Talk:Donald Trump

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 76.102.148.6 (talk) at 04:02, 20 July 2023 (→‎Rapist?: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Current consensus

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

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 Superseded by #15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 (Nov 2016, Dec 2016) (Superseded by #15 since 11 February 2017)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 Superseded by #35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 (Sep 2016, February 2017, wording shortened per April 2017, upheld with July 2018) (superseded by #35 since 18 February 2019)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. 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)

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 Superseded by #17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 (Jan 2017, Jan 2017, Jan 2017, Jan 2017, Jan 2017, Feb 2017) (superseded by #17 since 2 April 2017)

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

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

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

15. Superseded by lead rewrite
Supersedes #4. There is no consensus to change the formulation of the paragraph which summarizes election results in the lead (starting with "Trump won the general election on November 8, 2016, …"). Accordingly the pre-RfC text (Diff 8 Jan 2017) has been restored, with minor adjustments to past tense (Diff 11 Feb 2018). No new changes should be applied without debate. (RfC Feb 2017, Jan 2017, Feb 2017, Feb 2017) In particular, there is no consensus to include any wording akin to "losing the popular vote". (RfC March 2017) (Superseded by local consensus on 26 May 2017 and lead section rewrite on 23 June 2017)
16. Superseded by lead rewrite
Do not mention Russian influence on the presidential election in the lead section. (RfC March 2017) (Superseded by lead section rewrite on 23 June 2017)
17. Superseded by #50
Supersedes #11. The lead paragraph is "Donald John Trump (born June 14, 1946) is the 45th and current president of the United States. Before entering politics, he was a businessman and television personality." The hatnote is simply {{Other uses}}. (April 2017, RfC April 2017, April 2017, April 2017, April 2017, July 2017, Dec 2018) Amended by lead section rewrite on 23 June 2017 and removal of inauguration date on 4 July 2018. Lower-case "p" in "president" per Dec 2018 and MOS:JOBTITLES RfC Oct 2017. Wikilinks modified per April 2020. Wikilink modified again per July 2020. "45th" de-linked. (Jan 2021)
18. Superseded by #63
The "Alma mater" infobox entry shows "Wharton School (BS Econ.)", does not mention Fordham University. (April 2017, April 2017, Aug 2020, Dec 2020)
19. Obsolete
Following deletion of Trump's official White House portrait for copyright reasons on 2 June 2017, infobox image was replaced by File:Donald Trump Pentagon 2017.jpg. (June 2017 for replacement, June 2017, declined REFUND on 11 June 2017) (replaced by White House official public-domain portrait according to #1 since 31 Oct 2017)

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

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

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

23. Superseded by #52
The lead includes the following sentence: Trump ordered a travel ban on citizens from several Muslim-majority countries, citing security concerns; after legal challenges, the Supreme Court upheld the policy's third revision. (Aug 2017, Nov 2017, Dec 2017, Jan 2018, Jan 2018) Wording updated (July 2018) and again (Sep 2018).
24. Superseded by #30
Do not include allegations of racism in the lead. (Feb 2018) (superseded by #30 since 16 Aug 2018)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

35. Superseded by #49
Supersedes #7. Include in the lead: Trump has made many false or misleading statements during his campaign and presidency. The statements have been documented by fact-checkers, and the media have widely described the phenomenon as unprecedented in American politics. (RfC Feb 2019)
36. Superseded by #39
Include one paragraph merged from Health of Donald Trump describing views about Trump's psychology expressed by public figures, media sources, and mental health professionals who have not examined him. (June 2019) (paragraph removed per RfC Aug 2019 yielding consensus #39)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

45. Superseded by #48
There is no consensus to mention the COVID-19 pandemic in the lead section. (RfC May 2020, July 2020) (Superseded by RfC Aug 2020)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2016 Trump denial of sexual misconduct accusations

Also, in this section of the article, it is UNDUE to state that Trump denied such behavior in 2016, especially with respect to, and in light of, subsequent allegations. The reinserted text does not reflect the narrative the cited source. SpaceX correctly removed it, and it should not have been reinserted without affirmative consensus on talk. SPECIFICO talk 14:15, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I just want to get affirmative consensus. The timeline of events was the following:
He apologized, then he denied it. His denial was based on his claim that it wasn't his voice. Starlighsky (talk) 14:20, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think (as this is a BLP) we have to include his denial. Slatersteven (talk) 14:21, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I second Slatersteven. Some background: WP:BLP used to say: "If the subject has denied such allegations, their denial(s) should also be reported, while adhering to appropriate due weight of all sources covering the subject and avoiding false balance." In December 2022, an RFC was closed in which editors overwhelmingly supported trimming this sentence, bringing it to its current version: "If the subject has denied such allegations, their denial(s) should be reported too." As the closer said: "There is a clear consensus for the page to include option 1, namely including denials if they exist, as it received more !votes than everything else combined."
I realize WP:MANDY is being invoked here, but MANDY is an essay that long predates that RFC.--Jerome Frank Disciple 14:46, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The mention of the allegations in this article are not specific enough to require such a denial. On other article pages, where specific allegations are described, such denials may need to be included. SPECIFICO talk 15:01, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"At least 26 women publicly accused Trump of rape, kissing, and groping without consent; looking under women's skirts; and walking in on naked teenage pageant contestants."
... That is plenty specific.--Jerome Frank Disciple 15:05, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
But we should also include any court findings. Slatersteven (talk) 14:22, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Before we could consider any such text, we would need a source that encompasses the allegations presented in the text and any source would need to present the denial as such -- a denial of the allegations. The currently cited source fails verification on both counts. SPECIFICO talk 14:27, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I am adding the required citation from Vanity Fair magazine as we speak. Looks like problem solved. Starlighsky (talk) 14:36, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I stated the the requirement to consider such text, not to automatically include it. This may take some time to resolve. SPECIFICO talk 15:01, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
OK with me. He denies everything, including things of which he hasn't been accused. But, if someone adds a BLP about me; I want my denial that I'm a part of he human race included. O3000, Ret. (talk) 14:45, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ok...What is BLP? Starlighsky (talk) 14:23, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
wp:BLP biography of a living person. Slatersteven (talk) 14:26, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
More specifically WP:PUBLICFIGURE. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 14:49, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I removed this sentence:

In 2016, he denied all such accusations, calling them "false smears" and alleging a conspiracy against him and the American people.[1]

and moved the rest of the paragraph into the first one. My edit was reverted here. I removed the Trump quote and paraphrased text here, left the denial. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 14:49, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
100% good with that second edit! (Small point: I actually think this is one instance where present perfect is appropriate: "have accused" seems warranted when (1) there are more than a couple persons accusing; (2) many accused at different times; and (3) the person is alive. But honestly I don't feel strongly on this point, as you might have guessed since I feel like 1/3 of my edits on this page were removing present-perfect tense :) )--Jerome Frank Disciple 15:07, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. I was going to follow the instructions for the corrections, but I think everyone else has better internet connections. Reading new comments slowed me attempt to make recommended corrections. Starlighsky (talk) 15:09, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

these edits are premature. No consensus for this amid ongoing discussion. They should be reverted. SPECIFICO talk 15:08, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There was a consensus. Someone seconded the idea. Starlighsky (talk) 15:11, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not quite, they agreed we should have his denial, not how we should have it. Slatersteven (talk) 15:15, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ok...I have to give up on this. I will work on other articles instead. Starlighsky (talk) 17:12, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Healy, Patrick; Rappeport, Alan (October 13, 2016). "Donald Trump Calls Allegations by Women 'False Smears'". The New York Times. Retrieved October 13, 2016.

Pure Vice News, Trump "has denied every single sexual misconduct allegation against him—by no fewer than 26 women—and threatened to sue over them." [1] Also, the exact date that he denied some portion of the allegations seems to be a minor aspect. As such, I removed the year and restriction on number (e.g. instead of saying "In 2016, he denied six" ... just saying "He denied them")--Jerome Frank Disciple 16:17, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Are all in agreement, on the wording? GoodDay (talk) 18:20, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No, there's no such agreement, and this poorly sourced edit should not have been made prior to such agreement in this ongoing discussion. Jerome, please self-revert, be patient, address the substance of other editors' dissents, and engage here on talk. In particular, for this page -- written in summary style -- we don't give enough specific detail about the allegations for there to be any meaninful or NPOV way to representation Trump's reactions, denials, deflections, counterallegations, etc. Per WP:TALKNO, instead of merely reasserting that you believe, yes, "denied the allegations" is specific enough, please rebut this concern. SPECIFICO talk 18:58, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
SPECIFICO, okay, I will revert. Now, I am challenging your alteration, so please revert your edit, as well. Thanks--Jerome Frank Disciple 19:10, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@SPECIFICO @GoodDay @Slatersteven @Space4Time3Continuum2x & @Starlighsky
SPECIFICO has challenged the inclusion of the denial on two grounds:
First, the allegations aren't specific enough to trigger the BLP protection.
Second, it's an UNDUE/NPOV issue.
Thoughts?
As for me, regarding the "specific claim": I think that's facially ridiculous. The line is "At least 26 women publicly accused Trump of rape, kissing, and groping without consent; looking under women's skirts; and walking in on naked teenage pageant contestants." There's no line in WP:DENIALS that says "but only if the allegation is really specific!!!" As if Wikipedia policy would ever say "A rape accusation doesn't trigger WP:DENIAL unless it's REAL VIVID." That's absurd, and it's made up. Also, the vast majority of sources that report the allegations also report the denial. So, from my perspective, there's no DUE issue.
I also think it's worth noting the WP:SUMMARY complaint. SPECIFICO altered Space's text by adding details to the article that detracted from the denial. [2] SPECIFICO then asked me to self revert when I (with proper sourcing) removed both those details and the year in which some of the denials were made. "Additional details are okay only if they make Trump look bad" isn't a legitimate editing philosophy.--Jerome Frank Disciple 19:19, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
How it's written, I'll leave to others to decide. But the former US president's denials must be included. GoodDay (talk) 19:23, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@GoodDay:, do you think it counts as including the denials if we say that he's only denied 6 of the 26, even though other sources say he's denied all of them?--Jerome Frank Disciple 19:26, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If a majority of reliable sources says he denied all charges, then include them all. If a majority of reliable sources say he's denied six of 26, then mention only the six denials. GoodDay (talk) 19:30, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
To my knowledge, none of them say he just "denied six" except for an article discussing his denials made at one particular rally.
Denied them all:
Can, of course, get more if requested--Jerome Frank Disciple 19:35, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It would not advance our work to google more confirmations of preselected content. The fact is that the weight of tertiary RS do not take his deflections and prevarications seriously and do not portray them as credible. Secondary sources may report all kinds of statements, but fortunately we have more considered coverage now, many years into the public discussion of these matters. When Trump was under oath in the Carroll case deposition, he bobbed and weaved, basically landing on "I don't remember" along with various convoluted half-sentence deflections. See the Yahoo ref in your list -- which also notes that many of Trump lied in his responses to specific allegations. This article page is not the place for such detail, one way or the other. SPECIFICO talk 23:50, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"It would not advance our work to google more confirmations of preselected content." For someone who hasn't provided any sources showing that his denials are not included, that sounds a lot like "I don't want to have to do any work to support the position I'm taking." While I'm a bit skeptical of the "include the denial of whatever number of allegations the majority of sources say he denied" rule that @GoodDay has suggested, it notably has nothing to do with anything you said above. Your original research analysis of how secondary sources present the denials is fascinating, but I'm not sure what it has to do with WP:DENIALS.
Also, once again, I've asked you to revert your last edit, which actually added details to the article, notwithstanding your WP:SUMMARY concerns. Pleaser revert, thanks.--Jerome Frank Disciple 00:58, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
How? You reverted Specifico's edit 11 minutes after they made it. Anyway, past tense would be appropriate rather than present perfect simple, and "all of the allegations" is no improvement over "the accusations" or even "the allegations". Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 08:35, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Include his denial to all 26 accusations/charges, if that's what a majority of reliable sources say. GoodDay (talk) 19:38, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
BLP recommends including denial of allegations, and I'm not buying the argument that the brief mention of his denial is undue weight -- the response of the subject should be considered due weight in their BLP. Even if I was on the edge (which I'm not) regarding weight, it's still best to err on the side of caution with BLP's, especially since it's one small sentence. Iamreallygoodatcheckers talk 08:44, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
To address some other issues (what I see as WP:V concerns) mentioned above, the sources provided by Jerome are sufficient in establishing that Trump has denied all allegations against him regarding sexual misconduct. Furthermore, no, the allegations do not have to be described in a certain level of detail for the denial to be mentioned. That argument is not based in policy or guideline. It's also weakened by the fact that Trump has universally and unequivocally denied all allegations; so, it's not as though there's much of a distinction between his response to any specific allegation versus another. This is reflected in the RS framing of his denials as being "any" or "all" allegations (see the numerous references brought by Jerome above). Iamreallygoodatcheckers talk 09:00, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Trump has denied all of the allegations instead of denied the allegations violates WP:IMPARTIAL (neutral characterization of disputes requires presenting viewpoints with a consistently impartial tone). Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 10:34, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure that there's a distinction there, but I'm totally okay with "denied the allegations".--Jerome Frank Disciple 11:36, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I also don't care about how it is worded, but some indication that he denied the accusations is essential per BLP and other policies mentioned. I am not swayed at all by the UNDUE arguments for not including this material.LM2000 (talk) 11:43, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Mr. Checkers, your argument above is just a repetition of the unsupported conclusion that his "denials" should be mentioned. Please review the reasons that I and others have provided above as to why this is incorrect, among them this and this. It is not correct to claim that Trump has unequivocally and denied all of the allegations. Tertiary sources, including the Yahoo/Business Insider one in Jerome's list and the one from USA Today, say quite the opposite. As you know, his "denials" in the only case to have been adjudicated have cost him many millions of dollars in damages. In the main article concerning these allegations, it is appropriate to go into the specific allegations and the nature of his responses, including tertiary evaluation of those responses, which -- yes -- were equivocal, selective and (under oath) garbled and evasive. Not in this article. It is not appropriate to give the briefest summary mention of the allegations and then to frame Trump's responses as if they were straightforward denials, when reasoned tertiary sources do not frame them that way. And the sad fact is that much of this discussion proceeded, apparently, without editors even having checked the initial reference to see that it was years old and referred only to six of the dozens of allegations. We need to do the reading and weigh the substance of sources rather than relying on casual impressions and the google machine. Google is a database tool, it is not an editorial tool. SPECIFICO talk 10:38, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
First, you're wrong about the Yahoo and Business Insider story:
Now, arguably the Yahoo! link is restricted to just assault (is that your argument? that he hasn't denied the misconduct claims?), but you also have the Vice story: "has denied every single sexual misconduct allegation against him—by no fewer than 26 women—and threatened to sue over them".
You say you and others ... but how many other users are campaigning for exclusion as hard as you? Arguably Space, although Space seems to be amenable to inclusion of "denied the allegations".
Meanwhile, the users who are favoring inclusion include me, GoodDay, Slatersteven, Starlighsky, LM2000, and Iamreallygoodatcheckers.--Jerome Frank Disciple 11:42, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hmph — I'm editor "terse", long article, remember? Now that the cited 2016 source has been replaced by a 2020 source, I support Trump denied the accusations as the neutral, brief, and clearly expressed version. I can live with "allegations" if I must, but I don't like the word in this context. The women alleged, he denied — when he's alleging, too (i.e., they lied). "Accused" and "denied" is neutral. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 12:11, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, sorry! I didn't mean to suggest you were strongly in the remove camp (NOT that I was assuming one way or the other, but I wasn't sure if that edit you linked to was maybe begrudging, and I didn't want to confidently say you were 100% in favor of inclusion in case that was a misrepresentation).
The reason the 2016 source was changed was because SPECIFICO pointed out that the 2016 source only related to 6 of Trump's denials, whereas the 2020 source made clear that he denied all 26. I'm 100% okay with "Trump denied the accusations" or "Trump denied the allegations". I don't think "all" presents an NPOV issue, but I actually do think it's redundant, so I support its removal!--Jerome Frank Disciple 12:16, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Did you read the source before objecting to that edit? If not, what was the basis for your objection? If you'll review the entire tertiary sources I mentioned (note, Yahoo is an aggregator. The Yahoo piece is from Business Insider.) then you will see the "denials" characterized by the source in such a way that merely calling "denials" Verified is misleading and violates NPOV. Did you read the RS coverage of Trump's sworn deposition that I discussed above? You will see him equivocating @Iamverygoodatcheckers: mightily and then blustering that he did not remember. Again, that's not what our readers will understand by an uncontextualized "denied". As O3000 has pointed out Trump has for decades "denied" anything and everything. Framing and context are essential to NPOV, and when such framing, context, and detail would be excessive or inconsistent with the narrative of the summary style text, it is better to omit rather than to mislead. The detailed article page about the allegations is linked for our readers. SPECIFICO talk 13:11, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Unless at least one or two other people agree with you here, I don't think this conversation is worth continuing. I, essentially, fundamentally disagree with all your points. We should follow the (many) reliable sources that say he's denied the allegations. As you are fond of saying: if you want specific denials noted so that readers can see any nuance or equivocation, then perhaps you should seek add that info to "[o]ther article pages, where specific allegations are described" --Jerome Frank Disciple 13:57, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It would be much more constructive if you would follow Graham's Hierarchy that I linked above and present a substantive rebuttal to register your objection to my view. Repeating your view and proposing to shut down the discussion is pointless. Would you prefer that we go to a noticeboard or RfC on this? I think it would be more constructive to exhaust constructive engagement here before we conclude that would be necessary. SPECIFICO talk 14:05, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
His MO is deny everything, then deny the denial, present 15 different versions, deny those, etc. My first choice is "duh", WP:MANDY. Since the current consensus here is in favor of including the denial, my second choice is to keep the text as short as possible. Do we really need an RfC? Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 14:35, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As always, I am open to reasoned rebuttals of my views, but in the absence of any statements that address the concerns that you, I, O3000 have expressed here, this is going to take up even more time and attention. Once we start expanding the content, we get on a spiral. He denies allegations. Well the jury found his denial of one allegation was false, RS find lies in other "denials". Under oath under penalty of perjury he fumbles and bumbles and equivocates, etc. etc. It's a can of worms. Where are the RS that contravene MANDY? It's the opposite, they take the unusual step of debunking and giving short shrift to his various reactions, attacks, and deflections. The standards of a secondary journalist require them to say he denied this or that. An encyclopedic narrative is not the same as a secondary news narrative. Tertiary RS do not treat his reactions as credible denials. We don't have space on this page to fully characterize his responses as those tertiary sources do. We do that in the separate page on the subject. SPECIFICO talk 15:08, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Editors who support or say they are okay with inclusion:
  • Myself
  • GoodDay
  • Slatersteven
  • Starlighsky
  • LM2000
  • Iamreallygoodatcheckers
  • Objective3000 ("fine")
  • Space4Time3Continuum2x ("okay")
Editors who oppose inclusion
  • You.
If you think, under those circumstances, an RFC is appropriate, that's obviously up to you.
Multiple reliable sources—including Insider, ABC News, the Independent, Vice News, and more—have noted that Trump has denied all the accusations against him. WP:DENIALS says that such denials should be included in the article. You first argued that WP:DENIALS was only triggered by specific allegations—implicitly, that an allegation of rape was not, alone, enough to trigger it. No one here bought that argument. You then argued that WP:SUMMARY would advise against removing the denials, even though you simultaneously edited the page to add additional details limiting the denials. Next, you argued that it was WP:UNDUE based on the reliable sources available. You provided no examples of sources covering Trump's history of abuse allegations that didn't note his denials. Again, no one here brought that argument.
Now, you're arguing that because Trump has, in certain instances, equivocated or, as you put it in another post, bobbed and weaved in his "denials", that should cancel out the other instances in which Trump has, as you put it, "denied anything and everything". I don't see anyone who's been persuaded by that argument. I'll leave it to others to try to persuade you or you to either WP:DROPTHESTICK or start an RFC, as you deem appropriate.--Jerome Frank Disciple 15:13, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We do not count votes on WP. Not clear the count is accurate, either. I see you misrepresenting the concern I have stated above and not attempting to resolve or rebut it. There is no rush. Please give editors some time for research and reflection. SPECIFICO talk 15:57, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nor do we need to satisfy one holdout editor demanding others persuade them.--Jerome Frank Disciple 16:00, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with following BLP policy and therefore including the denial. Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:21, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Trump himself was not the one who issued the "denials" and counterattacks. This article in The Atlantic lists the allegations as of late 2017, documenting that nearly all the "denials" came not from Trump, but rather were from attorneys, campaign operatives, or White House staffers.
A brief mention that would be less prone to misinterpretation would be along the lines of what ABC news wrote. We could say something to paraphrase their assessment that "[Trump] and his team repeatedly issued blanket denials against all the allegations, calling the women liars" [3]. Perhaps also noting the observation in New Yorker that The assumption Trump is lying is a reasonable one". Perhaps a sentence that conveys the above would be OK. Example to replace the current sentence in the article:

Trump and his entourage have issued blanket denials of the allegations while disparaging the women who raised them.

SPECIFICO talk 19:29, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Second this as it fits the pattern we repeatedly see in RS. Accusation, followed by angry denial calling accusers liars and many other nasty nouns and adjectives. Realize this is a man who attacked a woman immediately after she won a defamation suit over attacks (and appears to be using campaign donations to pay his legal bills[4]). Is succinct while Satisfying BLP, RS and DUE. O3000, Ret. (talk) 21:07, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think the current version is superior, in part because it's simpler and actually more accurate: Trump has specifically denied at least some of the accusations. To say that he's only responded with blanket denials is false, and the implication from the proposed sentence is just that. Compare that to what the ABC News source actually says: "In some cases, he and his team members have specifically denied individual accusations, but they have also repeatedly issued blanket denials against all the allegations, calling the women liars." Second, this is a far less significant issue, but I'm a bit skeptical of paraphrasing that he called the accusers liars to "disparaging", for the same reason that I'd be a bit skeptical of saying "26 women have disparaged Trump by saying that he ...."--Jerome Frank Disciple 21:14, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We cannmot attribute the statements of Huckabee, HopeHicks, and various campaign officials and attorneys to Trump personally. Please review the sources. Few of the so-called denials are in Trump's voice. The rest are self-serving statements by individuals who have no way of knowing the facts. SPECIFICO talk 21:26, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing that I said is contradicted by what you just said. I say he has specifically denied at least some of the allegations. The source says "In some cases, he and his team members have specifically denied individual accusations ...." (emphasis added).--Jerome Frank Disciple 22:44, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well, certainly in addition to the blanket denials ABC refers to, he has made additional statements. After he lost the Carroll suit, he called her a "wack job", the case a "hoax", and said the court case was a "rigged deal". I don't see how rigged deal can be interpreted other than the jury and/or judge was somehow part of a conspiracy. Frankly, I think SPECIFICO's suggestion is a very easy on his performance and a good compromise. O3000, Ret. (talk) 21:39, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Let's see what others think. I think it's misleading to suggest that he only issued blanket denials, when the source we're citing contradicts that, and that the extra details are superfluous.--Jerome Frank Disciple 22:45, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The source I provided is one of many carefully reasoned tertiary sources that VERIFY "blanket denials". Few of the "denials" were made by Trump himself. It's mostly people in his circle with no direct knowledge as to the allegations' veracity. SPECIFICO talk 23:20, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Your source says:
"Trump has vehemently denied all of the various women’s accusations multiple times. In some cases, he and his team members have specifically denied individual accusations, but they have also repeatedly issued blanket denials against all the allegations, calling the women liars."
Christ, I missed the first sentence the first time I checked, it's an even more ridiculous paraphrase than I thought! This is a pretty blatant WP:NPOV and WP:DUE violation. It's all the more ridiculous that someone who supposedly didn't want to include the denials on WP:SUMMARY grounds now wants to include far more detail about the denials .... It's even more telling that the details selected leave a false impression and don't line up with the source. Strong oppose. "Trump denied the accusations/allegations" is sufficient, and this has been a colossal waste of time.--Jerome Frank Disciple 23:28, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This text,

Trump and his entourage have issued blanket denials of the allegations while disparaging the women who raised them.

provides a compact compromise that notes the denials while contextualizing them just barely enough so as not to be misleading - thus addressing the concerns of editors above without fully omitting "denials" per MANDY. The context, widely noted in RS is the use of his friends, allies, and employees to speak for him on matters of which they have no knowledge and the ongoing misogynistic framing disparagement and personal attacks on the women who came forward. I don't think ridiculous, Christ, supposedly, etc. invalidates this proposed compromise. SPECIFICO talk 18:05, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Jerome Frank Disciple: Please rebut the specific objections that have been presented in this thread. Presumably you have read the sources with those issues in mind. For others who have not yet commented on the current proposal, here is an example of the Verification problem with stating that "Trump denied." In the Business Insider tertiary source provided by Jerome, it states "Mr. Trump strongly denies this phony allegation by someone looking to get some free publicity," Hope Hicks, the president's then-spokeswoman and current White House communications director, told the Post in October 2016. "It is totally ridiculous."[5]
That is an example of one of Trump's entourage doing the MANDY with no RS attributing it to Trump or any reference to the facts. The language I proposed as a compromise would allow the article to include mentioning the "denials" without baselessly attributing them to Donald Trump. SPECIFICO talk 19:24, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"Baselessly"? Really? Baselessly? Cessaune [talk] 19:27, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What is your opinion of the text that I proposed. I believe that it takes account of your objections. SPECIFICO talk 20:41, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's not bad. I woudl support it. But, still, "baselessly" is shocking to me. Cessaune [talk] 21:41, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well good, thanks Cessaune. "Not bad" is the basis of compromise. @Jerome Frank Disciple:, can you endorse this compromise text? It does not say that there were no denials, only makes clear that their provenance is mixed, according to tertiary RS analysis. Compare this with the Bill Clinton denial wrt Monica Lewinsky. It was a lie, but it was direct, clear and unequivocal. Factors not found in all of the responses from the Trump team wrt the many times he has faced these allegations. SPECIFICO talk 23:16, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As I said, no, for several reasons. Most prominently, it implies that Trump only issued blanket denials. That implication is contrary to the source. It also improperly conflates someone issuing a denial on Trump's behalf—as in the case with a spokesperson or an attorney—with someone issuing their own denial. Thirdly, "entourage"?? Is that a joke? Finally, WP:SUMMARY and WP:DUE—as the vast majority of reliable sources do, including the source cited, we can just say that Trump has denied all of the allegations.--Jerome Frank Disciple 23:46, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Given that it's purposefully exclusionary I would strongly oppose it. Jesus I can't believe we're about to do an RFC on this. SPECIFICO if you think you've settled on your final argument I guess you might as well start one when you're ready.--Jerome Frank Disciple 22:37, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Responding since you've specifically tagged me.
As I pointed out above, your own source says he denied the allegations.

Trump has vehemently denied all of the various women’s accusations multiple times. In some cases, he and his team members have specifically denied individual accusations, but they have also repeatedly issued blanket denials against all the allegations, calling the women liars.

(empahses added)
You, essentially, have argued that we should only pay attention to one half of the second sentence. All that response reveals is that you're willing to selectively curate details in order to push a POV.
Every source we have considered, including the one you want to rely on, says that Trump has denied all the allegations. You selectively picking one sentence and saying "this is all we should discuss" is particularly ironic given your previous invocation of WP:DUE. But, again, as I've said, that's not the only time you've reversed yourself. You were against mentioning Trump denied the allegations at all on WP:SUMMARY grounds, saying that even mentioning the denials was too much detail for this article. Now, you're trying to enhance the level of detail. Again, as I said above, "Additional details are okay only if they make Trump look bad" is not a legitimate editing philosophy.
Finally, your claim that we have to disregard any statements not personally made by Trump is completely made up. When you first said it, I thought you were saying that if one of Trump's agents denied an allegation, we couldn't attribute that to him, which is a reasonable enough proposition. But that Hicks example ... isn't even that. Hicks, who was Trump's spokesperson, directly said that Trump denied the claim, and the reliable sources treat her response as reflecting his view on the matter. You've repeatedly tried to create exceptions to WP:DENIALS that simply don't exist, as this thread documents, and this appears to be another one. And, again, the source you want to cite says Trump himself has specifically denied some of the claims.
The vast majority of editors here have disagreed with you. Discussing this with you has been like playing a game of whack-a-mole: you'll advance one ground and then, once that's rejected, switch to another, demanding responses to each successive argument. You seem to think that I or others either have to persuade you that you're wrong or cave to you. We don't.--Jerome Frank Disciple 19:51, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
OK, propose another word for "entourage" then. It's a diverse group. Campaign workers, press secretary, attorneys, other staff. Perhaps you can find the best word to substitute. SPECIFICO talk 00:30, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think you meant to respond to this comment I made:

As I said, no, for several reasons. Most prominently, it implies that Trump only issued blanket denials. That implication is contrary to the source. It also improperly conflates someone issuing a denial on Trump's behalf—as in the case with a spokesperson or an attorney—with someone issuing their own denial. Thirdly, "entourage"?? Is that a joke? Finally, WP:SUMMARY and WP:DUE—as the vast majority of reliable sources do, including the source cited, we can just say that Trump has denied all of the allegations.

I listed four reasons, including one I identified as the primary reason ... and you're only responding to the third and least consequential? The fact that it leaves a false implications the biggest problem, and changing entourage doesn't address that.--Jerome Frank Disciple 00:34, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Please propose what text you would suggest, taking account of the issues raised in this discussion and in particular the narratives of the tertiary sources. Otherwise, we would need to revert to the longstanding version, which was sourced to a 2017 reference and correctly stated that in 2016 Trump personally denied six of the allegations, as shown here. I think there's agreement that this can be updated. We need to determine how to do that. SPECIFICO talk 16:17, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
See Space's comment below in terms of what the original text was. And everyone here agreed that it should be stated that he denied all allegations. It appears only you O3000 and Cessaune say the additional text should be included.--Jerome Frank Disciple 17:10, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I really don't care either way, as long as something about denials is included. I'm not getting dragged into a multi-week discussion about this. Cessaune [talk] 17:22, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]


Yikes. Since it's obvious that the editors agreeing with SPECIFICO's point of view are in the vast minority, what is the point of even continuing this discussion? Use an RS or two above to substantiate/verify the claim that Trump denied the allegations and close this thread, please. I have no strong opinion as to the underlying question, but there is really no value in dragging on an argument about something so minor. Cessaune [talk] 23:45, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Seconded.--Jerome Frank Disciple 18:12, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thirded. We have numerous RSes which support including this information as DUE. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 16:23, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Fourthed, per WP:BLPPUBLIC. – .Raven  .talk 17:17, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

SPECIFICO, this was the long-standing version: In 2016, he denied all such accusations, calling them "false smears" and alleging a conspiracy against him and the American people. I removed the sentence here and — naturally — got reverted here. I then removed the second clause here, followed by Starlighsky's edits, etc. The current cite for the sentence, the 2020 Guardian article, was in the paragraph all along, used as the cite for the first sentence. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 16:43, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I may have gone back too far and skipped that longstanding update. To those who are objecting to a Verified and NPOV update: It might be helpful as a thought experiment to consider the events of the past several days after Trump's Florida indictment. Evidence has been widely published and overwhelmingly evaluated as credible in RS. At the same time we have Trump and his entourage-team-cohort-allies-employees-attorneys (whatever word you choose) making self-contradictory, false, denials and deflections that are evaluated by RS and experts as false and ridiculous. This is what MANDY is about. We would have no BLP or NPOV obligation to straightfaced report that he "denied the allegation" without giving the mainstream NPOV context and assessment of such denial. Although the conduct of Trump and his supporters is somewhat different in the somewhat different matter of the 26 miscoduct allegations, the same issues apply to straightfaced "he denied". It would create a false equivalency between these episodes and the times when we do feel obligated to report a denial to indicate that the charges are contested and unadjudicated. As O3000 has pointed out, Trump denies almost anything that discomforts him. That is why denials by him or his attorneys, press agents, John Baron, campaigh staff, et al have attracted such widespread mainstream scrutiny and scepticism for so many decades. We need to come up with the right wording or go back to the former text. If there's no progress, SpaceX reinstatement of the longstanding should be put back in place. SPECIFICO talk 17:24, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So ... you're fine with saying that he denied all such accusations in 2016 ... even though that, if I recall, doesn't fit the source that's immediately after it ... but you think it's misleading to state "he denied the accusations"??
I mean, that's ... not really logical. Does anyone else here support reverting back to that prior version?--Jerome Frank Disciple 17:38, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Just please remember for the balance that WP:MANDY is an essay, while WP:BLPPUBLIC is policy: "If the subject has denied such allegations, their denial(s) should be reported too." – .Raven  .talk 06:23, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If we have to revert to this version given the lack of consensus, but I think the simpler "Trump denied the allegations/accusations" line is sufficient.--Jerome Frank Disciple 17:11, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody supports that, so we need not consider that? As has been indicated and discussed here, the 2017 citation refers to 6 charges that came up in a televised debate, not "all" 26 allegations. I asked you above to suggest a word that you propose instead of "entourage" in the versioni now under discussion. Is "team" acceptable to you? If not, what other wording would you propose to follow the sourcing as to who was alongside Trump issuing these robo-denials on issues of which they had no apparent knowledge. SPECIFICO talk 18:08, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Read what Space wrote again. It says "all". That's the status quo, and since it's also supported by the Guardian link that's also in the old version of the article, I would object to you changing all to six, given WP:DENIALS.
And, as I've said multiple times, your version has MANY issues, only the smallest of which is the entourage word choice. I explicitly said the other issues were more important. Even now, you're selectively ignoring the source you wanted to exclusively rely on in order to characterize the issue. That's an obvious NPOV issue and a nonstarter. I am satisfied with either the status quo, which said he denied all allegations in 2016, or the shorter "Trump has denied all the accusations/allegations." That's it. --Jerome Frank Disciple 18:14, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think Trump has denied all accusations is sufficient. Iamreallygoodatcheckers talk 06:07, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed... with footnotes, of course. – .Raven  .talk 06:21, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, I would support the succinct and easily DUE "Trump has denied all accusations." It's the least wordy and must effective at communicating the relevant info. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 16:24, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Shibbolethink: The problem is that tertiary sources that have examined each allegation and the Trump team's responses say more than that. First, they do not attribute all of the "denials" to Trump himself. (See the tertiary sources refernced above in this thread) Many of the responses were from Trump-adjacent advocates who had no knowledge of the incidents and were giving what sources call blanket denials or what basically said that he denies anything bad. Second, in those and other sources, the responses, or "denials" are not all taken seriously by fact checkers and RS analysts. Sources point out lies, contradictions, and other defects in the responses, and we know in the Jean Carroll matter that a jury did not find his denial of misconduct credible. The longstanding version that SpaceX linked above gave context and presented the weight of RS evaluation of the responses by Trump and his team. It is longer than just "Trump denied all allegations" but it gives our readers the NPOV narrative, which we need to do especially when referring to statements many of which RS find false, equivocal, or misleading. SPECIFICO talk 21:13, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I would say the statement above remains a valid summary of the best available sources. You are, of course, free to disagree. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 01:49, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What is the wording that you are endorsing? As you know, the longstanding text noted his denials but also characterized them and included his collateral attacks on the women making the allegations. That was sourced to and referred only to an event that predated many of the allegations. Therefore in updating a mention of his now ~26 allegations, the question is whether to remove the characterizations of those responses now widely published in tertiary RS or whether to cut back the context that was longstanding and just state that he denied the allegations. If you are advocating the latter, what is the rationale for omitting the longstanding NPOV approach of presenting the weight of mainstream RS narratives as to the allegations? SPECIFICO talk 20:31, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
WP:BLPPUBLIC's "If the subject has denied such allegations, their denial(s) should be reported too" doesn't even say "in all the detail that RS's give", let alone "with all the expressions of skepticism with which RS's greeted them." Footnotes can link to the RS's. – .Raven  .talk 22:27, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@.Raven:, nobody has argued that BLP states that. But the NPOV narrative of RS does state that. In terms of this article text: The context about Trump's attacts on the women was longstanding in the article, but it was sourced to a 2017 reference and therefore did not verify subsequent allegations and responses by Trump. Unless there is some reason not to include such context, it seems to me that we should update the status quo representation of NPOV narrative by updating the sourced characterization of Trump's attacks and smears in his responses. This is not new, just needs to be updated. SPECIFICO talk 14:52, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
> "... attacks and smears in his responses." — That is a very good point.
To say "Trump denied all the allegations" is a concise and sufficient summary of his denials as such. But that he conjoined these with the sort of counter-accusations as to lose him a defamation lawsuit and cost him millions of dollars is significant, speaks to personality (or what used to be called "character"), and deserves mention. – .Raven  .talk 18:36, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The brief text with references cited above (tertiary and more recent than the former 2017 source) needs to be written and put in place. SPECIFICO talk 02:29, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Preventing Animal Cruelty And Torture Act

This bill should be mentioned as it was heavily supported by the Trump Admin and made intentional acts of animal cruelty a federal crime.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/25/us/politics/trump-animal-cruelty-bill.html 2600:1002:B157:B56:4AD:FE6D:1629:32F7 (talk) 19:30, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure how biographically significant this is to put it in this article. It might better belong in Presidency of Donald Trump. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 19:38, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you. Can we add it? 2600:1002:B157:B56:4AD:FE6D:1629:32F7 (talk) 20:35, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@OuroborosCobra there are plenty of other pieces of legislation mentioned in this article, i don't see how this particular act is any less "biographically significant" 2604:3D09:6A7F:82C0:3C2F:CFAE:2217:63CB (talk) 18:58, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is an argument for reducing what we have to only mile stone acts, those of great significance. Slatersteven (talk) 19:05, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Miss Universe pageant in the lead

Request other opinions on this exchange.

  • This edit added the Miss Universe pageant, a couple of Wikilinks, and some wordiness to the lead and switched the order of sentences. It also expanded the link to the Wharton School when the short link works just as well.
  • I reverted here (see edit summary).
  • FMSky reverted here without discussion on the Talk page and without an edit summary.
  • I reverted here, pointing out consensus item 60 and what I believe to be a BRD violation.
  • FMSky reinserted the pageant, again without saying why they think it is lead-worthy, and accused me of ownership behavior in the edit summary. The edit summary says that they "re-add[ed] mention of The Apprentice" - I assume that was an oversight.

The pageant was removed from the lead in this edit. I agree with the editor's summary that it's not leadworthy, not in this long lead. Miss Universe mentions Trump in two short paragraphs in the "History" section, as owner/co-owner for 19 years in the pageant's 71-year history. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 14:01, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

why is this such a big deal?? 😭 im gonna remove it again, i'm really not interested in a drawn out discussion over something so insignificant. btw, where was the "consensus" for the removal in the first place?--FMSky (talk) 14:06, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
When there is disagreement, we proceed to discussion. SPECIFICO talk 14:46, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Miss Universe bit, should be excluded from the lead. He's better known for having been President of the United States. GoodDay (talk) 15:29, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

On that basis you could delete a quarter of the page. Could you share your full reasoning? SPECIFICO talk 16:46, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Miss Universe bit, just isn't quite as notable as the other non-presidential bits. GoodDay (talk) 18:30, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Right, but why? What is your reasoning? What test or principle do you suggest we apply to verify the conclusion you advocate? That would be helpful. Re-asserting your view doesn't help converge the disussion. SPECIFICO talk 18:35, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've given my reasoning for why. If there's a consensus to include, it will be included. If there's no consensus to include, it will be excluded. GoodDay (talk) 18:40, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If there's a consensus to include, it will be included. If there's no consensus to include, it will be excluded. is always true on all pages. The "more notable" thing is not. But thanks for the reply. SPECIFICO talk 21:13, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Aside from his real estate and television business, Trump was involved in many lesser business pursuits. The lead should say that and may mention a few of them briefly as examples. For example, say something like "such as the Miss Universe Pageant, professional wrestling, an airline." Years and positions held are excess detail, IMHO. TFD (talk) 19:59, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm with TFD. Miss Universe is one of Trump's lesser business pursuits. A lead mention would be UNDUE. Iamreallygoodatcheckers talk 02:43, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
None of his businesses is signficant except for their cash flows that sustained his image and lifestyle even while losing money for lenders and investors. But the pageant ties into his misogyny and claims of voyeurism as noted in RS, and the wrestling, also noted, into his 1950's-era tough guy charisma, so some version at the weight TFD suggests, better worded, would be appropriate. SPECIFICO talk 02:31, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t understand who is proposing what. The status quo ante is the current one:

He expanded its operations to building and renovating skyscrapers, hotels, casinos, and golf courses and later started side ventures, mostly by licensing his name. From 2004 to 2015, he co-produced and hosted the reality television series The Apprentice.

Side ventures include the NJ Generals, greenmailing, Trump Shuttle, Miss Universe, Trump University. The Apprentice is the only one of his forays into film (cameos), television (cameos, WWE), and radio (call-ins to Howard Stern, etc.) that we mention in the lead because that’s the one that "made him a star", or whatever. His role-playing on WWE, his film and TV cameos, his call-ins to radio shows etc. are mentioned in the body (Donald Trump#Film and television with a link to the main article Media career of Donald Trump) but do they belong in the lead? Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 11:50, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Citation bot 2

An editor removed the {{bots|deny=Citation bot}} template from the article a month ago, resulting in the "work" parameter being replaced by "newspaper" for a couple of newspapers but not for several others. (I wonder whether someone sicced the bot on George Santos where CNN, ABC, NBC, Politico, Talking Points Memo were all called "newspaper" ([6]).) The previous discussion involved three editors, one opposed to and one supporting the template, one unclear ("should probably be discussed at community level" but they stopped caring about it). According to the bot’s user talk page, it’s a feature. IMO, on this page the argument that "newspaper is clear while work is not" doesn’t amount to much when it results in one in five newspapers having the parameter "newspaper", the other four having "work", and the output for the reader being exactly the same. The frequency of citation bot activity on this page has increased to less than 24 hours: June 9, June 25, June 26, July 4, July 6, July 7, July 8, July 9 Any objections to me reinserting the {{bots|deny=Citation bot}} template? Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 11:40, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

My word "probably" makes my position unclear? If so, feel free to ignore that word.
Your edit summaries have stated, 582 bytes of non-improvement in this long article, but this article's size problems are more about rendered length than about file size. The parameter name changes add nothing to rendered length, and the 0.13% increase in file size is not a significant problem. Remember, the latter has zero effect on readers, since they don't access the raw file that we edit.
I "stopped caring" about this issue because I was tired of fighting an endless parade of human editors who had nothing better to do than go around changing parameter names with no effect on the rendered articles. That was before Citation bot started doing this. I didn't stop having an opinion; I decided I had better things to occupy my time. And now I'm 99%-retired and doing my best to avoid controversial, time-consuming issues.
I'd suggest an RfC at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals) (in my opinion, the CS1/CS2 talk pages do not attract enough participation to establish community consensus on issues that are controversial and affect all editors). In the meantime, I'd let Citation bot have its way. This is not a battle for articles or article talk pages. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:19, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Just came across this: Template:Cite_news#Usage. "Most commonly used parameters", and every single example has been using "work" since at least 2009. The Lua version (no idea what that is, mentioning it because it was mentioned in the previous discussion) was installed in 2013. Template:Cite_news says that the template is being used on 1,500,000+ pages (apparently none of them having come to the attention of Citation bot). Looks like community consensus to me, no? (I know, the answer probably is no.) Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 13:13, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Regardless, since you even have to ask the question, you would need community consensus that it's community consensus. At best, it's no stronger community consensus than Citation bot itself, which has higher visibility. I don't know, but I assume it's doing the same thing site-wide with little objection. Many editors assume incorrectly that all bots are fully vetted and explicitly approved at community level (I did once). ―Mandruss ☎ 20:13, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Protests sparked by Trump's election and policies

We currently say "His election and policies sparked numerous protests." in the lead section. How many protests are needed before including this as an important statement in the lead? I looked up at the entry for George W. Bush, who also had numerous protests, and this was not included in his lead section. Forich (talk) 19:35, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I do not believe the number, size, or media coverage of Bush protests was comparable, do you? However, that lead sentence does look a bit off the wall and uninformative. SPECIFICO talk 20:30, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've long supported removal of this sentence. Protest are expected against all presidents. Sure, maybe Trump had more protests, but I don't think that makes it lead worthy. Iamreallygoodatcheckers talk 20:38, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've no objections to deleting the sentence-in-question. GoodDay (talk) 23:55, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Consensus can change, but editors should review the discussions linked at current consensus item 20. If a new consensus is reached to omit the sentence (it should be at least as strong as #20), that should result in a new consensus item that supersedes #20. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:39, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I support removing the sentence. It is vague. What in particular sparked the protests. Were they "numerous" or large?--Jack Upland (talk) 00:59, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I support removing the sentence. "Numerous" isn't quantifiable. It differs from other non-quantifiable adjectives such as "small" (Town X is a small village is a relatively common formulation on Wikipedia) due to the fact that no real mental picture can be established from the word numerous, barring the inclusion of the total number of protests (which would then make using the word numerous unnecessary and potentially redundant). Cessaune [talk] 01:59, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think we need to be painting pictures with our words. "Numerous" here denotes significantly many, which does convey that it was much more than baseline-for-all-presidents and that the demonstrations arose from his having been elected and from his policies. But to remain in the lead, it would be much better somehow to pack more information as to what in particular gave rise to the protests, when they occurred, etc. One thing that was noteworthy was that an unusual number and size of such demonstrations occurred right away and continued throughout his first year, including in Europe and elsewhere that he roamed. SPECIFICO talk 03:05, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The sources used for the statement are news coverage immediately after he became president. It seems they were larger than normal, but after six years, the sources should be updated. We would also need a source that protests against Trump and his policies during his presidency were significant. It seems that most of the protests were from BLM, which were not specifically anti-Trump. TFD (talk) 04:42, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There were some demonstrators at Bush's 2000 inauguration but nothing comparable to the millions who demonstrated against Trump the day after his inauguration. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 11:29, 17 July 2023 (UTC) Rmv superfluous brackets, add "protesters" Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 13:11, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mandruss already pointed out that we'd need to discuss changing consensus #20. Clearing up some confusion: the sentence in the lead was there long before the BLM protests in 2020. It's based on content in Donald Trump#Election to the presidency:

    Trump's election victory sparked protests in major U.S. cities in the days following the election.[1][2] On the day after Trump's inauguration, an estimated 2.6 million people worldwide, including an estimated half million in Washington, D.C., protested against Trump in the Women's Marches.[3]

    The facts (huge, peaceful demonstrations) haven't changed. "Policies" refers to the things he said during the campaign (second sentence of the lead paragraph, During that campaign, Trump's political positions were described as populist, protectionist, isolationist, and nationalist). Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 11:29, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The Women's March was large and unprecedented. The European protests were unprecedented for a new president -- the Brits flew a Trump-top baby balloon in diapers. BLM was not personal rejection of Trump, not relevant to this discussion. SPECIFICO talk 11:41, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Logan, Brian; Sanchez, Chris (November 10, 2016). "Protests against Donald Trump break out nationwide". Business Insider. Retrieved September 16, 2022.
  2. ^ Colson, Thomas (November 11, 2016). "Trump says protesters have 'passion for our great country' after calling demonstrations 'very unfair'". Business Insider.
  3. ^ Przybyla, Heidi M.; Schouten, Fredreka (January 21, 2017). "At 2.6 million strong, Women's Marches crush expectations". USA Today. Retrieved January 22, 2017.

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)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Donald_Trump&oldid=1166220213"