

He is, objectively, a convicted felon, although labeling him as such in the lede shouldn't be done as of yet because Wikipedia is not news and it carries a negative connotation. We should avoid blatantly describing him negatively for the sake of neutrality. If it were to be included in the lede, it should say something more like: "In 2024, Trump was convicted of various felonies." AmericanBaath (talk) 21:35, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

If you are able to demonstrate that the consensus among reliable sources is that the conviction is invalid due to jurors who were paid, threatened, or are wastes of breath, then I'm sure we would be happy to accede to your request. Otherwise, while our manner of communicating it might be up for debate, it would appear that his conviction is an objective statement of fact. CtP (t • c)

The conviction was made up they need to find and remove the jurors

I do not think that death threats towards "liberals" are allowed on Wikipedia talk pages. Thank you. GLORIOUSEXISTENCE (talk) 21:35, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

Before anyone say 'free speech.' Death threats are not protected under free speech. NesserWiki (talk) 23:06, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

1. Do you have a source? (Rhetorical question, but still).

2. It is fair, because it is true. Donald John Trump is a convicted felon. NesserWiki (talk) 23:05, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

How is what I said a death threat I threatened nobody yall are so sensitive

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 30 May 2024

Please add Felon to the introduction page as now Donald Trump is the first Ex-president who is also a felon Markhhe (talk) 21:28, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

This is already in there. RudolfRed (talk) 21:54, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

It is not.

It says:

"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."

It SHOULD say:

"Donald John Trump (born June 14, 1946) is an American politician, media personality, businessman, and convicted felon who served as the 45th president of the United States from 2017 to 2021." Hazeust (talk) 23:04, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

What we do after conviction

Now that he’s been convicted of a crime (in this case 34 counts of falsifying business records), would it be appropriate to add the criminal infobox? I’m not saying to convert from officeholder to criminal, but rather add criminal which would list the charges he was convicted of, his sentence (he hasn’t been sentenced yet, so that’s a moot point right now), and so on.

Now, if this hasn’t already been done, I had been thinking that the category American criminals could be changed to 21st century American criminals since he was convicted of crimes during the 21st century. If you would prefer to retain the current category, that’s fine by me. Unknown0124 (talk) 21:29, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

I would like to add my strong support for the phrase "convicted felon" in the opening sentence. Brad (talk) 21:34, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

Not a point of discussion. Please re-read the initial statement. Unknown0124 (talk) 21:45, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

strong support for the phrase "convicted felon" in the opening sentence as well. Volunteer Marek 21:34, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

I’m not seeking to remove the phrase “convicted felon” from the opening sentence, but rather put in the criminal infobox showing the charges he was convicted of, his sentence whatever that may be, and whatever else is included that pertains to the case. Unknown0124 (talk) 21:51, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

Support as well Babysharkboss2 was here!! ^{Dr. Wu is NOT a Doctor!} 21:36, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

strong support for the phrase "convicted felon" in the opening sentence. 24.17.114.235 (talk) 21:36, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

It’s a basic fact. I’m not seeking to change that. Unknown0124 (talk) 21:48, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

He is a convicted felon. It should be in the first paragraph, or at least much sooner than it currently is, which is buried in paragraph six. Justdoit345 (talk) 21:53, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

The fact that he’s a convicted felon is undisputed. Just saw that the phrase “convicted felon” was removed while typing this, but this discussion isn’t about that, it’s about adding a criminal infobox showing the crimes he was convicted of, the sentence (when he’s sentenced), and other pertinent criminal info. Unknown0124 (talk) 21:59, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

I think it important to

mention unanimous verdict and guilty on all 37 charges. Is he now a felon or must the sentencing or appeals be considered ? What source is the most impeccable ? — ⦿⨦⨀Tumadoireacht ^Talk/_Stalk 21:38, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

I thought there were 34 charges. Either way, he was convicted on all counts, making him a convicted felon. As for what source, I couldn’t tell you. I look at all the sources. Unknown0124 (talk) 21:47, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

Under principles of United States law, Donald John Trump is now a convicted felon. The sentencing and appeals do not alter this fact until and unless they result in the conviction being overturned and expunged. 2600:100C:B035:BD43:CD57:995A:FD02:462E (talk) 21:50, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

I know that, and I’m not trying to change that. All I’m doing is trying to get a criminal infobox that shows the crimes Donald John Trump was convicted of, his sentence (when he is sentenced), and other pertinent info. Unknown0124 (talk) 21:54, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

OPPOSE Not needed — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8807:8886:5700:7889:8d71:6bcd:d9f8 (talk) 21:35, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for your input! Would you like to explain why it's unnecessary? Guninvalid (talk) 22:49, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

strong support per above GLORIOUSEXISTENCE (talk) 21:37, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

Strong support - Obvious fact. Nick Cooper (talk) 21:40, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

The use of the phrase “convicted felon” wasn’t up for discussion, it’s an obvious fact as you point out. What I’m asking about is the addition of the criminal infobox showing the charges against him along with his sentence and other criminal info. Unknown0124 (talk) 21:44, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

I think his charges should be shown in the infobox so that the reader has easy access, yes. Justarandomamerican (talk) Have a good day! 21:54, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, that’s why I proposed it in the first place. Unknown0124 (talk) 21:56, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

Yes.. and I support your idea. Justarandomamerican (talk) Have a good day! 22:10, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

Strong Support I agree completely, I think we should add the criminal infobox to the article. Death Editor 2 (talk) 21:59, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

Strong Support to add the criminal infobox to the article. --150.143.27.147 (talk) 22:22, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

Strong support the addition of criminal_charges field, which can read something like "First-degree falsifying business records". The criminal_penalty field can be updated once the sentencing goes through. Bgregz (talk) 22:40, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

Strong support adding a criminal infobox. He's been convicted just as every other criminal with an infobox. Should probably go at the bottom beneath his existing infoboxes. Guninvalid (talk) 22:51, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

RfC on use of "convicted felon" in first sentence

Trump has been convicted of 34 felony counts. Should the first sentence of the article be rewritten in some form to include the phrase "convicted felon?" ~Politicdude (About me, talk, contribs) 21:38, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

Strong oppose per WP: PRECEDENT on similar articles. A simple at the list of heads of state or government who were later imprisoned article, which includes figures such as Nicolas Sarkozy, François Fillon, Ehud Olmert, Jeanine Áñez, Michel Temer, Pedro Pablo Kuczynski, Alejandro Toledo, Carlos Menem, Adrian Năstase, shows that criminal convictions almost never appear in the first sentence of their pages. As the case is already undergoing appeal: it remains to be seen on whether this will be a defining part of Trump's life. At the very least, we should wait to see whether the conviction will be overturned, as the case is already undergoing an appeal and it remains to be seen what will happen. KlayCax (talk) 22:32, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

Perhaps that should be revisited, and these articles should have these annotations in the first sentence. 162.142.106.91 (talk) 22:56, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

Oppose "convicted felon" in opening sentence. It should almost certainly be mentioned in the lede, but not the first sentence, as this generally goes against common precedent with regard to individuals who are not primarily known for being felons. Case in point: Chris Huhne, another politician who became a convicted criminal. His conviction is not mentioned in the opening sentence but is still mentioned later in the lede. Even O. J. Simpson, who is arguably known for his legal controversies, is not referred to as a "convicted felon" in the opening sentence. To do so with Trump would definitely be undue especially when compared to previous precedent. Adding the criminal infobox is also definitely undue. 51.9.192.225 (talk) 21:41, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

See also Nicolas Sarkozy. 109.184.45.166 (talk) 21:44, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

OJ Simpson was not a convicted felon. Jbvann05 21:49, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

Simpson was convicted of felony robbery and kidnapping in 2008. ~Politicdude (About me, talk, contribs) 21:52, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

neat, but also I think putting it in OJ Simpson's page would be largely misleading because he's primarily known for a trial where he was found not-guilty by a jury. Ioletsgo (talk) 21:57, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

On the other hand, you have figures like Rod Blagojevich and James Traficant who have that phrasing in their opening sentence. Capromeryx (talk) 21:59, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

Agree with all the points stated here – there's really no justification for it being in the opening sentence (as opposed to the lede generally) Ary31415 (talk) 22:02, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

To be fair, he is known for not being convicted of a crime ULPS ^{(talk • contribs)} 22:04, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

I don't see how you can say it should be in the lede but not the first sentence, as the lede paragraph is only one sentence at present. Unless you think there should be a second sentence added just for the conviction or the conviction and some other information? JustReadTheory (talk) 22:33, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

The lede is everything before the 'Personal life' header. --Onorem (talk) 22:41, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

What you're referring to is the Lead Section; the term "lede" only refers to a lead paragraph. I see people making this mistake all across this thread I just want everyone to be clear about what the proper nomenclature is. JustReadTheory (talk) 23:01, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

Support due to being established fact, but the reason i came here is that there should be a comma between "businessman" and "convicted felon" 2600:6C4E:1000:82:2477:1348:9236:C933 (talk) 21:49, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

That's not in dispute; the issue is whether the inclusion would be undue weight. See MOS:LEADNO. Firestar464 (talk) 21:57, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

Strong Support Zeldamaster702 (talk) 21:50, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

Oppose far too early to tell if the fact that he got convicted of some crimes contributes equally to notability to the face he is a politician and businessman. My instincts say 'no'. Snowmanonahoe (talk · contribs · typos) 21:51, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

the businessman would never have become a politician had he not committed the crimes he was convicted of. 47.188.114.197 (talk) 22:45, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

That's irrelevant to this discussion. He would not have become a criminal if he were not born, but we're not going to put "son of his mom" in the first sentence. Guninvalid (talk) 22:53, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

Strong support as being both a president and a convicted felon is one of the most notable things in this person's life, if not the history of the US. I also note the RfC above includes several comments expressing strong support for it to be included as well. David Palmer//cloventt ^(talk) 21:52, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

Wait and see, if that's a thing I'm allowed to say. He has time to appeal his conviction so he may not be a convicted felon when all is said and done. Additionally, it remains to be seen just how big a part of his legacy these convictions will be. Though admittedly a Wikipedia fight really shouldn't wait for this guy to die or anything so idk Guninvalid (talk) 22:56, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

Oppose per the IP editor above. The first sentence of a biography is limited to the things that make the subject notable. Trump is notable for being (sorted chronologically) a real estate mogul, a media personality, and a U.S. president. Being the first president to be a convicted felon is now a prominent fact, but it's not the thing he's notable for. It should be featured prominently in the lead but doesn't meet the criteria for a first sentence descriptor. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 21:52, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

He is the first and only President with a felony conviction. If this isn't notable, and if this isn't as notable as anything else he's notable for, then nothing is notable 2600:100C:B035:BD43:845:B310:B512:6D77 (talk) 21:57, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

Hard to see why being one of 45 US presidents is notable, but being the only one who is a convicted felon is not notable. If anything logically it is even more notable. 2A00:23C8:1E87:C301:FE16:FEB1:F8D:EBE1 (talk) 22:03, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

Strong Support 66.235.229.94 (talk) 21:53, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

Oppose: Classifying Donald Trump as a convicted felon in the very first sentence of this Wikipedia article will cause massive damage to the credibility of Wikipedia as a whole. It will also discourage readers from reading further if they are looking for a neutral article to read. I agree with Thebiguglyalien in that the first sentence of a biography should be very limited to the things that make the subject notable. I agree with it being mentioned in the lead, but not for the first sentence. DocZach (talk) 21:55, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

NO! He is not a "convicted felon" until he is sentenced. This is how US law works. See, e.g. CNBC: Trump’s guilty verdict does not make him a “convicted felon,” however. This label will not be accurate until after he is sentenced in July.. The guilty verdict is not the same thing as a conviction. It's possible (unlikely, but possible) that the judge will "set aside the verdict." Only a judge can convict, not a jury. Gotta wait until July. Levivich (talk) 22:29, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

Strong support Trump is a convicted felon as of an hour ago. It is relevant to the article and him. WxTrinity :3 (My talk page, my contributions and my creations!) 22:29, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

Strongly Support

I agree it should be shown in the first sentence and known fact. 2600:8807:C953:1200:D1CB:7B2F:414B:1A5B (talk) 22:30, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

Support There are two simple facts: 1 - he is a felon. That's irrefutable. 2 - It is of historic significance that a former president is now a felon. Neither of these facts are either controversial or up for debate. Knutrokne (talk) 22:32, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

Strong support because it's notable and being a convicted felon is of top importance to the article's subject. JohnAdams1800 (talk) 22:36, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

Support If not in the first sentence, certainly in the first paragraph. It’s more than notable enough. Opportunity Rover (talk) 22:37, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

Strong Support because Trump's felony conviction is notorious by virtue of being the first felony conviction (technically the first 34 felony convictions) of a former US POTUS. That level of notoriety makes this something that is an undeniable part of what Trump's legacy will be moving forward, and deserves to be noted in the lede. DBalling (talk) 22:49, 30 May 2024 (UTC) DBalling (talk) 22:49, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

Strong support. Per MOS:LEADBIO "The lead section should summarise with due weight the life and works of the person." I believe that the conviction of Donald Trump qualifies for this. GameCreepr (talk) 22:57, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

Oppose, but I would be in support of something more nuanced & detailed in a new second sentence within the lede. For example, I propose that the full lede should look something like this:

"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 also the first president in United States history to be convicted of a felony crime (pending appeal)."

It obviously doesn't have to be the exact new sentence I wrote above, but I do think that it is important enough to warrant adding a second sentence to the lede. The way I see it, the first sentence in the lede of an article about a notable human should work to summarize them as a person (i.e. their important "titles", like "scientist"/"president"/etc.), with any subsequent sentence(s) specifying notable things that they are especially notable for (i.e. what has happened to them/what have they done that is important enough to include in the lede but that isn't necessarily a title).

Obviously, one could make the good-faith argument that "convicted felon" is a title, but I think that this article in particular needs to be as unbiased as is physically possible due to the controversial nature of the person - and "convicted felon" as a title feels too negatively-charged for something that requires caution above and beyond what is normal. (for the record, I don't like the guy - but that doesn't [and shouldn't] matter in the context of this situation, as I believe it is our job to state facts about the subject at hand as objectively as possible). TuffTareBear (talk) 23:00, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

Oppose because of a few things. The biggest justification for putting "convicted felon" as the lead is that it WILL be notable. This is not yet what he is mostly known for.

While many will see him as a felon, there are a large amount of people who will see it as a hit piece. The usage of the term "convicted felon" has clear political motives and we still have no clue how the felony will affect his reputation or if it will be notable. It shouldn't be there (yet) DonnieNova (talk) 23:03, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

Strong Support This is a historic outcome in the United States, quite noteworthy. He isn't terribly noteworthy outside of NYC for being a competent real estate dealer; he notably has failed several times at this (e.g casinos). He was technically President of the US, but did not win the popular vote and is widely considered one of the worst presidents of all time. His conviction is quite noteworthy. 162.142.106.91 (talk) 23:09, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

Donald Trump being a convicted felon is an objective fact. Stating that would not "cause massive damage to the credibility of Wikipedia as a whole" or harm the neutrality of this article. ~Politicdude

(About me, talk, contribs) 21:58, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

Donald J. Trump is a convicted felon on 34 occasions, that is correct and stating anything else is what is truly partial MrFluffster (talk) 22:07, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

Support: A counter-argument to this is on the list here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_American_federal_politicians_convicted_of_crimes

In the large majority of cases here, the mention to convictions is present in the first paragraph. Felon is a charged them but not unprecedented/ 2620:15C:2C0:5:8963:AA5:8493:4A38 (talk) 22:17, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

This subject was recently discussed at a recent WT:MOSBIO § RfC: "convicted felon" / "convicted sex offender" in the lead sentence, and the general consensus (disclaimer: I participated) seems to be that no, we should almost never say "felon" in the opening sentence unless the person is primarily notable for their criminal activity. And even then, we should state what they were convicted for, because "felony" can cover everything from civil disobedience to serial murder. Is there any reason to make an exception here? Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 21:55, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

I'll pose @TuffTareBear comment as a potential solution. We could do 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 also the first president in United States history to be convicted of a felony crime (pending appeal) for his financial fraud in his illegal hush money payments to Stormy Daniels." Guninvalid (talk) 23:08, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

Strong support -- the first American president to be a convicted felon is noteworthy as such. Brad (talk) 21:55, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

Oppose per IP. It should certainly be in the lede, but not the very first sentence. Being the first President convicted of felonies is notable enough for the lede but is not what makes Trump himself famous.

Nickelpro (talk) 21:56, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

Nope. Whilst it's certainly a verifiable fact that should be stated in the lede, it should not be a first sentence descriptor. A first sentence descriptor should not be breaking news. Justarandomamerican (talk) Have a good day! 21:58, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

In terms of a !vote, oppose. Justarandomamerican (talk) Have a good day! 22:13, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

Strong Support As a self-described law and order politician, who has called for his opponents to be locked up, his being a felon is very much relevant. (The average US president has now been found guilty with 0.7556 felonies, in case you were wondering). Ben Aveling 21:59, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

Let me emphasis this point: 45 people have been president of America. Several of them were businessmen, etc. Exactly one of those 45 people has been a convicted felon. Ben Aveling 22:40, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

Oppose, but I would say that if the question was asked about any article on Wikipedia. On the other hand, if it belongs in any articles at all, it belongs here. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 22:01, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

I support this as long as it reads factually and encyclopedic. We have precedence for wording along the lines of first American president convicted of a felony after leaving office with an appropriate blue link. microbiologyMarcus ^{[petri dish·growths]} 22:02, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

Strong support adding it. The arguments that he's not known for it are irrelevant. He is and will forever be known as the first president convicted of a crime. It's going to be in the first sentence of his obit. It should be added.

Also the argument that people will be turned off by seeing it and not read his article is irrelevant. Wikipedia is about facts. He is a convicted felon. That is a fact. Now until or unless it's overturned it should be added. Iboughtavanagon (talk) 22:04, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

Strong support If Trump is a "businessman" with most of his businesses failing, he's most definitely a convicted felon. It's absolutely notable as he's the first president to be convicted of a felony. It should be the first line in the lede now. It should be documented across history, forever. 173.44.90.198 (talk) 22:04, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

Strong Support given that being the first and only President in United States history is significant and notable. Wikentromere (talk) 22:06, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

Strong support. The first former president ever to be convicted of a felony, and possible election interference which tipped in his favour in 2016 as he was successful in catch and kill the story after the AH tapes were made public. If the story had come out it would have ended his chances. ANd he committed the crimes to hide the payments to Daniels. 84.203.61.255 (talk) 22:07, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

Strong support It is a critical fact; not iincluding it is misleading by omission

Weak oppose per MOS:FIRST: Mr. Trump's being the only former president to also be a convicted felon is highly notable, but, an hour out from the reading of the verdict, it's far less important than the other things mentioned in the first sentence. Also, for the sake of Wikipedia's credibility, I'd prefer our jubilation not spill out into the article. Rebbing 22:07, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

Comment We don't have a policy on whether it is good practice to use "convicted felon" in the first sentence, but we do have Wikipedia:Crime labels which I personally find thoughtful and nuanced, and which speaks directly to this issue. ~Awilley (talk) 22:16, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

Support Donald Trump has for a very long time now been involved in various trials, which has been picked up countless times by reliable sources. The very first sentence of the article Personal and business legal affairs of Donald Trump reads as following:

From the 1970s until he was elected president in 2016, Donald Trump and his businesses were involved in over 4,000 legal cases in United States federal and state courts, including battles with casino patrons, million-dollar real estate lawsuits, personal defamation lawsuits, and over 100 business tax disputes.

The sheer number of legal cases Trump has been involved in suggests that the legal system is a highly notable aspect of Trump himself. And as the recent felony conviction directly relates to a legal case he has been at the centre of for a long time, I believe it is only fair and notable to mention his new status as a convicted felon in the opening sentence of the lede. --KingErikII (Talk page) 22:08, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

Support

Mr Donald J. Trump is a convicted felon.

Not mentioning this may omit relevant information to the reader. MrFluffster (talk) 22:10, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

The subject of this RFC is not whether or not it should be mentioned, but whether or not it should be in the first sentence of the article. ~Politicdude (About me, talk, contribs) 22:11, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

Strong support. The first former president ever to be convicted of a felony, and possible election interference in 2016. He was successful in catch and kill the story after the AH tapes were made public. His own campaign team had said that it would he incredibly damaging to this campaign. And he committed the crimes to hide the payments to Daniels. 84.203.61.255 (talk) 22:12, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

Patience I'm nearly always against WP:RECENTISM. I think it will eventually make sense in the first sentence as it will likely end up being part of the most historically important fact about him. O3000, Ret. (talk) 22:14, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

It already is one of the most historically important facts about him. That horse is out of the barn. 2600:100C:B035:BD43:259A:623F:E408:7704 (talk) 22:19, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

Oppose for now. The first sentence should be for what he is primarily known for. Just because he is a felon doesn't mean that that's his main point of notability. It should be mentioned in the lead, just not the first sentence. Di (they-them) (talk) 22:17, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

Strong support I recommend others look at the List of federal politicians convicted of crimes. Of the five politicians mentioned there who were convicted of felonies (John Dean, Darleen Druyun, Michael Grimm, James Traficant, and Corrine Brown), three have their felonies mentioned in the first sentence (Druyun, Traficant, and Grimm), and the other two have their felonies mentioned in the lede paragraph. As the current lede paragraph for Trump is only one sentence, it seems reasonable to place the fact of his conviction there. JustReadTheory (talk) 22:19, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

Strong oppose if "convicted felon" is simply listed alongside "American politician, media personality, and businessman" to appear as if Trump is as well known for being a convicted felon as the other three. I get it. A lot of us, including myself, despise the guy, but we can't use Wikipedia to make ourselves feel fuzzy. Listing all those things together may technically be truthful, but it would be a blatant misrepresentation of Trump's career as to this point. We do not even know yet if these charges will leave a large impact on his legacy. If anything, I would support an edit along the lines of "the 45th president of the United States from 2017 to 2021, and became the first former president to be convicted of a felony in Manhattan, New York, on May 30, 2024." BluegrassBolshevik (talk) 22:21, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

Support We have no other president or ex-president who's ever been convicted of a felony let alone 34 of them. We are obligated to call attention to that early in the article.

Oppose per the precedent of Nicholas Sarkozy. Hurricanehink mobile (talk) 22:12, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

Oppose I have opposed the use of "convicted felon" or "convicted sex offender" in biographies ranging from Harvey Weinstein, Bill Cosby, Jeffrey Epstein, Elizabeth Holmes, and others. See this discussion from WP:BLPN for more. I maintain my consistency here. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:17, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

Oppose especially if the same sentence fails to explain it’s being appealed. The decision won’t become final until appeals are exhausted, or the conviction is overturned. I strongly oppose mentioning this in the lead sentence without this explanation that it’s not a final decision yet. Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:25, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

Comment I appeared to have accidentally erased a bunch of replies when writing my own, but I am unable to restore them due to the high number of recent edits. Can anyone help me in this regard? I'm terribly sorry for this mistake, and I have no idea what happened. --KingErikII (Talk page) 22:21, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

Strong Support As others have noted, being the first US President convicted of felony crimes could not possibly be more significant and deserves significant placement. Spoonshake (talk) 22:23, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

Last month's RfC here that Suffusion of Yellow notes provides a nice benchmark, though I imagine this one will have much higher interest and participation so I suspect it can only provide initial guidance (what have other editors recently thought without the "Trump" of it all). I tend to agree with what I perceive as the consensus there, that it comes down to whether being a convicted felon is a central feature of the person's notability. Only time will tell --- until roughly an hour ago it was not a feature of Donald Trump at all, whereas a century from now it may be a primary way that he is remembered ... or not. I think the guidelines on writing an encyclopedia article and not a news article, and on avoiding recency bias, suggest that we should err on the side of putting less weight on this than its current volume of coverage might suggest. On the other hand, removing it from the lead entirely sounds like overkill. I think a good solution for the moment is to have a sentence acknowledging his criminal conviction in the lead, but not in the first sentence. I also, incidentally, think the lead needs quite a lot of work, but that's a separate question from this RfC - Astrophobe (talk) 22:23, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

Strong Support Anonymous8206 (talk) 22:26, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

• Leaning oppose - Donald Trump's recent conviction very likely is not as notable as his political career, media career, or business career, or the fact that he was president for four years. Adding "convicted felon" to the lede would shift it, in my view, into non-neutrality. He can still appeal the conviction, can't he? Maybe once he faces actual consequences his conviction will be notable enough to mention in the lede sentence. Nythar (💬-🍀) 22:27, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

Support He is the first American president to be convicted of a felony, that itself is very notable. TheBsati (talk) 22:28, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

• Support Donald Trump is a convicted felon now, which immediately becomes one of the most notable things about his presidency and post-presidential life. If one opposes this being in the first sentence, we should discuss a broader policy of removing "convicted felon" from pages, which essentially hits every convicted person immediately. There is no exception for being a politician, as Jose Huizar and Mitchell Englander show us, among many others. PickleG13 (talk) 22:31, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
• Support This is what he is notable for now and forever. Seriously, we're going to be reading stories about his criminal trials and outcomes for years, just as we have been for years already. This is notability, way more than the relatively fleeting mentions in the careers of other ex-heads of state. We can add up the stories and keep a running total of the usage of the phrase, I guess, but I predict it's going to be a long and long-enduring list. --Pete (talk) 22:37, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose. First sentence? Seriously?
  Adolf Hitler (20 April 1889 – 30 April 1945) was an Austrian-born German politician and genocidal maniac who was the dictator of Nazi Germany from 1933 until his suicide in 1945.
  There's plenty of RS support for that, but it doesn't get much less encyclopedic. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:45, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

  Oh, look, Godwin's law. ImYourTurboLover (talk) 22:55, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

  Yep. Very astute of you. Beats your "must be known in the introductory sentence" argument below. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:58, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

• Weak oppose - I am not a supporter of Trump. However, the inclusion of 'convicted felon' directly in the lede implies that being a convicted felon is what he's notable for, which is incorrect. Trump is more notable as a politician and media personality, rather than a convicted felon. However, the reason why my opposition is weak is because I would support an inclusion of the conviction lower down in the lede paragraphs, since the charges are obviously relevant to his ongoing legal troubles. Those who support the inclusion should note that Trump can appeal the conviction, and he will not be sentenced until July. Bandit Heeler (talk) 22:50, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
• Strong Support - I tried to add this, but apparently there was not a consensus. Since he is a convicted felon, it must be known in the introductory sentence. ImYourTurboLover (talk) 22:51, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
• Strong Support - This is a substantial fact that has never before applied to a former US president in the nearly 2 and a half centuries of the nation's existence. The Ewing Klipspringer (talk) 22:58, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose - as this place isn't a Newsroom. Besides, he's appealing the ruling. GoodDay (talk) 23:00, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
• Strong Support - we always post that someone is a convicted felon in the lead, when it's notable. -- Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 23:05, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose First sentence is ridiculous. Echoing KlayCax's WP: PRECEDENT point, this would be inconceivable unless it's a person most notable for a specific crime, and even then you would be more descriptive than simply stating "felon". ⠀^TOMÁSTOMÁS_TOMÁS⠀TALK⠀ 23:06, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

Hi Politicdude - we agree. Was I the wrong comment? 162.142.106.91 (talk) 23:10, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 30 May 2024 (2)

add convicted felon to his description for accuracy 12.35.128.178 (talk) 21:47, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

Not done for now: Consensus needs to be established in the above RfC. --Firestar464 (talk) 21:50, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

 Not done There is an ongoing discussion on this topic above. Feel free to add your thoughts. ~Politicdude (About me, talk, contribs) 21:50, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

 Note: Be careful about declining edit requests within this vein as "active RfC" since the RfC focuses on the first sentence of the article specifically, which this requested edit does not specify is where they want the change. There is going to be an influx of requested edits similar to this and many such people are going to be unfamiliar with Wikipedia policy and convention. That said, I was still planning to decline as  Not done regardless, as the request is not specific enough and this article has sufficient attention from extended confirmed editors that such changes will inevitably be added. —Sirdog (talk) 21:53, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

We have no other president or ex-president who's ever been convicted of a felony let alone 34 of them. We are obligated to call attention to that early in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:BC74:6240:4518:BB2B:9BB0:A19 (talk) 22:09, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

Add to lede that Trump is a convicted 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.

---

Now that Trump has been convicted it should be added to his lede as it's an unprecedented and important piece of information about him. Iboughtavanagon (talk) 21:58, 30 May 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.

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 30 May 2024 (3)

Add convicted felon to the descriptor at the top of page. 50.231.103.218 (talk) 22:05, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

 Not done There is a discussion above in which you are welcome to add your thoughts. ~Politicdude (About me, talk, contribs) 22:06, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

He's a convicted felon and per the norm that should be in the descriptor at the top of the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:bc74:6240:4518:bb2b:9bb0:a19 (talk) 22:07, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

It`s spelled lead..curious as to how many candy bars protection is going for Anonymous8206 (talk) 22:17, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 30 May 2024 (4)

I would like to see the beginning of the article describing Trump be changed from “…politician, media personality, and businessman…” to “…politician, media personality, businessman, and convicted felon…”. Bradenbear424 (talk) 22:28, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

Not done for now: Please wait for consensus to be established at the RfC above. --Firestar464 (talk) 22:31, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 30 May 2024 (6)

Mention he is a convicted felon Onlygoodvibez (talk) 22:54, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Justarandomamerican (talk) Have a good day! 23:09, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

Convicted felon

Convicted felon. Why isn't this specified in the article? The Manhattan D.A. said it himself, convicted of 34 accounts in the hush money case. That's being a convicted felon. 2A02:2F01:6102:D000:6978:9FBB:CEDB:C87F (talk) 22:58, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

See the RfC above. This is a bit complicated, and needs a community consensus. WxTrinity :3 (My talk page, my contributions and my creations!) 23:00, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

It's not complicated?

If any one of us would've been convicted of any illegality, we'd be stamped as convicted felons – the dinosaur-chicken parallel argument/logic.

This' New York, Manhattan. This is like the epicenter of all matters related to the justice system in the US.

This isn't rocket science, no? 2A02:2F01:6102:D000:6978:9FBB:CEDB:C87F (talk) 23:04, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

the rocket science isn't whether or not he's a felon, it's whether or not it belongs in the first sentence of the article. as of right now it's in the sixth paragraph BlooTannery (talk) 23:09, 30 May 2024 (UTC)