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 Superseded by #15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 (Nov 2016, Dec 2016) (Superseded by #15 since 11 February 2017)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 Superseded by #35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 (Sep 2016, February 2017, wording shortened per April 2017, upheld with July 2018) (superseded by #35 since 18 February 2019)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 Superseded by #17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 (Jan 2017, Jan 2017, Jan 2017, Jan 2017, Jan 2017, Feb 2017) (superseded by #17 since 2 April 2017)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) (Superseded by RfC Aug 2020)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Rapist?

Should we add a comment that states that he is now officially recognized as a rapist, per the comments today from Judge Lewis Kaplan, who wrote that the trial evidence demonstrated Trump "raped" Carroll in the plain sense of the word? 76.102.148.6 (talk) 04:02, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

No. Not in Wikivoice, and any addition along those lines would need to be nuanced and explain the context. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 04:13, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

See WP:LABEL. Trump has not even been charged, much less found guilty, in a criminal court for raping Carroll or anyone else. Furthermore, in the Carroll civil case, the jury found Trump not liable for raping Carroll. So, no, Trump absolutely should not be called a rapist in this article or anywhere else on Wikipedia. Iamreallygoodatcheckers ^talk 05:10, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

Seems pretty clear. Yes. We'd do this if it were almost anyone else. Nfitz (talk) 04:45, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, right. There is a long-running dispute in categoriies about criminals, whether the inclusion should be based on historical data or criminal convictions alone. People recently suggested removing gangsters from the categories, because they had not been convicted in court cases. Dimadick (talk) 08:11, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

We wouldn't do it for anyone else because to begin with policy says we cannot state for a fact that he committed a rape. O. J. Simpson for example, who was acquitted but found civilly liable for killing his wife is not said to be officially recognized as a murderer. TFD (talk) 09:43, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

By that logic, we wouldn't call someone a murderer, who murdered someone but died (for example by suicide or shooting) before trial. Lee Harvey Oswald for example. One big difference with Trump and Simpson though. Simpson was charged with murder and acquitted; Trump was not charged with rape (the statue of limitations had passed), and therefore not acquitted. So there's no conflicting court rulings on the matter. Nfitz (talk) 06:40, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

There's a difference between Oswald and Trump: Oswald is dead, but our article on Trump has to comply with defamation law and with Wikipedia's policy on articles about living persons. Richard75 (talk) 17:41, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

This is true. On the basis of the presumption of innocence, Donald Trump has not been proven guilty of rape therefore by default he is innocent. We will probably never know truly what happened that day, but legally he is not a rapist. This is further backed up by article 11 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights stating, "Everyone charged with a penal offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty according to law in a public trial at which he has had all the guarantees necessary for his defence." He was prosecuted in trial and not found guilty. Considering he is an ex-president, and potential candidate for 2024, he is therefore a high-profile figure, and this could be classed as defamation on the basis of falsehood. It would therefore be inappropriate to label him as a rapist. Joecompan (talk) 22:13, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

That is not true on a number of fronts. He was legally found to be a rapist by a federal judge for purposes of defamation. The judge said as much. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights has nothing to do with law in America. 75.4.181.131 (talk) 12:07, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

Source for the charge? He was found guilty sexual misconduct (not defending this) but not rape (somehow?). Despite all the evidence he was still not found guilty so therefore he cannot be labelled one. Joecompan (talk) 22:53, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

I haven’t found anything in the article about the E. Jean Carroll trial at all. If it’s there, it seems to be hidden. Surely the article should state that the trial took place and that Trump was found guilty of sexual abuse. I can’t see how that could possibly be controversial. TheScotch (talk) 13:25, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

This is the reason. (Preceded by this.) I suppose we could try again but, all things considered (especially current and upcoming felony charges), I'd recommend holding off until the appeal court's decision. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 13:40, 2 August 2023 (UTC). Preceded by this. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 14:05, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

That's silly and pathetic. The trial has been over for some time, and it was covered extensively by all mainstream news sources. Just report in this article that it took place and what the outcome was. if you wait for an appeal, you'll wait forever because Trump will never stop appealing. Complaining you don't know where in the article it should go is absolutely no excuse. It can go perfectly well in several places. It doesn't matter much where, but it absolutely HAS to be here somewhere. TheScotch (talk) 04:42, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

I've requested closure of the archived discussion at Wikipedia:Closure_requests#Talk:Donald_Trump/Archive_157#Multi-part_proposal_for_content_on_E._Jean_Carroll_v._Trump. starship.paint (exalt) 14:57, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

This is ridiculous - Donald Trump was never convicted of rape. We can't refer to him as a "rapist" in this Wikipedia page. TiltonHilton (talk) 14:30, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

We do not, we say what a court said. Slatersteven (talk) 14:33, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

@Slatersteven: - we don’t even say that at the moment as there is no agreement. My position is that if we mention the judge’s ruling that Trump committing “rape” is “substantially true” according to the jury’s verdict, that it be noted that the “rape” referred to digital rape (usage of fingers). starship.paint (exalt) 15:45, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

Fair enough. Slatersteven (talk) 15:48, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

Yes Anonymous8206 (talk) 02:05, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

Split suggested

See also: Talk:Donald Trump/Archive 151 § Is length becoming an urgent problem?

Please use the proposed subsections for improved thread efficiency

The article is currently more than 100 kb long in prose. WP:SIZERULE advises that articles of such length "almost certainly should be divided". The section of the presidency alone is 57kb at the time of this writing. The article Presidency of Donald Trump is an even larger article than the featured one, 149 kb. There are other related articles even longer, like First 100 days of Donald Trump's presidency. Given that the topic of Donald Trump generates so much interest, my suggestion is to move out portions of the Presidency section to new articles or delete some text that is already duplicate in other existing articles, in order to reduce the size of the featured page. Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 17:47, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

I already made detailed suggestions on how to trim the article, but it went nowhere. The Presidency section is unbalanced and goes too far in the weeds on some points; there's lots of room to sharpen it. DFlhb (talk) 18:07, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

We can revisit it not as an urgent problem but rather as a size issue that could be addressed to improve readability, taking into account the thread you shared (thanks!). In this occasion, to differentiate from the previous thread, I focus on the Presidency section. The more controversial part is that for some editors some info is important and for others, not. Maybe we can navigate such differences of opinion and reach a consensus. But before that and more discussion, let's do a survey to save time and effort. Thinker78 (talk) 19:00, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

Survey

Can interested editors in this tread state your position whether you think the article needs trimming by bolding TRIM, NOT TRIM, NEUTRAL and a very brief summary of your position for further discussion afterwards? Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 19:03, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

• Trim the "Covid-19" & "Investigations" sub-sections. They could be their own articles. GoodDay (talk) 19:08, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
• Trim practically everything, especially the Investigations sections. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 21:13, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
• do not trim solely for length reasons. it is no longer 2004, the majority of users aren't loading a Wikipedia article on dial-up. WP:SIZE should be deprecated. ValarianB (talk) 04:57, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
• IMO, neither the tag you added to the Presidency section nor this general discussion is helpful. Consensus #37 says that 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. (I interpret the second sentence to mean that content WITHOUT lasting impact on his life and/or long-term presidential legacy should be deleted.) If you or other editors have specific content in mind, go BOLD with an edit summary explaining your reasons or bring it to the Talk page. As always, be prepared to be reverted and defend your edit — this article, like its subject, is not for the faint of heart . Space4Time3Continuum2x ^(cowabunga) 12:29, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

• Trim Covid-19 and Investigations subsections. This article is too long to navigate easily. Cessaune [talk] 12:13, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

• Trim per the very last comment by WAID in the thread I linked above.

A word: we should be careful not to be overly nitpicky or conservative when trimming. If a section gets rewritten based on book sources, which highlight different facts and behaviours, let's not get too attached to our previous content. WP:BESTSOURCES will contradict us on their assessments of salience and relevance, and we should let them. DFlhb (talk) 12:56, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

• Trim any information which is already elaborated on elsewhere on Wikipedia, per WP:SUMMARY. --Jayron32 16:56, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
• Neutral. I'm not comfortable agreeing to the general removal of content without any specifications. If imposed, it seems ripe for disputes and potential edit warring down the line. The investigations section in particular is one area that does not need to be trimmed, as it is a vitally important part of his presidency, and is already limited to a high-level summary. The COVID-19 section is a better candidate for trimming, but I'd like to see proposals on how to trim it beforehand. ––FormalDude (talk) 03:47, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

Elaborate discussion

Please if you like to have an elaborate discussion use this section for improved utility and order of the thread. Ping replies to survey positions above if you want to expand on said points, if there are any. Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 19:06, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

I've moved the {{section sizes}} header item out of the collapsed banner holder in the Talk header while this discussion is going on. It's a very useful tool, that may help inform this discussion, and in its collapsed state, I wonder how many people are even aware that it is there. Mathglot (talk) 20:16, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

@ValarianB: According to the Article size guideline, it impacts usability in multiple ways:

• Reader issues, such as attention span, readability, organization, information saturation, etc.
• Maintenance, such as articles becoming time-consuming to maintain when they are very long.
• Technical issues, such as limitations of mobile browsers.

Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 04:37, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

This is somewhat o/t for this page, but reading through your guideline excerpt, I was surprised, as my first reaction was that I'm not sure I agree with any of those three points. As far as point #3, the guideline dates to 2003 (obviously with changes since then, but much of it was in place by 2006) when technology was more limited. As far as point #1, how do we know this? Sounds like something that in article space I would instantly remove with edit summary, "Pure OR." (By comparison, the Britannica-online History of France article is 41,617 words up to the first "Load next page" button). Point #2 sounds like something written before mediawiki supported editable sections. So basically, I don't buy any of it. Nevertheless, it is still the guideline, so your comment is still on point (and mine isn't ), but it sure seems to me like a serious discussion needs to be held over there to consider a rewrite of that guideline. Mathglot (talk) 18:11, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

Per WP:GUIDE, "Guidelines are sets of best practices supported by consensus. Editors should attempt to follow guidelines, though they are best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply." But according to the survey sample, most editors may support a trim for their own reasons in the specific context of this page. It is a matter to see if the consensus by editing mirrors this sample. Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 19:52, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

• With all do respect to those participating, this is a waste of time. Declaring a consensus to trim does not mean this article will be trimmed. Just like the consensus to have citations in the lead paragraph... Iamreallygoodatcheckers ^talk 07:57, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

Protests

There’s a sentence in the lead that says, “His election and policies sparked numerous protests.” I suggest editing it to say, “His election and policies sparked numerous protests and rallies, for and against.” Trump is famous for rallies in his favor, and of course for protests in his favor such as the one that got out of hand on 1/6. The present language only suggests protests against him. I never went to either type of protest or rally, but I do protest this sentence which could use more NPOV. Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:07, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

Note: Seeks to change or supersede current consensus item 20. ―Mandruss ☎ 03:35, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

What Mandruss said. Do you have any sources for anti-Trump rallies and pro-Trump protests and rallies? "Famous for rallies in his favor" - I believe they're called campaign rallies. He staged the first one for his 2020 campaign one month after the 2017 inauguration. Space4Time3Continuum2x ^(cowabunga) 14:23, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

My issue is that the proposal adds a sense of equivalency between protests and rallies; the protests were varied, from many different people and groups, and occurred in an uncoordinated way. The notable rallies were basically all coordinated by Trump to support his own policies. To put them in the same sentence without context makes it seem like they were of a similar nature; they were not. There is not a similarity between "Trump organizing a rally to drum up support for himself and his policies" and "Disparate and numerous protests of many sorts against various things that Trump did". This feels like a WP:FALSEBALANCE sort of thing. I'd be open to some other proposal perhaps, but this isn't it. --Jayron32 14:39, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

Whether a protest was organized by Teresa Shook or by Donald Trump doesn’t seem very important, each person who showed up was unpaid, and motivated instead by support or opposition to Trump. I don’t see why we should emphasize the opposers and overlook the supporters. Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:56, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

Per my edit summary reverting the pro-Trump protests text: This is so far off both RS and talk page consensus that it does not even warrant talk page discussion, absent an opening argument that is clearly worded, at least minimally compelling, and documented with reliable sources for V and NPOV. SPECIFICO talk 14:58, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

While I would agree that his rallies could warrant inclusion, I'm not sure that this would be the right spot for them. This is more focused on gatherings that weren't organized by the subject; to compare protests (for or against, though the former I would have to see some sources) that were organized by third parties and his own rallies is like comparing Wikipedia articles written by the subject vs. the rest of the community. - AquilaFasciata (talk | contribs) 15:06, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

I think this sentence has been problematic for a long time. It harks back to the early days after Trump’s election. It would probably best to delete it. Jack Upland (talk) 06:33, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

And there is no evidence that a "protest": got out of hand on 1/6. That suggests it was not as planned as evidence shows. O3000, Ret. (talk) 16:44, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

"...for and against" is surely a WP:FALSEBALANCE. Cessaune [talk] 13:02, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

According to this source, protests during Trump's first year were indeed atypically large compared to previous years. However, the authors exact word in the conclusions section said that "participation clustered in several large, coordinated events...", and in figure 3 it clearly is the case that the March for Science protest was much larger than the others in terms of number of attendants. So, we can provide a phrasing that reflects the fact that Trump anti science policies sparked atypically larger protests compared to previous presidents, and a brief mention that there were thousands of other protests during his term.Forich (talk) 21:14, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

Yes, "numerous" is the wrong word. There were "large" protests at the start of his term.Jack Upland (talk) 05:45, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

I don't think 'for or against' will work at this time. The evidence in this article supports the sentence as is - without change. I don't recall any significant protests specifically for Trump's policies. Also, the rallies are support for Trump and not his policies. I don't recall Trump discussing many policies during his rallies. So, I agree we need RS to support the proposed change. Also, the posted article is much appreciated. But I don't think changing the sentence under discussion is necessary because of the article. This sentence already broadly covers that, which is the function of a lead sentence. Maybe add a blurb in the body if it's needed. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 01:58, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

Donald Trump booking photo Fulton County Georgia

This image was sent to me and all other news media who requested it, by the Fulton County, Georgia, Sheriff's Office Public Affairs Manager. The form I submitted, on behalf of Wikimedia, to get on that e-mailing list said that we are free to use it "in the normal course of business". I assume Wikimedia's normal course of business is to house photos and other media for use in Wikipedia articles and other Wiki sites.

Another editor at Wikimedia has speedily deleted the image as having an imperfect copyright. I'm not very experienced in Wikimedia copyright issues, so if anyone else knows how to navigate the rules, please advise.

I think this article is definitely incomplete without the booking photo. Thanks. Art Smart ^Chart/Heart 02:08, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

Art Smart, see WP:FART.--Jack Upland (talk) 02:44, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

A triumph. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 02:47, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

I am not a lawyer, but am fairly familiar with copyright law and issues. Unless there is a Georgia law or standing policy by Georgia or the Fulton County Sheriff's Office on the issue, it's my belief that it's up to the Sheriff's Office whether the mugshot is copyrighted or in the public domain. I just submitted a media request to the Sheriff's Office, explaining my understanding and asking them for its copyright status. I wanted to make this known to hopefully reduce others from emailing them and adding to the pile. If and when I get a response, I'll post it. Note that I made clear my status as a (small time) volunteer editor, exactly what that means, and that I don't represent Wikipedia or Mediawiki, and am not employed, officially representing, chosen, reviewed, or endorsed by Wikipedia or the Mediawiki Foundation. That said, if they distributed the photo saying it can be used "in the normal course of business", I would strongly lean toward that at minimum Wikipedia is licensed to use the photo on this webpage. I also asked them if they can confirm the "in the normal course of business" language, and that it allows using the image in the article. Darlingm (talk) 10:08, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

GA Code § 35-1-19 (2022): "c. An arresting law enforcement agency shall not provide or make available a copy of a booking photograph in any format to a person requesting such photograph if:

1. Such booking photograph may be placed in a publication or posted to a website or transferred to a person to be placed in a publication or posted to a website; and
2. Removal or deletion of such booking photograph from such publication or website requires the payment of a fee or other consideration.
   

d. When a person requests a booking photograph, he or she shall submit a statement affirming that the use of such photograph is in compliance with subsection (c) of this Code section. Any person who knowingly makes a false statement in requesting a booking photograph shall be guilty of a violation of Code Section 16-10-20."

Do copyright and public domain even apply? Names, dates, charges, and mug shots of people arrested are government data available to the general public. In Georgia, the above restrictions apply. Who is authorized to sign a statement on WP's behalf that the photo will not be used commercially? Space4Time3Continuum2x ^(cowabunga) 15:15, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

Given that Wikipedia's "normal course of business" is the dissemination of images under free licenses, that's quite promising. Nevertheless, even if not, WP:NFCC still applies here. — The Anome (talk) 13:59, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

The Anome, why the large format? The image has the same nightmarish quality at 0.8. Space4Time3Continuum2x ^(cowabunga) 13:39, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

I've made it the same width as the other main images of Trump on the page. — The Anome (talk) 13:57, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

And that makes his head noticeably larger than that in the infobox. "The other main images of Trump on the page" are not close-cropped, which makes all the difference. I support 0.8. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:37, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

If the image can be used? then cool. Just don't have it as the infobox image. GoodDay (talk) 19:46, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

I agree..he`s been arrested and charged multiple times for multiple crimes..if it were anyone else it would already be in Anonymous8206 (talk) 02:42, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

Scholarly ranking

This is just a minor suggestion, but on most other pages for presidents with notable ratings, the "Scholars and historians rank [name] as one of the [best/worst] presidents in American history" is usually at the end of the lede, even the last sentence. Andrew Johnson for example. Should that be the case here, or is it better to leave it be? I don't think it matters a tremendous amount either way, just figured I'd mention it. Delukiel (talk) 05:55, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

@Delukiel In my view, we tend to avoid placing that information in the lede unless someone is definitely retired from politics. Since Trump is running for at least one extra term, having a line like "Scholars generally rate him as one of the worst presidents" would break NPOV - also, I don't think enough studies have come out about his tenure to definitively make that conclusion. Couruu (talk) 09:18, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

@Couruu It's actually already on the article. My comment was just about its placement. Delukiel (talk) 12:16, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

@Delukiel Oh no, to be clear, it should 100% be in the article - just not in the lede until the politician retires. Couruu (talk) 13:23, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

It is in the lead though. Scholars and historians rank Trump as one of the worst presidents in American history. Cessaune [talk] 13:48, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

It's consensus #54, based on this September 2021 RfC, after his term in office had ended. Space4Time3Continuum2x ^(cowabunga) 14:17, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

@Cessaune Yeah I'm blind apparently. Ignore my comments, my bad. Couruu (talk) 16:24, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

Speaking of scholarly it`s spelled lead Anonymous8206 (talk) 23:17, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

Plenty of dictionaries have lede as a separate word. Delukiel (talk) 11:53, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

@Delukiel Well, Anonymous is *technically* correct - see WP:NOTLEDE. Very much picking hairs though. Couruu (talk) 15:01, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

• Technically* WP:NOTLEDE only refers to the context of the first paragraph, not the term itself. Weirdly, "NOTLEDE" doesn't say "NOT to use LEDE"... Chaheel Riens (talk) 12:27, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

  To quote a footnote:

  "See WP:NOTALEDE for previous discussion of why "lede" is avoided in this guideline; in summary: it gives a false impression about the purpose, nature, and style of Wikipedia leads."

  Either way, we're getting horrendously off topic and bogging ourselves down in semantics. Everyone is gonna know what you mean by lede, even if its not 100% correct. Couruu (talk) 12:32, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

Yes, but for "the introductory section of a news story". WP is not a newspaper. Space4Time3Continuum2x ^(cowabunga) 15:06, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

That's fair, I just like spelling it that way. I don't know why, but I do.

Off topic regardless! Delukiel (talk) 11:57, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

Mugshot

A former president of the United States had his mugshot taken. That's historical. It needs to be added to the article. Chavando (talk) 06:26, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

100% agree 5.70.131.222 (talk) 13:17, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

Agreed! I vote to make it his official photo on wiki for the next year 2607:FB91:1129:6AD:85A:B08C:34FB:12FC (talk) 17:00, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

I second this. Luna <3 (She/Her) (talk) 17:46, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

I would love this. Do the silly, Wikipedia. George Mucus (talk) 08:36, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

I can't think of anything more petty, he should be treated no different from any other subject. Slatersteven (talk) 10:20, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

Of course, the photo should appear in the article. Of course, it should not replace his official photograph. Pecopteris (talk) 19:06, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

Seconded. It would be heinous, and I daresay a violationation of the NPOV to not include his historic and absolutely relevant mugshot onto his page. George Mucus

The booking photo keeps getting removed as non-free content. However, https://fcsoga.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/08/FCSO-Letter-of-Affirmation-Booking-Photos-8.21.23.pdf reads in part, "Such booking photographs may be broadcast, published, and/or posted to a website in the normal course of business." It further states that we cannot "remove or delete such booking photograph ... in return for the payment of a fee or other consideration." This booking photo belongs in this article, and it definitely is NOT non-free content. Art Smart ^Chart/Heart 09:13, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

@Arthur Smart That is not an indication that the booking photo is freely licensed content. Moreover, when we remove it as non-free content, we are not removing or deleting it in return for the payment of a fee or other consideration - no one is paying or bribing us to remove it, rather we are removing it pursuant to our internal policies. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 17:10, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

That said, the image page does properly note that it is a non-free work and provides a non-free content rational for its use on this page, so discussion of including on this page should proceed and not be shut down on the basis of it being non-free. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 17:16, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

That said, the rationales laid out on the image page are plain boilerplate text, and could be vastly improved. I'm sure someone who reads this page could pop over to the image page and write some compelling reasons for each use in each article, as there obviously are some. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 18:40, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

Yoohoo, and sheesh! The booking photo has been glaring at readers of the article all day: Donald_Trump#Federal_and_state_criminal_cases_against_Trump. Space4Time3Continuum2x ^(cowabunga) 17:30, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

This photo appears on several other Wikipedia pages. I'll also note that I have seen other valid fair use photos removed with erroneous applications of our policies regarding such use. Some editors are highly knowlegeable about the applicable standard. Many more believe that they are highly knowledgeable but misinterpret it. Business as usual. SPECIFICO talk 18:12, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

In my opinion, use of this non-free mug shot image in this article violates the content guideline Wikipedia:Non-free content. That guideline disallows Pictures of people still alive, and the shortcut is WP:NFC#UUI. I believe that the only article where inclusion of the mug shot is appropriate is Mug shot of Donald Trump, which contains extensive critical commentary about the photo itself. Cullen328 (talk) 23:12, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

The guideline disallows pictures of people still alive provided that taking a new free picture as a replacement (which is almost always considered possible) would serve the same encyclopedic purpose as the non-free image. What would be a free substitute for a booking photo? I don't care one way or the other; it's just a visual for the historic event of a former U.S. president being processed under Georgia law like every other defendant. Space4Time3Continuum2x ^(cowabunga) 16:25, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

You have numerous free images of Trump. There is nothing special about the booking photo that needs illustration on a page about Trump. This is a strict policy under NFC. Masem (t) 20:40, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

Disagree, as I do not think it is "historical", when and if he is found guilty, that will be. Slatersteven (talk) 14:42, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

Image is already in the article, but it's seems to be of poor quality. Perhaps it's the lighting angle, but his left eye appears cartoonish. GoodDay (talk) 14:46, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

You're criticizing the lighting and quality of mug shots taken by Fulton County Jail staff? Will you accompany me to the DMV for my next license renewal? I always find my picture rather cartoonish — I'm much better looking. Space4Time3Continuum2x ^(cowabunga) 16:37, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

The actual guy in the photograph has "appeared cartoonish" for decades. You can't blame the photography for that.--User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 17:48, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

I've removed the image per WP:NFC#UUI #6. Our practices on this are crystal clear. The image has a dedicated article at Mug shot of Donald Trump, which is properly linked in this article. Please don't restore it. If you disagree with WP:NFC#UUI, you are welcome to start a discussion at WT:NFC to have it changed. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:31, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

I don't disagree with #6, IMO it doesn't apply in this case: An image to illustrate an article passage about the image, if the image has its own article (in which case the image may be described and a link provided to the article about the image). The subsection isn't about the photo, it's about the Georgia election interference case, main article Georgia election racketeering prosecution. It's the iconic image for the historic first of the criminal indictments. Also the LP part of BLP has published the image on his social media accounts and his campaign website, and he's commercializing this item of government property by selling T-shirts, mugs, koozies, bumper stickers and who knows what else. Space4Time3Continuum2x ^(cowabunga) 16:14, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

I've commented on this on your talk page. Bottom line, we've gone around on very similar issues many times before, and it always results in the image only being used on the article about the image. Please, let's not rehash this again. If anyone wants to overturn/change WP:NFC#UUI #6, WT:NFC is the place to start a discussion on it. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:29, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

All non-free content use is subject to WP:NFCC. Non-free content use isn't automatic and each time it's being used it needs to meet all ten non-free content use criteria given in WP:NFCCP. One of these criteria WP:NFCC#3, which encourages us to try and minimize non-free content use as possible and find alternatives to using it whenever possible. This is where item 6 of WP:NFC#UUI comes into play. Non-free content is not really in accordance with WP:COPY#Guidelines for images and other media files, but the WMF allows projects to use it if they want per the EDP of wmf:Resolution Licensing policy. One use of non-free content, therefore, is considered quite the exception which is why the requirements it needs to meet are quite restrictive. This means that additional uses of the same file tend to be seen as being even more exceptional and thus need even stronger justifications for the their non-free use. In this case, there is a stand-alone article about the mug shot itself where it can be seen and which includes all kinds of sourced critical commentary about it. So, unless the plan is to basically recreate that article here, which would be a bad idea per WP:SS, the most there's going to be about mug shot is going to be a brief sentence of two in the "Georgia election interference case" section which already contains a link Mug shot of Donald Trump. There's nothing else in that section which really justifies another use of the file per NFCC#3, WP:NFCC#1 and WP:NFCC#8. The link to the mug shot article is an acceptable alternative way to comply with NFCC#3 per WP:FREER, and all of the critical commentary generally required for non-free use per WP:NFC#CS can be found in the article about the mug shot. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:20, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

Marchjuly, thank you for the explanation - takes care of any further discussions of using the photo in the infobox, as well. Sheer curiosity: would a drawing be an acceptable alternative, or would it considered to be a work inspired by others, such as "a character from TV, comics, or the movies" per the Upload Wizard? Space4Time3Continuum2x ^(cowabunga) 10:57, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

I don't quite understand your question. Any attempt to recreate the much shot photo would either be considered a case of c:COM:2D copying or a WP:Derivative work. In either case, the copyright of the original mugshot still remains valid and the WP:CONSENT of that copyright holder would still be needed for any such file to be treated as anything other than non-free content by Wikipedia. If, for example, someone created a meme of the photo (which probably someone will do if they haven't done so already) and reliable sources started critically commenting on that meme, then a justification for such a file's non-free use might be possible. Whether that would be for non-free use in the article about the mugshot, this article or some other article depends on where such content best fits encyclopedically and where all ten WP:NFCCP are considered to be satisfied. If, on the other hand, you're asking about a new drawing of Trump (e.g. a courtroom sketch) that is not based upon the mugshot is any way at all, then the copyright status of that would first need to be assessed to figure out what Wikipedia policies apply and whether such policies can be satisfied. Just for reference, there would be pretty much zero chance of using anything like a mugshot in the main infobox per WP:BLPIMAGE regardless of its copyright status. A public domain or otherwise acceptable freely licensed image would certainly be much easier to use than any non-free one, but its use would still be subject to WP:CONSENUS and WP:BLP much in the same way textual content is subject to such things. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:35, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

I agree with @Space4Time3Continuum2x, I don't see how UUI #6 applies here whatsoever. If we are discussing the image (not simply using it for decoration) and otherwise meeting NFC, the image should be fine. —Locke Cole • t • c 07:43, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

Another photo not taken by WH photographers would have been nice. Space4Time3Continuum2x ^(cowabunga) 10:57, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

Since photos taken by US federal government employees as part of their official duties are considered to be within the public domain and US presidents tend to be mainly photographed by federal government employees during official events, these tend to be the photos that are easiest to upload and use when it comes to Wikipedia. If, on the otheer hand, you attend an event where Trump is present and you take his photograph, then you could, in principle, upload that photo since you would be it's copyright holder. There might be other things you would need seriously consider before doing so, but it should be OK from a copyright standpoint. Now, whether that image is going to be ultimately used on Wikipedia could depend on how encyclopecially relevant others consider it to be. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:44, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

As annoying as NFC#UUI #6 is, Hammersoft's reasoning (& Cullen's, and others) is correct. Best hope is to contact the sheriff's office and get a copyright release. DFlhb (talk) 11:50, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

We're not going to go against the reasoned policy objections of H and C, among others. But more than that, I'd say the mugshot is UNDUE and NOTNEWS and IMO is a personal promotional pose (PPP) created by Mr. Trump. SPECIFICO talk 12:02, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

Add it..he`s been arrested and charged multiple times for multiple crimes...if it were anyone else it would already be there Anonymous8206 (talk) 02:48, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

Health/weight

I had this added to the article but it was reverted. I believe this is relevant because it shows how much of a habitual liar he is:

In August 2023 prior to his booking at the Fulton County jail, Trump self-reported to authorities that he weighed 215lbs (pounds) and was six-foot, three inches tall. This came just months after he told New York authorities in April that he weighed 240lbs and was six-foot, two inches tall.

Anyways, I guess the biggest liar in American history covering for his bruised ego isn't relevant. Thanks! conman33 (. . .talk) 01:33, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

It may be telling -- but as you say, considering his reputation; it's trivia. Also, not heavily covered by RS. O3000, Ret. (talk) 01:41, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

The article already addresses his credibility. That's better than listing various instances. SPECIFICO talk 02:04, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

@CNC33: Consider adding it to Public image of Donald Trump § Height and weight. ––FormalDude (talk) 02:07, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

The Anome beat you by 13 hours.[1] ―Mandruss ☎ 02:44, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

No need to mention his height or weight in this article. Iamreallygoodatcheckers ^talk 02:30, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

I disagree. As a politician, his credibility is important. This goes to show how lacking he is in credibility. George Mucus (talk) 02:49, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

If you want to talk about his credibility then talk about his credibility not his height and weight. We already have a subsection and multiple paragraphs about his falsities, conspiracies, etc. Iamreallygoodatcheckers ^talk 05:27, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

Turns out Trump didn't say he was 215 pounds, the information was provided by aides. TFD (talk) 18:14, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

Same thing. And still not worth adding. More sadly humorous than useful. O3000, Ret. (talk) 19:19, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

"Aides" -- Another RICO conspiracy? What difference does it make? SPECIFICO talk 20:06, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

References

Spelling mistake

Under Post-presidency (2021–present), at the very last line in the fourth paragraph, you will find this sentence:

Though there were exceptions, Trump's endorsement was seen as important for candidates in Republican primary elections.

the word *endorsement* should be plural, as *endorsements*. Torbslifre (talk) 23:00, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

But, it's one endorsement per candidate. GoodDay (talk) 23:08, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

I would change it to something like ...were exceptions, gaining Trump's endorsement... Cessaune [talk] 00:27, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

It's using the concept of endorsement, not as a countable noun, but as the general idea. It doesn't need a plural here. --Jayron32 12:27, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

I agree with Jayron32 here. It's not a spelling mistake in any way ("endorsement" isn't an incorrect spelling of "endorsements"), but there's also no subject-verb agreement issue. If using the possessive form for Trump is causing confusion for some, then I guess the sentence could be rewritten as "a Trump endorsement was seen (...)" (active voice) or as "an endorsement by Trump was seen (...)" (passive voice). -- Marchjuly (talk) 14:00, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

I've rephrased the sentence, forgot to add an edit summary. "Was seen as important" is true but not supported by the cited source. The source cites some of the better-known winners and losers and says in the subline that "candidates whom former President Donald J. Trump endorsed have racked up many wins and a handful of prominent losses". Space4Time3Continuum2x ^(cowabunga) 15:21, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

Ineligible for public office

If the article sees fit to mention that he declared he wants to run for President again in 2024, it should definitely also clarify that it would currently be unconstitutional (by the 14th Amendment, section 3) for him to actually appear on ballots or hold office, without getting amnesty from 2/3 of Congress. Source: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4532751 Lynn Ami (talk) 05:02, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

Alright. Time for some late night analyzation.

Fourteenth Amendment, Section Three:

No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

This was created in response to certain states' unconstitutional attempt to secede from the union, Civil War stuff, yada yada not important to Trump.

The paper goes on to assert that this section of the Amendment would effectively bar Trump from holding office (unless two-thirds of each House votes otherwise, as prescribed in the Amendment), due to their opinion that the specific series of events leading up to and culminating in the January 6, 2021 attack [qualify] as an insurrection within the meaning of Section Three. Some of those reasons are, quote:

• the dishonest attempts to set aside valid state election results with false claims of voter fraud
• the attempted subversion of the constitutional processes for states’ selection of electors for President and Vice President
• the efforts to have the Vice President unconstitutionally claim a power to refuse to count electoral votes certified and submitted by several states
• the efforts of Members of Congress to reject votes lawfully cast by electors
• the fomenting and incitement of a mob that attempted to forcibly prevent Congress’s and the Vice President’s counting of such lawfully cast votes, culminating in a violent and deadly assault on the Capitol (and Congress and the Vice President)

Again, important to note that this is opinion (it seems to us to be quite clear, [i]n our view, etc.)

They do note that the exact meaning/denotation of insurrection or rebellion may have shifted a bit since the Amendment went into effect:

We acknowledge that applying the term “rebellion” to the events of 2020-2021 goes beyond the Civil War era dictionaries. The attempt to overturn the 2020 election was neither an “open and avowed renunciation of the authority of the government,” as Webster would have it, nor (outside of the insurrection of January 6) “the taking up of arms” or “forcible opposition” as Bouvier would have it. It is not a perfect fit.

However, they then describe theoretical situations which, despite not strictly falling under the 1868 meanings, would surely be labeled 'insurrections' or 'rebellions' (bloodless coup, self-coup, etc).

Next, they analyze the question of who does this amendment apply to?

Who all, by virtue of their personal, voluntary conduct, can be said to have “engaged in” insurrection or rebellion in connection with the efforts to overthrow the result of the presidential election of 2020 and unlawfully maintain Donald Trump in office as President of the United States? Who, while perhaps not a direct or indirect participant in insurrectionary or rebellious conduct, provided “aid or comfort” to those who did?

They talk about a few common defenses and their lack of validity, quote:

• it is no defense that an individual might claim that his or her conduct does not constitute having engaged in or supported “insurrection” or “rebellion” because the election was in fact stolen—that is, that Trump in fact won the election— making it legitimate to “stop the steal.”

It is a fact that Joe Biden won and Donald Trump lost, which is the crux of their argument.

• it likewise is no defense that an individual believed (even if mistakenly) that the election had in fact been stolen, or believed that their insurrectionary conduct was somehow lawful.

According to them, insurrectionary behavior is unlawful regardless of the context.

They then go on to state that In our view, on the basis of the public record, former President Donald J. Trump is constitutionally disqualified from again being President (or holding any other covered office) because of his role in the attempted overthrow of the 2020 election and the events leading to the January 6 attack.

They go into detail about what specifically it was that Trump did that would disqualify him from running for office in their view, quote:

• Leading up to January 6, Trump repeatedly solicited, suborned, and pressured Vice President Mike Pence to prevent the counting of the electoral votes in favor of President-elect Biden
• Trump assembled a large crowd to march on the Capitol and intimidate Congress and the Vice President into complying with his wishes and thereby prevent the official counting of the votes of electors confirming Trump’s defeat
• Trump delivered an incendiary address at the White House Ellipse to the crowd of supporters he had effectively summoned to the Capitol to oppose what he had been calling the “steal” of the election
• He urged the assembled mass of thousands, some of whom Trump knew to be armed, to “fight like hell, and if you don’t fight like hell you’re not going to have a country anymore.

They go on to talk about how Trump never directly and literally called for attacking the Capitol or the Vice President, which in their view, only strengthens the debate over whether Trump could/would be ineligible to run for office based on the Fourteenth Amendment.

They go on to state, quote:

The bottom line is that Donald Trump both “engaged in” “insurrection or rebellion” and gave “aid or comfort” to others engaging in such conduct, within the original meaning of those terms as employed in Section Three of the Fourteenth Amendment. If the public record is accurate, the case is not even close. He is no longer eligible to the office of Presidency, or any other state or federal office covered by the Constitution. All who are committed to the Constitution should take note and say so.

Based on all this, in my opinion, the statement you put forth—it would currently be unconstitutional (by the 14th Amendment, section 3) for him to actually appear on ballots or hold office—is not exactly a true description of the source, and does nothing to address the nuance present in the argument. At best, the source is saying we believe that it would be unconstitutional from Trump to hold office. Cessaune [talk] 07:12, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

My recent trims

I've done some trimming in the social media and false and misleading statements sections. Bold means removed and green means tweaked or moved.

Before Social media:

Trump's social media presence attracted worldwide attention after he joined Twitter in 2009. He tweeted frequently during the 2016 election campaign and as president until Twitter banned him in the final days of his term. Over twelve years, Trump posted around 57,000 tweets, often using Twitter as a direct means of communication with the public and sidelining the press. In June 2017, a White House press secretary said that Trump's tweets were official presidential statements. Trump often announced terminations of administration officials and cabinet members over Twitter.

After years of criticism for allowing Trump to post misinformation and falsehoods, Twitter began to tag some of his tweets with fact-checking warnings in May 2020. In response, Trump tweeted that "Social Media Platforms totally silence conservative[] voices" and that he would "strongly regulate[] or close them down". In the days after the storming of the United States Capitol, Trump was banned from Facebook, Instagram, Twitter and other platforms. The loss of Trump's social media presence, including his 88.7 million Twitter followers, diminished his ability to shape events, and prompted a dramatic decrease in the volume of misinformation shared on Twitter. Trump's early attempts to re-establish a social media presence were unsuccessful. In February 2022, he launched social media platform Truth Social where he only attracted a fraction of his Twitter following.

On November 19, 2022, new Twitter owner Elon Musk reinstated Trump's account. Trump did not use the reinstated account until August 25, 2023, when he posted his booking photo from Fulton County Jail.

Before false statements:

As a candidate and as president, Trump frequently made false statements in public speeches and remarks to an extent unprecedented in American politics. His falsehoods became a distinctive part of his political identity.

Trump's false and misleading statements were documented by fact-checkers, including at The Washington Post, which tallied a total of 30,573 false or misleading statements made by Trump over his four-year term. Trump's falsehoods increased in frequency over time, rising from about six false or misleading claims per day in his first year as president to 16 per day in his second year, 22 per day in his third year, and 39 per day in his final year.He reached 10,000 false or misleading claims 27 months into his term; 20,000 false or misleading claims 14 months later, and 30,000 false or misleading claims five months later.

Some of Trump's falsehoods were inconsequential, such as his claim of the "biggest inaugural crowd ever". Others had more far-reaching effects, such as his promotion of unproven antimalarial drugs as a treatment for COVID-19 in a press conference and on Twitter. The claims had consequences worldwide, such as a shortage of these drugs in the United States and panic-buying in Africa and South Asia. Other misinformation, such as misattributing a rise in crime in England and Wales to the "spread of radical Islamic terror", served Trump's domestic political purposes. As a matter of principle, Trump does not apologize for his falsehoods.

Despite the frequency of Trump's falsehoods, the media rarely referred to them as lies. The first time The Washington Post did so was in August 2018, when it declared that some of Trump's misstatements, in particular those concerning hush money paid to Stormy Daniels and Playboy model Karen McDougal, were lies.

In 2020, Trump was a significant source of disinformation on mail-in voting and misinformation on the COVID-19 pandemic. His attacks on mail-in ballots and other election practices served to weaken public faith in the integrity of the 2020 presidential election, while his disinformation about the pandemic delayed and weakened the national response to it.

James Pfiffner, professor of policy and government at George Mason University, wrote in 2019 that Trump lies differently from previous presidents, because he offers "egregious false statements that are demonstrably contrary to well-known facts"; these lies are the "most important" of all Trump lies. By calling facts into question, people will be unable to properly evaluate their government, with beliefs or policy irrationally settled by "political power"; this erodes liberal democracy, wrote Pfiffner.

Iamreallygoodatcheckers ^talk 08:31, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

Oof! I guess "some" in "some trimming" is relative. I just reverted the removal of and prompted a dramatic decrease in the volume of misinformation shared on Twitter whose removal Specifico didn't challenge. Trump's absence leading to a dramatic decrease of misinformation seems more important to me than e.g. quoting Trump's response after Twitter had started to add fact-checks to his tweets. I haven't looked at other text you removed/changed and Specifico challenged. It would be much easier if you trimmed sentences or paragraphs individually, with edit summaries stating your reason(s). This is how I would trim:

Before: Trump's false and misleading statements were documented by fact-checkers, including at The Washington Post, which tallied a total of 30,573 false or misleading statements made by Trump over his four-year term. Trump's falsehoods increased in frequency over time, rising from about six false or misleading claims per day in his first year as president to 16 per day in his second year, 22 per day in his third year, and 39 per day in his final year. He reached 10,000 false or misleading claims 27 months into his term; 20,000 false or misleading claims 14 months later, and 30,000 false or misleading claims five months later.

After: Trump's false and misleading statements were documented by fact-checkers, including at The Washington Post, which tallied a total of 30,573 false or misleading statements made by Trump over his four-year term. Trump's falsehoods increased in frequency over time, rising from about six false or misleading claims per day in his first year to 39 per day in his final year as president.

Summary: Trim totals for x months into his term. We're already mentioning the total of 30,573 and the increase in frequency from six per day/first year to 39/last year. Space4Time3Continuum2x ^(cowabunga) 12:04, 4 September 2023 (UTC) Space4Time3Continuum2x ^(cowabunga) 12:25, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

References