Talk:Donald Trump

Current consensus

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

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

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

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

04. Superseded by #15

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 (Nov 2016, Dec 2016) (Superseded by #15 since 11 February 2017)

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

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

07. Superseded by #35

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 (Sep 2016, February 2017, wording shortened per April 2017, upheld with July 2018) (superseded by #35 since 18 February 2019)

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

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

10. 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 Superseded by #17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 (Jan 2017, Jan 2017, Jan 2017, Jan 2017, Jan 2017, Feb 2017) (superseded by #17 since 2 April 2017)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)

January 6 deaths

The subsection on 1/6 says, “five people, including a Capitol Police officer, died.” There’s one cite: Cameron, Chris (January 5, 2022). "These Are the People Who Died in Connection With the Capitol Riot". The New York Times. Retrieved January 29, 2022. The main article says this: “Five people died either shortly before, during, or following the event: one was shot by Capitol Police, another died of a drug overdose, and three died of natural causes.” There are two cites for this in the main article: Massimo, Nick (April 19, 2021). "Medical examiner: Capitol Police officer Sicknick died of stroke; death ruled 'natural'". WTOP. Associated Press. Retrieved May 16, 2021. and Evelyn, Kenya (January 9, 2021). "Capitol attack: the five people who died". The Guardian.. I don’t think we summarize what’s in the main article very well. On that afternoon, millions of people died worldwide of natural causes and drug overdoses, so we should either change “five” to “millions”, or else be more accurate and/or specific about the 1/6 deaths. For example, “aside from deaths due to natural causes or self-harm, one person died in that event.” Anythingyouwant (talk) 07:00, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

I think we're missing the more important point, that 243 words on January 6 are excessive in a one-page account of a 76-year life. Fix that, and your point becomes moot. ―Mandruss ☎ 07:31, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

The section titled "January 6 Capitol attack" has about 240 words before its subsection titled "Second impeachment" which has another 220 words. The total for January 6 is thus about 460 words, not counting scattered references elsewhere in the BLP. Definitely could be made more concise. What do you think our word limit should be for that section, and which parts look most excessive to you, Mandruss? By the way, I will be unavailable for about ten hours from now. Anythingyouwant (talk) 10:27, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

What do you think our word limit should be for that section - Experience tells me to avoid exact numbers, which seem arbitrary to many editors. But I think we could reduce by about half (there and in a number of other places). which parts look most excessive to you - For many years my user page has said that I'm better at matters of form than matters of substance; that's why I tend to avoid the weeds of content issues. My concern is a matter of form, of article structure. How to reduce is something best left to others. ―Mandruss ☎ 10:56, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

The word limit should be somewhere around 300-350. I think 175 words per section is a reasonable number. That's going to be hard to achieve though.

On January 6, 2021, while congressional certification of the presidential election results was taking place in the United States Capitol, Trump held a rally at the Ellipse, Washington, D.C. Trump's speech started at noon; he called for the election result to be overturned and urged his supporters to "take back our country" by marching to the Capitol. to "show strength" and "fight like hell". (eh, is this really important context? And the January 6th article also talks about "peacefully and patriotically..." so I would think that this article should either include both or none.) Many supporters marched to the Capitol as he had urged, joining the crowd there. By 12:30 p.m., rally attendees had gathered outside the Capitol, and at 1 p.m., his supporters pushed past police barriers onto Capitol grounds. Trump's speech ended at 1:10 p.m., and (not as important as the other times) Around 2:15 p.m. the mob broke into the building, disrupting certification and causing the evacuation of Congress. During the violence, Trump posted mixed messages on Twitter and Facebook, eventually tweeting to the rioters at 6 p.m., "go home with love & in peace", but describing them as "great patriots" and "very special". while still complaining that the election was stolen. (let's focus more on the events of Jan 6 and not the Big Lie, which has ample coverage elsewhere in the article.) After the mob was removed from the Capitol, Congress reconvened and confirmed the Biden election win in the early hours of the following morning. There were many injuries, and five people, including a Capitol Police officer, died.

In March 2023, Trump collaborated with incarcerated rioters on a song to benefit the prisoners. It sold 33,000 downloads in its first week and debuted at no. 1 on Billboard's Digital Song Sales chart.

----

On January 6, 2021, while congressional certification of the presidential election results was taking place in the United States Capitol, Trump held a rally at the Ellipse, Washington, D.C. Trump's speech started at noon; he called for the election result to be overturned and urged his supporters to "take back our country" by marching to the Capitol. By 12:30 p.m., rally attendees had gathered outside the Capitol, and at 1 p.m., his supporters pushed past police barriers onto Capitol grounds. Around 2:15 p.m. the mob broke into the building, disrupting certification and causing the evacuation of Congress. During the violence, Trump posted mixed messages on Twitter and Facebook, eventually tweeting to the rioters at 6 p.m., "go home with love & in peace", but describing them as "great patriots" and "very special". After the mob was removed from the Capitol, Congress reconvened and confirmed the Biden election win in the early hours of the following morning. There were many injuries, and five people, including a Capitol Police officer, died.

In March 2023, Trump collaborated with incarcerated rioters on a song to benefit the prisoners. It sold 33,000 downloads in its first week and debuted at no. 1 on Billboard's Digital Song Sales chart. 205 words versus ~240. Cessaune [talk] 15:23, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

Please see my first comment in this talk page section, regarding "five people, including a Capitol Police officer, died." You want to keep that, and keep it the same? Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:43, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

Your suggested wording isn't a perfect recreation of RS narratives; though I personally don't think that suicide or overdose can be directly attributed to the event, RSs do. There's been extensive discussion of this on the Jan 6 talk page (I remember at least 3 times as of late). The text still stands. Maybe specify the types of deaths?

And the "millions" thing is never going to happen. Cessaune [talk] 20:24, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

”aside from four deaths due to natural causes or self-harm, one person died in that event”. How’s that? Self-harm covers accidental self-harm (overdose) and also intentional self-harm (suicide). Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:41, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

I would say something along the lines of Five deaths were attributed to the event: one person was shot by Capitol police, three people died of natural causes, and one person died of a drug overdose. This is IMO the best way to both follow the RS narrative and avoid the pitfalls of the previous wording (how did the people die? Crowd crush? Trampling? Murder? Getting shot?) Cessaune [talk] 20:58, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

Honestly, I'd lean towards saying that one person was shot and omitting the four other deaths—yes, some sources discuss them, but that doesn't mean the article on Donald Trump (as opposed to the January 6 riot) has to discuss them. Still, it sounds like both of you are okay with specifying the types of death (i.e., @Anythingyouwant:: we should either change “five” to “millions”, or else be more accurate and/or specific about the 1/6 deaths; @Cessaune:: Maybe specify the types of deaths?). But there's also a desire for the word count to decrease (I'm not really sure I agree—this was a major event in Trump's presidency that sparked an impeachment effort and several investigations.) But if we want to keep it brisk, I think the timestamps can largely be discarded. I'd suggest:

On January 6, 2021, Trump held a rally at the Ellipse in Washington, D.C. Trump called for the election results to be overturned and urged his supporters to "take back our country" by marching to the Capitol, where congressional certification of the presidential election results was taking place. Rally attendees gathered outside the building, and his supporters pushed past police barriers onto Capitol grounds. Around 2:15 p.m., a mob broke into the building, disrupting certification and causing the evacuation of Congress; one of Trump's supporters was shot and killed while climbing through a window. During the violence, Trump posted mixed messages on Twitter and Facebook. At 6 p.m., he tweeted, "These are the things and events that happen when a sacred landslide election victory is so unceremoniously & viciously stripped away from great patriots who have been badly & unfairly treated for so long. Go home with love & in peace." After the mob was removed from the Capitol, Congress reconvened and confirmed the Biden election win in the early hours of the following morning.

--Jerome Frank Disciple 21:00, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

I would shorten the 6 pm tweet, but it's pretty good. Would it include the song though? Given that the song is relevant to Trump and debuted at number 1 on the Digital Sonngs Sales chart. Cessaune [talk] 21:05, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

Oh I missed that segment entirely! I'm fine with that, ... maybe undue but it's close, and I don't have strong feelings. Still, if it's included, I think we need some more context. To partially address @Objective3000's point, what about:

More than 150 people were injured during the riot, and more than 1000 were arrested. In March 2023, Trump collaborated with incarcerated rioters on a song to benefit the prisoners. It sold 33,000 downloads in its first week and debuted at no. 1 on Billboard's Digital Song Sales chart.

(We can use this article for the 1000 number. Jerome Frank Disciple 21:13, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

I think this is a better and more focused way to word the section. Defiect (talk) 13:13, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

• I'm frankly shocked at how these deaths, in addition to 150 injuries and hundreds traumatized, are being minimized. "A bipartisan Senate report, released in June, found that the seven deaths were connected to the Capitol attack. But the report was issued a month before two Metropolitan Police officers — Gunther Hashida and Kyle DeFreytag — died by suicide in July."[1] It's difficult to imagine his buildings and golf courses and reality TV show is what we will be discussed in history books, instead of the insurrection and breach of the Halls of Congress. O3000, Ret. (talk) 21:02, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

  If this was the Capitol attack article, then inclusion of the suicides (and potentially general trauma) would be necessary. Talking about trauma and suicide deaths is IMO beyond the scope of this article, though. Cessaune [talk] 21:07, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

  This article is about his life. The most significant act of his life, the attempt to stop the transfer of power by both violent and non-violent means, deserves the space that it takes. O3000, Ret. (talk) 21:11, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

  That's not the point. It's a stretch to attribute suicide deaths months after the attack to Trump himself. To the event, not so much. Sure, people died, but it isn't all that relevant to Trump himself, as opposed to the situation IMO. Cessaune [talk] 21:14, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

  The Senate bipartisan report disagrees with you, and the situation was at Trump's bidding. This thread is talking about the deaths of nine people as if – well, they would have eventually died anyhow or it’s their own fault. O3000, Ret. (talk) 21:17, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

  "Nine" ... well, first, you're assuming causation as to at least two—or at least that the two post-report suicides would have been classified as caused by the riot if they had occurred pre-report. But that's a dangerous assumption—after all, "the chief of the Metropolitan Police Department, said ... he could not say whether the riot was the cause of the suicides." [2]

  But if we want to get in all the info, how about this: (updated--Jerome Frank Disciple 13:33, 30 May 2023 (UTC))

  On January 6, 2021, Trump held a rally at the Ellipse in Washington, D.C. Trump called for the election results to be overturned and urged his supporters to "take back our country" by marching to the Capitol, where congressional certification of the presidential election results was taking place. Prior to Trump's speech, a crowd of his supporters had already gathered outside the building, and his supporters pushed past police barriers onto Capitol grounds; when Trump's speech ended, some of his supporters in the audience joined the pre-existing crowd. Around 2:15 p.m., a mob broke into the building, disrupting certification and causing the evacuation of Congress; one of Trump's supporters was shot and killed while climbing through a window. During the violence, Trump posted mixed messages on Twitter and Facebook. At 6 p.m., he tweeted, "These are the things and events that happen when a sacred landslide election victory is so unceremoniously & viciously stripped away from great patriots who have been badly & unfairly treated for so long. Go home with love & in peace." After the mob was removed from the Capitol, Congress reconvened and confirmed the Biden election win in the early hours of the following morning.
  Over 150 people140 police officers were injured during the riot, and a bipartisan Senate report attributed seven deaths to the Capitol attack; in addition to the rioter who was shot, the report included two deaths caused by strokes, one caused by a heart attack, one caused by an overdose, and one suicide. More than 1000 people were arrested in the aftermath of the attack. In March 2023, Trump collaborated with incarcerated rioters on a song to benefit the prisoners. It sold 33,000 downloads in its first week and debuted at no. 1 on Billboard's Digital Song Sales chart.

  --Jerome Frank Disciple 21:31, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

  The above version: (1) mentions the deaths in the bipartisan report, as @Objective3000: said the article should, and (2) it mentions the causes of those deaths, as @Anythingyouwant: and @Cessaune: said the article should if the death count was mentioned. Are we all okay with that as a compromise?--Jerome Frank Disciple 21:35, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

  I'm not disagreeing with the Senate report. The report attributes seven deaths to the event and not Trump, based on the source you provided (the other two have yet to be connected to the event in this thread, so provide a source for those). It is your own opinion that all nine deaths should be attributed to Trump (that's at least what I think you mean, correct me if I'm wrong) in the same way that it is my opinion that all nine deaths shouldn't be attributed to Trump. Based on the source, I believe that my opinion is better supported.

  And, also, to the second point—what? Where did anyone say this or suggest this? I literally proposed a wording that specifies the types of deaths that occurred during (as a result of? due to?) the event. Cessaune [talk] 21:35, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

• Including a quote from his speech on the mall is fine. But just a tiny snippet like “take back out country” is out of context. If that snippet is included then include the context: "I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard." Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:38, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

  I'll be honest I'm a little concerned we're letting perfect be the enemy of the good here. Maybe we should take one issue at a time? Just as a side note, the article currently says, Trump "urged his supporters to 'take back our country' by marching to the Capitol to 'show strength' and 'fight like hell'". So, bearing that in mind, do you support the above version as an improvement over the current version?--Jerome Frank Disciple 21:41, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

  “And we fight. We fight like hell And if you don’t fight like hell, you’re not going to have a country anymore.”“All of us here today do not want to see our election victory stolen by emboldened radical-left Democrats, which is what they’re doing … We will never give up, we will never concede. It doesn’t happen. You don’t concede when there’s theft involved.”“Our country has had enough. We will not take it anymore and that’s what this is all about … We will stop the steal.”“Because you’ll never take back our country with weakness, you have to show strength and you have to be strong.”

  And that doesn't include what Giuliani and others said before telling them to go to the capital and Trump would be with them. And that Trump told the Secret Service not to take their weopons because they weren't after him. O3000, Ret. (talk) 21:47, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

[Y]ou’ll never take back our country with weakness. You have to show strength and you have to be strong. We have come to demand that Congress do the right thing and only count the electors who have been lawfully slated, lawfully slated. I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard.. That reflects the full tenor of his speech, IMHO. No ellipses. No out-of-context snippets. It’s not a call for anyone to kill themselves or to OD on drugs. Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:50, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

It’s not a call for anyone to kill themselves or to OD on drugs. This is Memorial Day, and this thread is about the deaths and injuries of officers who tried to stop the first breach of the United States Capitol since the War of 1812. You are belittling the deaths of those very officers. O3000, Ret. (talk) 21:57, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

Lets everyone tone it down a bit. First, O3000, saying that there's not causation isn't the same thing as "belittling". Anythingyouwant, I feel like you're getting off topic quite a bit. This thread started with your fairly concrete suggestion—specify the causes of death to give the full context of January 6. I've drafted a version that does that, and now you're raising an objection to a completely different point in the passage.--Jerome Frank Disciple 22:01, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

His snide remark absolutely belittled them. Like making a snide remark about so many veterans who suicide or have drug problems. These hand picked officers swore to guard the Capital with their lives. I'm off to dinner. O3000, Ret. (talk) 22:10, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

No, the info about those officers should be in the article about 1/6. If you want it here, then be clear it was self-harm. And for historical context we ought to link Timeline of violent incidents at the United States Capitol. Disciple, I don’t think your proposed quote from the speech accurately reflects its tenor. Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:06, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

Have you looked at the current version of the article? Because I assume you would say the current version is even worse at “accurately reflecting its tenor”.

I don’t think we’re being productive here anymore, so I’ll withdraw from the conversation and let you and O try to find a compromise.-—Jerome Frank Disciple 22:13, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

No, I haven’t got any inclination to discuss anything with him or her. I think we all know it will be a cold day in hell before this “BLP” quotes Trump saying “peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard”. Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:15, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

---

Okay guys. Let's get back to the point at hand. User:Anythingyouwant and User:Mandruss want to shorten the paragraphs, and, to a limited extent, I agree. Anything also wants to inlcude the "peacefully and patriotically..." phrase we all know and love; they also want to either change “five” to “millions”, or else be more accurate and/or specific about the 1/6 deaths. I also want to be more accurate or specific about the deaths. User:Objective3000 wants to include the nine (seven as of now, given the sources that have been provided) deaths, which would include the four suicide deaths. User:Jerome Frank Disciple is remarkably good at writing prose, and is attempting to find a compromise. We all butt heads on the specifics; the thing is, none of these options are mutually exclusive. We can squabble forever, or we can solve the problem. Let's solve the problem. Here's a compromise paragraph:

On January 6, 2021, while congressional certification of the presidential election results was taking place in the United States Capitol, Trump held a rally at the Ellipse, Washington, D.C, where he called for the election result to be overturned. Many supporters marched to the Capitol at his urging, joining the crowd there; at around 2:15 p.m. the mob broke into the Capitol building, disrupting certification and causing the evacuation of Congress. During the violence, Trump posted mixed messages on Twitter and Facebook. At 6 p.m., he tweeted, "These are the things and events that happen when a sacred landslide election victory is so unceremoniously & viciously stripped away from great patriots who have been badly & unfairly treated for so long. Go home with love & in peace". After the mob was removed from the Capitol, Congress reconvened and confirmed Joe Biden's election win the following morning. There were many injuries, and seven people died as a result of the attack, according to (a bipartisan Senate report?). In March 2023, Trump collaborated with incarcerated rioters on a song to benefit the prisoners. It sold 33,000 downloads in its first week and debuted at no. 1 on Billboard's Digital Song Sales chart.

I can't find a way to naturally work in both "fight like hell" and "peacfully and patriotically" without massively extending the length (or writing some really awkward prose), so I think including neither is a reasonable compromise. Sorry.

The death tally is easier to explain when we attribute it to the Senate report, because it allows us to report the dominant RS narrative accurately and concisely. It's not as specific as I'd like, but that's the nature of compromise.

This is good enough. Let's not let perfect be the enemy of good. Cessaune [talk] 23:02, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

I made some bold edits.[3] Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:43, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

Every single one of the edits I made has been deemed unacceptable and reverted without any rationale other than "no consensus". This is contrary to sound advice, see Wikipedia:Don't revert due solely to "no consensus", and also contrary to policy, see WP:Preserve which says, "As long as any of the facts or ideas added to an article would belong in the 'finished' article, they should be retained". Here are the edits that I made, now reverted, and I ask that people please say whether there's any problem with them, thanks. If no one has any objection, then I intend to restore these edits, insofar there is no objection to them. Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:41, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

You have to wait for 24 hours to restore per the ArbCom restriction. Objective, what do you think of the above? Cessaune [talk] 01:19, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

I'm not O3000, but I disagree with giving "peacefully and patriotically" equal emphasis to "fight like hell". Also, what were Trump's "mixed messages"? I do agree with taking the specific times of when things happened out. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:37, 30 May 2023 (UTC) EDIT: the struck part was in the status quo version, and is better off removed. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:39, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

In my experience, words like “fight” are often used by politicians without actually referring to violence, whereas “peaceful” is not used to describe a type of violence. Anyway, can you please suggest a better way to include “peacefully and patriotically”? Perhaps we could insert the word “incidentally”? Anyway, it seems essential to me that we include this “peacefully and patriotically” somehow, because it’s in both of the sources we now cite, it’s also in the main article, and there’s also NPOV to consider. Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:16, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

If you can figure out a way to fit it in without extending the length significantly, then go ahead, but I don't know how to. Cessaune [talk] 02:25, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

If anything, I would say that "peacefully and patriotically" holds more power than "fight like hell" from a politician's rally standpoint. Cessaune [talk] 02:23, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

Maybe it would normally be the case, and politicians would use "fight" rhetorically, but this is Trump and the RS give way more weight to "fight like hell" than "peacefully and patriotically" in this instance. I don't think the "peacefully and patriotically" should be included in this article. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:31, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

Again, the whole point is to come to some semblance of a compromise. If "peacfully and patriotically" has to be included to do so, or not included, then fine, but let's not squabble over trivial stuff like this. I'm tired of month-long conversations that end status quo ante bellum. A little improvement is better than no improvement. Cessaune [talk] 03:19, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

It is in both of the cited sources, and in the main article about 1/6, and it helps with NPOV. It also happens to be the main reason why Trump probably won’t be indicted for insurrection (and maybe that’s the only reason he said it). Anyway, I’m glad this seems to be the only part of my edit that is proving controversial. User:Muboshgu, there’s no way we can work this in? One way would be for us to write that he said it in “passing” (per NYT and AP). Anythingyouwant (talk) 08:06, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

• According to Anything’s edit the riot was just "some of the Trump supporters" who "pushed past police" and "disrupted" - no mob, no violence, except for Ashli Babbitt being killed by police, no Trump posting mixed messages all afternoon while he watched the riot on TV. Nice effort adding POV, including WP:EDITORIAL (but "peacefully and patriotically"), not supported by the sources. I think we can cut most of this sentence which IMO has too much detail for summary style: Trump's speech started at noon. By 12:30 p.m., rally attendees had gathered outside the Capitol, and at 1 p.m., his supporters pushed past police barriers onto Capitol grounds. Trump's speech ended at 1:10 p.m., and many supporters marched to the Capitol as he had urged, joining the crowd there. Oppose the other proposed changes. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 10:11, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

  The odd thing about the mixed messages is that the phrase, so far as I could tell, it wasn't supported by the sources cited. At first, my instinct was to specify what was meant by mixed messages ... having looked at Trump's January 6 tweeets, it appears to me that almost none of his tweets were about what was happening in DC (possible exception of one tweet and a retweet) until the 6pm tweet. Almost all of the tweets were boosting his election-fraud claims, one seemed to have been encouragement to the protesters to "stay strong" (I'm sure that's been debated), but I'm not sure what's "mixed" about them.--Jerome Frank Disciple 13:14, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

  As an aside, let's try to keep the tone a bit cleaner. Nice effort adding POV. Come on.--Jerome Frank Disciple 13:52, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

I haven't seen anyone object to specifying how the deaths happened or the number of injuries that occurred. I think that's the only point of consensus we have, so I'm going to add that to the article. There also seems to be a general sense that the time details could be shortened, but I ran into difficulty trying to make those edits—there's actually an ambiguity in the current text ("rally" shouldn't be used to describe both Trump's audience at the Ellipsis and the crowd that had formed outside the Capitol even prior to Trump's speech). I'll let everyone else figure that out.--Jerome Frank Disciple 13:25, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

Why did you put the {{od}} template into the middle of your comment? If any editors want to respond to my edit now, they won't know where. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 13:44, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

They were separate comments, and I figured it was worth outdenting on the larger point. Removed. Thanks--Jerome Frank Disciple 13:50, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

Both of Jerome's versions, and Cessaune's version, are great. If we're going to bicker over details, I think we should do it in as structured a way as we can, maybe with one subsection for each contention, so we can come to some consensus, because these versions are all improvements over the status quo. We can go with 5 deaths given the subsection below. But we need to be able to resolve disputes effectively without ending up with "no consensus" all the time. DFlhb (talk) 06:14, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

No, they're not. We should remove the times, as Muboshgu suggested, except for 2:15 and 6 p.m., and replace the two January 2021 cites on Trump's afternoon of TV viewing and tweeting with the BI article from December 2022:

On January 6, 2021, while congressional certification of the presidential election results was taking place in the United States Capitol, Trump held a noon rally at the Ellipse, Washington, D.C., where he called for the election result to be overturned and urged his supporters to "take back our country" by marching to the Capitol to "show strength" and "fight like hell".[643][644] Many supporters marched to the Capitol as he had urged, joining the crowd there. Around 2:15 p.m. the mob broke into the building, disrupting certification and causing the evacuation of Congress.[645] During the violence, Trump posted messages on Twitter and Facebook, eventually tweeting to the rioters at 6 p.m., "go home with love & in peace", but describing them as "great patriots" and "very special", while still complaining that the election was stolen. After the mob was removed from the Capitol, Congress reconvened and confirmed the Biden election win in the early hours of the following morning.[648] There were many injuries, and five people, including a Capitol Police officer, died.

I'm generally opposed to long Trump quotes, making readers parse Trump-speak. The current paraphrased "excerpts" are better than the extended quote. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 10:36, 1 June 2023 (UTC) Changed format to tq2. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 15:45, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

I'm talking about Cessaune's second version. Yours is fine too. I like that you kept out the irrelevant song (it was one minor Billboard chart, not the main one).

What do people think of briefly mentioning the prior radicalization of those who stormed the Capitol? The two most cited peer-reviewed papers on the Capitol attack, here and here, treat Trump's words as a match that lit the fire, not as the sole factor (obviously). They provide important context on the underlying trends that allowed Trump's call to action to succeed. And that first paper would be a good source for several other sections here. DFlhb (talk) 11:00, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

I only edited the first paragraph. I do agree that mention of the downloads on "a" Billboard chart ought to be removed. I'd keep he collaboration on the "song", 'though. Radicalization: "context on the underlying trends" might be more appropriate at Trumpism or Far-right_politics#United_States than Trump's BLP. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 11:53, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

I do think there needs to be some mention of the song; the Billboard thing doesn't necessarily have to be mentioned. Also, I really don't like the During the violence sentence. As I said above, I think that "while still complaining that the election was stolen" is unnecessary, and the but at the beginning of the sentence should be changed to "while" or something similar: Trump posted messages on Twitter and Facebook, eventually tweeting to the rioters at 6 p.m., "go home with love & in peace", while describing them as "great patriots" and "very special". Cessaune [talk] 15:18, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

I'd encourage you to be bold and make any edits you see fit! If they're reverted, we'll see if they're reverted back or discuss them here :) --Jerome Frank Disciple 15:34, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

Let's just come to a consensus (or not), but being BOLD when a discussion of this size is still in full swing is just inviting a revert. Cessaune [talk] 15:39, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

Worked for the last big change [4]! But of course take whatever approach you feel is appropriate.--Jerome Frank Disciple 15:40, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

I agree with DFlhb that this page unfortunately does devolve into no consensus quite a bit—I think we generally have an issue with cliques here—people who need to stay on their team and never say anything nice to anyone not on their team, but I hope that's improving. I'm largely good with @Space4Time3Continuum2x's version—has a lot of the same edits I suggested! @DFlhb can you provide a rough draft of what you were thinking re: radicalization?--Jerome Frank Disciple 13:46, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

References

Causes of death

@Space4Time3Continuum2x: says there's no consensus for listing the causes of death. I haven't seen anyone in the above conversation say they opposes the causes of death, although maybe he's referring to his generic "oppose other changes" (in which case I'd say there probably is a consensus, and he's just in the minority, but I understand if he wants more discussion). So, what are the thoughts on this edit:

[First paragraph ....] Over 140 police officers were injured during the riot, and a bipartisan Senate report attributed seven deaths to the Capitol attack—one member of the mob was shot and killed while entering the Capitol; two deaths were caused by strokes, one by a heart attack, one by an overdose, and one by suicide.
More than 1000 people were arrested in the aftermath of the attack. [Remainder of second paragraph]

@Anythingyouwant:@Cessaune::@Objective3000: --Jerome Frank Disciple 13:47, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

• I thought the object of this exercise was to trim the section, not to add more details. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 13:51, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

  See the very first comment under #January 6 deaths. That section was starting when User:Anythingyouwant said that merely listing the number of deaths was misleading (we should either change “five” to “millions”, or else be more accurate and/or specific about the 1/6 deaths). @Mandruss: responded by saying we should trim the section. User:Cessaune agreed we should trim the section but also suggested specify[ing] the types of deaths. User:Objective3000 said the section didn't need to be trimmed. I tried to draft a version that both trimmed and included causes of death. When that didn't get a consensus, I abandoned that effort. But, as I said above, no one objected to detailing the causes of death, so I added that to the article.--Jerome Frank Disciple 13:54, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

  The Senate report said the deaths resulted from the event. The main article can talk to details. No need here. O3000, Ret. (talk) 14:32, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

  So, the current article says "five deaths". That's probably because it's omitting the cop suicides. I'd support adding context to even those 5 deaths per the above concerns by the other two users, but I'm okay with leaving it at five deaths without any explanation. I'd oppose saying 7 deaths without explanation of the deaths--Jerome Frank Disciple 15:43, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

  Seconded. Without context, it would seem like seven people died in the time before, during, and immediately after the attack, which isn't the case. Cessaune [talk] 17:59, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

• If we don’t give any clue about causes of death, and we omit that Trump said to protest “peacefully and patriotically”, then the combined effect is to imply Trump committed murder by death. That’s bad editing, and it overlooks that Trump looks plenty bad enough already if we just describe the facts in an NPOV manner. Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:07, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

  The way the NYT puts this: The president’s speech was riddled with violent imagery and calls to fight harder than before. By contrast, he made only a passing suggestion that the protest should be nonviolent, saying, “I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard.[5] This was after a month riling up dangerous people and bringing speakers to the rally like Giuliani, who said: Let’s have trial by combat. He then watched the violence on TV while rejecting entreaties from his family and others asking him to say something to stop the violence. You want to include one sentence as if it balances months of lies and rhetoric and his actions immediately before and during the breach of the Halls of Congress threatening the lives of Congressfolk and the Vice President of the United States, somehow cleansing himself from any responsibility. That would force a POV in a summary. As for murder by death, that’s a movie and a band. People died in connection to Trump’s rally. It’s up to the courts to decide those responsible. Meanwhile, we're just providing a summary, not including what I just said here. O3000, Ret. (talk) 20:16, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

  People dying due to this and murder are two different ideas, but, while I do think it is unlikely people will conflate the two, I do think that omitting the causes of the deaths will be a step in that negative direction.

  Personally, while I think that "peacefully and patriotically" is important, RSs just dont give it enough weight. At the same time, I think they give way too much weight to anything that even implied the possibility of an attack (fight like hell, for example) even though inflammatory words are par for the course in politics, and if there had been no attack, no one would've said anything. At all. Cessaune [talk] 00:16, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

  Who used the word "murder" other than Anythingyouwant? Who suggested it be used? The bipartisan congressional report stated the connection between the deaths and the rally. Does anyone actually believe that a US Capitol Police Officer's death of a stroke a day after being sprayed with a chemical substance during a massive riot in which over 100 officers were injured is just a coincidence? The coroner didn't. And "fight like hell" is just one tiny example of month's worth of such statements. Statements along the line of you won't have a country if you don't fight, and you must be stronger, and on and on and on. O3000, Ret. (talk) 00:37, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

  My point was that ommitinng the causes of deaths changes the dynamic. Cessaune [talk] 00:38, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

  You have not explained how. Is any RS suggesting they would not have occurred without Trump's rally? Look, this is a summary. The details are in the linked article. We are not going to include the coroners' findings here. We are not going to detail the bipartisan congressional report in this article. We are not going to include the testimony that, during the violence, Trump suggested maybe Pence deserved to be hung. Believe me, if we did, it would look far more damning for the article subject. Let's keep this NPOV. O3000, Ret. (talk) 00:48, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

  I mean, I would consider both omitting causes of deaths and including causes of deaths to be NPOV. At this point we are arguing based on our own POVs, and not about verifiability/NPOV/DUE or anything else.

  Also, to this point—if we did, it would look far more damning for the article subject—it's not about it being "damning". Including or not including something solely on the basis that it is negative or positive goes against NPOV. If the Pence hung thing is verifiable, widely reported, and due, then we should include it, regardless of how negative or positive it is. Same thing in this case. Any other mindset is anithetical to the entire purpose of Wikipedia. Cessaune [talk] 01:20, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

  Not in this article. In the main article for this sub-subject. I am not arguing from any POV. Period. O3000, Ret. (talk) 01:31, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

  Everyone argues from a specific POV. Everyone. The extent to which it clouds sensible judgement varies, but everyone is guilty. And that's a good thing, because editors without POVs wouldn't ever get anything done.

  Anyway. We're straying from the main point; what is a reasonable compromise? One that doesn't sacrifice too much specificity, is concise, and is NPOV. Cessaune [talk] 01:36, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

  It was a medical examiner, not a coroner. And his statement that the events "resulted in the deaths of five individuals" doesn't summarize what he wrote in his reports, with the exception of Ashli Babbitt. Attributing the other deaths to the events is speculation and should not be reported as fact.

  (I am not being pedantic. Coroners are judicial officials whose courts and juries can make findings of fact beyond what a medical examiner can, and their verdicts are subject to appeal. They are not necessarily doctors. The persons accused of contributing to the deaths would have had legal standing at the hearings.)

  David Sicknick's death btw was initially falsely reported by the Justice Department and the Capitol Police as having been caused by injuries sustained on 1/6. I don't know if Officer Sicknick's death would have occurred without 1/6, but it was put down as due to natural causes and no one was charged with homicide. It is of course entirely possible that the struggle unloosed the blood clot that caused the stroke. TFD (talk) 01:22, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

  Homicide is not a charge. Natural causes does not preclude a crime. "The District of Columbia chief medical examiner found that Sicknick had died from stroke, classifying his death as natural and additionally commented that 'all that transpired played a role in his condition'." The point is that the bipartisan congressional report tied the deaths to the event. Argue with them. Once again, this is a summary. The details belong in the main article. O3000, Ret. (talk) 01:36, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

  Homicide is not a charge? I work in a courthouse, and I'm not sure what you mean by that. The point is that the bipartisan congressional report tied the deaths to the event. Argue with them. I mean, we're not following that report—which you supported below.--Jerome Frank Disciple 13:38, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

• It’s quite a quandary for us if every reliable source in the United States reports Trump said to protest “peacefully and patriotically” but then those reliable sources also say it was incredibly insignificant and not notable at all. I’d think we should do the same: say he said it and also say it’s totally insignificant. As for the tragic deaths of several people possibly caused partly by the historic events of 1/6, we ought to say that causation was uncertain except for X of those deaths. X=1 as I read the reliable sources, but if X=2 then we should say X=2, etc. Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:28, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
• Jerome said: but I'm okay with leaving it at five deaths without any explanation. I believe Cessaune seconded this. I third it. O3000, Ret. (talk) 10:26, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
• Dibs on fourth. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 13:01, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

---

Here's my new and improved version based on everyone's feedback:

On January 6, 2021, while congressional certification of the presidential election results was taking place in the United States Capitol, Trump held a noon rally at the Ellipse, Washington, D.C., where he called for the election result to be overturned and urged his supporters to "take back our country" by marching to the Capitol; many supporters marched to the Capitol as he had urged, joining the crowd there. Around 2:15 p.m. the mob broke into the building, disrupting certification and causing the evacuation of Congress. During the violence, Trump posted mixed messages on Twitter and Facebook, eventually tweeting to the rioters at 6 p.m., "go home with love & in peace", while describing them as "great patriots" and "very special". After the mob was removed from the Capitol, Congress reconvened and confirmed Joe Biden's election win the following morning. There were many injuries, and five people, including a Capitol Police officer, died. More than 1000 people were arrested in the aftermath of the attack. In March 2023, Trump collaborated with incarcerated rioters on a song to benefit the prisoners.

168 180 words. Omission of "show strength" and "fight like hell" ("take back our country" is a reasonable summary of his rhetoric IMO), all timestamps except for noon, 2:15 and 6, the while still complaning that the election was stolen clause, and the second sentence of the song paragraph (and also many minor copyedits, grammar changes, etc.) Adheres to the above 'consensus' of 5 deaths without explanation. Cessaune [talk] 15:33, 1 June 2023 (UTC) added the sentence detailing the arrests Cessaune [talk] 15:50, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

For the reasons I noted above, I'm not a huge fan of the "mixed messages" line. Does the fact that they were "mixed" just come from the 6p.m. tweet? I'm also not quite sure what the proposed text offers that's superior to the current version, though I realize it's liable to change. (I made one switch here—changed the verbs called and urge to the gerund forms.)

On January 6, 2021, Trump held a noon rally at the Ellipse, Washington, D.C., calling for the election result to be overturned and urging his supporters to "take back our country" by marching to the Capitol, where congressional certification of the presidential election results was taking place, to "show strength" and "fight like hell". Many supporters marched to the Capitol as he had urged, joining a crowd already there. Around 2:15 p.m. the mob broke into the building, disrupting certification and causing the evacuation of Congress. During the violence, Trump watched TV and posted messages on Twitter and Facebook, many of which promoted the false theory that the election was stolen. At 6 p.m., Trump tweeted that the rioters should "go home with love & in peace", describing them as "great patriots" and "very special". After the mob was removed from the Capitol, Congress reconvened and confirmed the Biden election win in the early hours of the following morning. There were many injuries, and five people, including a Capitol Police officer, died.

That said, I'd support either version--Jerome Frank Disciple 15:51, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

Really, you tagged the section? The tag would be appropriate if we used your proposed version. Quoting Talk:Donald_Trump/Response_to_claims_of_bias, we report "in rough proportion to what's said in reliable sources, which in this case are largely major news outlets". You propose to remove the "violent imagery and calls to fight harder" RS reported. Why? Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 15:58, 1 June 2023 (UTC) My apologies, Cessaune. I should have checked the history to see who the tagger was. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 16:17, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, I tagged the section (see below), not Cessaune—but that was due to the existing content dispute that other editors clearly do care about, not because I feel particularly strongly on one thing or another. (In fact, I'd probably lean towards inclusion on the "violent imagery and calls to fight harder" front! But of course I'm open to hearing Cessaune out.)--Jerome Frank Disciple 16:05, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

We can add back "show strength" and "fight like hell" back if no one objects. Cessaune [talk] 18:57, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

In fact, I quite like your version, Jerome. I wouldn't be opposed to it (aside from a few copyedits and deletions). Cessaune [talk] 19:02, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

Regarding “if no one objects”…. I’ve already objected multiple times here to including such stuff while carefully omitting the multiple instances on 1/6 where Trump explicitly called for the protesting to be done peacefully. You folks can do whatever you want, but please don’t say no one objected, or the objections were too late. That’s just not correct. I also object to mentioning the fundraising song without saying it was for legal fees. I object to saying 5 people died without saying only one of them was killed. Etc etc. Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:40, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

Your rationale for inclusion of the "peacefully and patriotically" is subpar at best. If one of the main points of this discussion is to cut back on words, then inclusion of a sentence that has to try to adhere to NPOV by undercutting the entire reason for its inclusion (according to you, a way to adhere to NPOV would be to say he said it and also say it’s totally insignificant) is an unnecessary waste of words. If you can find multiple RSs relating to the other "peaceful" statements Trump tweeeted, then go ahead and propose a new sentence.

I agree with the fundraising thing. I have no opinion as to the "died" versus "killed" thing; y'all battle it out. I just want to come to a compromise. Consensus drifts further and further away from the shores of discussion with every reply. Cessaune [talk] 04:25, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

NPOV Issues

Per the above discussion and a few issues I think exist with the current version, I've added a NPOV tag.

First, I think words like complaining or the particular but that's used in the section are running into MOS:OP-ED. I removed those since they hadn't been specifically contested yet (per WP:BRD), but I figure it's worth noting here. (I got cut off on my edit summary explaining why—accidentally hit "return".)

Second, it appears there's a few ongoing issues raised by Cessaune and by Anythingyouwant. Until those issues are resolved, I think it's worth highlighting that the section is under discussion--Jerome Frank Disciple 15:39, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

See my above version. It omits both of those issues. Cessaune [talk] 15:42, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

Yes agree—I was just noting the reasons I added the NPOV tag :) --Jerome Frank Disciple 15:43, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

Ah. Cessaune [talk] 15:44, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

Regarding the text proposed by User:Cessaune, I don’t support mentioning the death of a “Capitol police officer” without saying the cause of death, and without mentioning the only killing that happened that day (I suggest we track the main article per WP:Summary style). Regarding the song, it was to pay legal fees, not to reward anyone for misbehavior, inserting “legal fees” or “legal costs” would be NPOV. Regarding mixed messages, Trump tweeted at 2:38PM, “Please support our Capitol Police and Law Enforcement. They are truly on the side of our Country. Stay peaceful!” And he tweeted at 3:13 PM, “I am asking for everyone at the U.S. Capitol to remain peaceful. No violence! Remember, WE are the Party of Law & Order – respect the Law and our great men and women in Blue. Thank you!” That’s in addition to his speech calling for people to protest “peacefully and patriotically”. I proposed removing “mixed messages” and still do, because Trump was unequivocal about this. Calling people to be strong and fight is boilerplate for politicians, it would be different if he urged people to beat up the police or break thru barricades. I’m not praising Trump, I think Pence was generally correct that day, but on the other hand we shouldn’t portray Trump as worse than he was. Same goes for Adolph Hitler, Charles Manson, and every other biography at Wikipedia. Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:11, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

I tried to make this point above, but, in the future, I'd really suggest either having separate discussions dedicated to different issues you have with a passage or mentioning all of those issues up front. This is the last thing I'll say on this subject, but I figure it's worth elaborating once:

You started the above section by listing a specific issue—arguing, essentially, that the naturally caused deaths should be omitted or that the causes of death should be included; an editor responded that the passage needed to be shorter. So, we worked on a passage addressing both those issues—we ended up with a shorter passage that did list the causes of death. But, then, you refused to say that you'd support those changes because you took an issue with a separate part of the passage. I tried to indicate that the point you were making applied with more force to the status quo passage, and that we could discuss that point after making the the other changes, but you wouldn't go for it. Honestly, we might've had a consensus but for that choice.

Now, you're starting a post by saying that you're speaking to the text proposed by User:Cessaune. One of your objections is that you don't support singling out the death of a Capitol police officer, who died of natural causes. But that death is currently singled out in the passage. Meaning, if there's not a consensus for the edits Cessaune suggests, it's still going to be singled out in the article. Same thing as to the song and as to the lack of the "peaceful" language you want included. So your approach is both (1) unlikely to yield any consensus and (2) more likely to preserve the status quo, which you object to.--Jerome Frank Disciple 17:30, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

It was probably a mistake for the focus to shift from the narrow point I was making in the first place: to describe the causes of death. If anyone would like to make that change, I support it. I made the change myself along with some others, but my edit was completely reverted contrary to WP:Preserve. It’s next to impossible to edit any article, much less this controversial one, if people revert X+Y+Z merely because they oppose X. I haven’t made any edits like that here, nor do I support any. Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:37, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

And I don't mean to imply that your suggestions were wrong—but the problem now is that we can't really "go back". Especially on a contentious page, once people commit to objecting to proposed edits overall, they're really unlikely to be willing to compromise as to a portion of those edits, at least in my experience.--Jerome Frank Disciple 17:45, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

The edits I made to this subsection (that were 100% reverted) made very clear what I believed should be kept and what I believed should be improved, and exactly how they should be improved, and what compromises I would accept. I didn’t wait until today to say anything about that, User:Jerome Frank Disciple. Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:47, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

Yes, they made clear what you believed should be in the article. This is one of the most watched and controversial articles in WP. You don't express your views in mainspace. That's what the TP is for and why I brought it back here. O3000, Ret. (talk) 18:10, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

I don’t support mentioning the death of a “Capitol police officer” without saying the cause of death, and without mentioning the only killing that happened that day It takes some people some time to die after being beaten. The fact death wasn't immediate doesn't mitigate the actions of the mob. Dead is dead. And he died defending the US Capitol. I'm not sure I understand the point of adding to a summary that Ms. B****** died breaching the Speaker’s Lobby of the Capitol. Clearly OK for the main article. But, she also falls under BLP and we don't need to spread her actions into multiple articles. O3000, Ret. (talk) 18:23, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

To be fair, that’s not a super apt comparison, as someone who dies of being beaten—even if it takes some time—isn’t determined to have died of natural causes. (See, e.g., James Brady—who died decades after being shot, but it was determined that the gun shot wound did cause the death)—Jerome Frank Disciple 18:28, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

The medical examiner stated all that transpired played a role in his condition. That is, highly unlikely he would have picked that time to die had he not been beaten. Julian Khater, who attacked the officer, was sentenced to 80 months. O3000, Ret. (talk) 18:39, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

Officer Sicknick wasn't beaten. Bob K31416 (talk) 23:26, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

I guess it's just me. Sometimes I am so disgusted when I look at what folks say on WP TPs. Is it OK if I say assaulted?

On Monday, federal prosecutors alleged in court that Mr. Khater and Mr. Tanios were carrying Frontiersman bear spray, which is manufactured by Sabre, a company that makes self-defense products including pepper spray and stun guns. Though made from the same ingredient, bear spray can be many times more powerful than pepper sprays sold for self-defense and is not meant for use on humans.

In court on Monday, prosecutors played body camera footage of the incident for the first time. The grainy videos showed Mr. Khater raising his hand and discharging a chemical spray at the officers, who stumble back, cover their eyes and at times call out in pain. The Metropolitan Police Department has declined to release that footage to the public.

A series of still images shot by photographer Kenny Holston captured the same moment. They show Officer Sicknick retreat, bend over and try to wash out his eyes and face with water.

The last time Officer Sicknick appears in the videos or the photographs, he is bent over by the scaffolding erected for President Biden’s upcoming inauguration.

That evening, Officer Sicknick texted his brother to say he had been “pepper-sprayed” but was in “good shape,” his brother told ProPublica. But shortly before 10 p.m., according to the Capitol Police, he collapsed after returning to his division office and was taken to a local hospital. At some point over the next 24 hours, Officer Sicknick’s condition apparently deteriorated. He was put on a ventilator and treated for a blood clot and a stroke, his brother said. He died at about 9:30 p.m. on Jan. 7.

Another Capitol Police officer who was standing next to Officer Sicknick during the attack told investigators that she still had burn scabs under her eyes from the spray three weeks after Jan. 6.

[6]O3000, Ret. (talk) 00:16, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

The medical examiner stated all that transpired played a role in his condition. That is, highly unlikely he would have picked that time to die had he not been beaten. Woahhhh I mean that's a hugeeeeee assumption there! I sort-of see what you're saying, but I just don't think you can read that level of specificity into the coroner report.--Jerome Frank Disciple 00:06, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

Apparently others here can presume this was just an everyday death despite the events and the assaults. See details above. O3000, Ret. (talk) 00:23, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

Discussion of meaning of medical report & sentencing factors

I mean, I'm just going by the medical examiner report, which, per the summary, said, "If death is hastened by an injury, the manner of death is not considered natural" ... yet determined the death to be natural. It's not the case that a time gap would explain the natural determination. See, again, James Brady, whose death was determined to be a homicide. We can speculate that stress from the event caused the stroke—and maybe that's what the coroner meant by saying "all that transpired played a role". (That might make sense, after all, per CNN: Diaz said the autopsy found no evidence of internal or external injuries, or of an allergic reaction to the chemical substance — but did say "all that transpired played a role in his condition." We could, alternatively, speculate that the medical examiner was wrong and that a reaction to a chemical caused the stroke. But all that would just be ... well, speculation.--Jerome Frank Disciple 00:28, 2 June 2023 (UTC) Interesting that you bring up Brady again. Brady died 33 years after he was shot. (And the medical examiner ruled that his death was a homicide, caused by the gunshot wound which he sustained in 1981.) Officer Sicknick collapsed and was taken to the hospital the very day of the assault, and died the next day. Not 33 years later. Where did I say the medical examiner was wrong? The medical examiner stated all that transpired played a role in his condition. O3000, Ret. (talk) 00:41, 2 June 2023 (UTC) Exactly. Brady died 33 years after he was shot, and the death was still determined to be a homicide because his death was considered to have been hastened by his injury. Sicknick died the next day, but his death was determined not to be a homicide, because his death was determined to not have been hastened by an injury. Just goes to show that the time doesn't matter; the cause of death does, and Sicknick's cause of death was "natural". "If death is hastened by an injury, the manner of death is not considered natural".--Jerome Frank Disciple 00:43, 2 June 2023 (UTC) Ah, sorry if I misunderstood? I thought you were saying that his death was accelerated by having been beaten or having been injured by being sprayed, theories the coroner obviously shit on by determining the death to have been "natural". Regardless, I think we're in agreement that the article is fine as is? I'm fine with the article saying 5 people died that day to mean "5 people happened to die on the scene"--Jerome Frank Disciple 00:49, 2 June 2023 (UTC) because his death was determined to not have been hastened by an injury. Seems you are making assumptions. Why did the medical examiner state all that transpired played a role in his condition if the medical examiner didn't think all that transpired played a role in his condition? The judge gave the assailant 80 months. One year after, USAToday says of the 192 people who have been sentenced to incarceration, the average incarceration time levied is 16 months.[7] But what is this about? An editor wants to add language to the article that makes it sound like the deaths were either protesters, self harm, drug addicts, or coincidental. I have a problem with this. O3000, Ret. (talk) 01:03, 2 June 2023 (UTC) No, I'm very explicitly saying what the medical examiner said. Again: "If death is hastened by an injury, the manner of death is not considered natural." The death was determined to be ... you guessed it! Natural. Ergo ... --Jerome Frank Disciple 01:06, 2 June 2023 (UTC) The the medical examiner is talking out of two sides of his mouth as that contradicts his other statement. Point is, an editor wants to say the only person killed that day was a protester shot by the police. The law officers were drug addicts, suicides, or coincidental. O3000, Ret. (talk) 01:15, 2 June 2023 (UTC) I mean, to say that the "all that transpired" comment that he made in an interview with the Post (see: [8]) should suggest that his official report was wrong is, I think, a strained reading.--Jerome Frank Disciple 14:55, 2 June 2023 (UTC) It wasn't the "official post". A person in a more political position stated general policy. That does not override the medical examiner's report. O3000, Ret. (talk) 00:17, 3 June 2023 (UTC) ... which found the death to be natural. Notably, the line you keep quoting is from an interview with the Post, by the way. But, yes, I'd unfortunately have to agree that you're in conspiracy land. You clearly want the report to have said there was a homicide—first you wanted it to say it was the result of a beating, then an assault—and you compared it to a death of many in a fire, which was a particularly inapt comparison since none of those people were said to have died of natural causes. Fortunately, it's fine to be in conspiracy land, so long as you don't let it shade how you think the article should read. I think where we are right now—just saying 5 people who were there died, is fine, and it sounds like you agree with that.--Jerome Frank Disciple 00:32, 3 June 2023 (UTC) This is now the third time I have been accused of something related to conspiracies on this page -- something I've never been accused of before in my 16 years here. Just what is this conspiracy and who are the conspirators? I have not made one statement in my life in WP that is in any manner conspiratorial in nature. Do not do this again. O3000, Ret. (talk) 00:57, 3 June 2023 (UTC) Re "Point is, an editor wants to say the only person killed that day was a protester shot by the police." — And that's a fact. To say otherwise involves the type of reasoning that is used in conspiracy theories. Bob K31416 (talk) 01:49, 2 June 2023 (UTC) That's an outrageous POV completely contrary to RS. O3000, Ret. (talk) 10:29, 2 June 2023 (UTC) I mean, a "killing" is usually associated with a homicide, but "killed" can be ambiguous. Is that where the disagreement is stemming from? Multiple deaths happened to occur on the site that day, one of which was a person killed by another person. --Jerome Frank Disciple 14:52, 2 June 2023 (UTC) In the Station nightclub fire, 100 people were killed when a pyrotechnic display ignited flammable acoustic foam in the walls and ceilings. The tour manager was sentenced to 15 years. No one put a literal gun to the heads of those people. When you incite a riot with incendiary rhetoric and people die, those deaths matter. The bipartisan Senate report, released in June, found that seven deaths were connected to the Capitol attack and RS widely report about the deaths. You want to lower that to five, I've said OK. But, it is neither NPOV or following RS to just say one person was killed while ignoring the other deaths. And I have no idea what “conspiracy theory” Bob K says I'm creating. O3000, Ret. (talk) 16:19, 2 June 2023 (UTC) ... were those 100 people found to have died of natural causes?--Jerome Frank Disciple 18:41, 2 June 2023 (UTC) You are going deeeeep into OR territory here. I understand it's your POV that they died because of the rally. I'm fine with 5. But I also think the other users are right in saying that we do generally differentiate between, say, someone shot and killed at at riot and someone who, just by way of example, is struck by lightning or happens to have a stroke or overdoses at a rally. And let's be clear: I never said we should lower anything to five. The number was five originally. You suggested seven because that's what our U.S. Senators said. No one else seemed to agree with you there, but, regardless, you agreed to keep it at five, so it's a moot point. The tenor here is just weird.--Jerome Frank Disciple 18:44, 2 June 2023 (UTC) You’re saying that I’m going deeply into OR when I am using the bipartisan Congressional report and every RS? Besides, I am endorsing what you said. I thirded it. So, were you going deeply into OR? I am just trying to stop one editor who wants to change it to one death. And these people were not struck by lightning. The medical examiner said that all that transpired played a role in his condition and the person that assaulted him got 80 months in prison. Yes, the tenor here is weird. O3000, Ret. (talk) 19:12, 2 June 2023 (UTC) The medical examiner's report said the cause of death was natural, which the office said meant not hastened by any injury. You said you're not disagreeing with the report, but you've made it pretty clear that you are because you prefer the vaguer statement the examiner made to the Post in an interview. And I'm sorry, what does the prison sentence have to do with anything? Are you saying he was charged with homicide? Or that death was an aggravating factor? Or are you just saying "heyyyy long prison sentence ... so clearly his death was caused by the rally!!! amiright????" And what was the fire story? Again, were those deaths determined to be caused by natural causes? (Spoiler: no.) If not, what do they have to do with anything? Five people happened to die on the scene of the rally; one was shot and killed. That's it. We don't need to extend this further.--Jerome Frank Disciple 19:22, 2 June 2023 (UTC) And the tenor gets worse and worse. I said I agreed with what you wanted in the article. And yet you are now getting sarcastic for what reason I don't know. And saying they "happened to die" is a disgusting BLP violation. These people have families and you have no idea what they went through. Is that what you say about the ~20 veteran PTSD suicides a day? You got what you wanted in the article, 5 deaths. I agreed to that two days ago and haven't changed my mind. O3000, Ret. (talk) 19:52, 2 June 2023 (UTC) No one is required to give a fuck about anyone. These people have families and you have no idea what they went through—so? Sure, it's cool to care, but as long as what is being proposed for inclusion adheres to the relevant policies (BLP, for example), and your not-giving-a-shit doesn't hamper productive editing, we're fine. Even then, at least in my eyes, Jerome's statement is not a BLP violation and is objectively true, connotation notwithstanding. Five people did "happen" to die. Of course, I think that we should have respect for the dead and understand the pain that their families went through and whatnot. Don't think I don't. I'm just saying. Cessaune [talk] 22:18, 2 June 2023 (UTC) I was talking specifically about BLP and do not like cavalier comments about recently deceased people. I stand by my statement. O3000, Ret. (talk) 22:30, 2 June 2023 (UTC) Regarding what O3000 previously wrote about the man who was convicted, "Is it OK if I say assaulted?" The man wasn't convicted of killing anyone. Bob K31416 (talk) 19:44, 2 June 2023 (UTC) In the main article, along with the detail that he was sprayed with a chemical used to stop a bear -- not meant for humans, and what the judge said in sentencing. That is, did the judge take into account the death; which a judge can do without a homicide charge. This article should not have details about the deaths as that would require a large amount of text to maintain NPOV. O3000, Ret. (talk) 19:56, 2 June 2023 (UTC) @Objective3000: ... That is, did the judge take into account the death; Source??? Because all the sources I've found say you're wrong. Los Angeles Times: Hogan said Sicknick’s death was the "elephant in the room" but stressed that the coroner’s report didn’t give him any basis to use that as a sentencing factor against him. NBC: The judge said, "People can conclude in their own minds that the spray may have caused [Sicknick's death] but medically they haven’t shown it." Also, the sentencing guidelines for Khater were 78–97 months. [9]--Jerome Frank Disciple 00:45, 3 June 2023 (UTC) It is not necessary for a court to have legally found strict liability for us to mention the deaths of all the capitol police officers that died in connection with the January 6 insurrection and attempted coup. We can mention any and all of them that have a connection with those events. We are not ascribing legal liability or direct causation in this article, just mentioning the number that were associated with the event. So long as RS associate them that is good enough for us to do. Andre🚐 00:48, 3 June 2023 (UTC) Sure, as I said above, I'm okay saying that five people who were at the rally happened to die there. But to say "the judge took the death into account" is just unequivocally wrong. (Also, In the main article, along with the detail that he was sprayed with a chemical used to stop a bear ... the main article says that theory was disproven and that it was actually pepper spray and reliable sources say so, too [10].) It just makes the conversation a lot more frustrating when people are throwing around explicitly false statements, even as support for the status quo ... because then the question is ... what impression is the status quo leaving? The false claims have actually made me question whether it is appropriate to omit the causes of deaths (though, for now, I still think it's fine)--Jerome Frank Disciple 00:52, 3 June 2023 (UTC) Sure, as I said above, I'm okay saying that five people who were at the rally happened to die there. I agreed with your 5 deaths, even though it's more, and now you want to add disgusting language to that. None of us know the details behind 1,000 and rising arrests, most of which have yet to be tried. What's the point of negotiation with you? And now you are making WP:PAs in this thread about imagined conspiracy theories. O3000, Ret. (talk) 01:06, 3 June 2023 (UTC) you want to add disgusting language ... WP:PA.--Jerome Frank Disciple 01:10, 3 June 2023 (UTC) I just said I still agree to leave out the causes of death for now. Let's just leave it there, we're not going anywhere ... if anything your comments are pushing me further away from that position. But I'm still there, and we mostly seem to be fine just saying 5 people died without elaborating.--Jerome Frank Disciple 01:14, 3 June 2023 (UTC) You have shown that you know the direction to take what you think are PAs. Just realize that characterizing an edit is not the same as characterizing an editor -- which you have done repeatedly. O3000, Ret. (talk) 01:16, 3 June 2023 (UTC) Let's just leave it there. Five people happened to die on the scene. One of them was shot and killed. I'm fine just phrasing that as "five people died". That's what's in the article. We're done. Unless someone disagrees with what's in the article, any further discussion belongs on a forum.--Jerome Frank Disciple 01:17, 3 June 2023 (UTC) Just don't say "happened to die there" again. O3000, Ret. (talk) 01:26, 3 June 2023 (UTC) I have no issue with that characterization and agree with @Cessaune: that it's not a BLP issue. But, again, it doesn't matter, because, for me, "five people died" would be true if "five people happened to die". But we don't need to discuss it further unless someone disagrees with the article.--Jerome Frank Disciple 01:30, 3 June 2023 (UTC) And you added it twice again to your edit while I received two ECs trying to respond. You post "let's just leave it there". And then you don't. You have no reason to believe this was pure happenstance. But, this is pointless. I believe this is an unknown. You somehow know the deaths were coincidental, despite the bipartisan Senate report that said otherwise. So it goes. I hope this edit finally goes through without an EC. O3000, Ret. (talk) 01:41, 3 June 2023 (UTC) I apologize for the edit conflicts.--Jerome Frank Disciple 01:42, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

Disciple says, “unless someone disagrees”. I disagree. Someone being shot is a very different kind of death from natural causes, and lumping them together is misleading. There are about 175 ways to easily fix that problem. We could do what the main article does and summarize what kind of deaths they were. We could say one person was shot and four others died. We could say five people died, most from natural causes. But just saying five people died is unhelpful and unilluminating, in my opinion. It will leave readers dissatisfied, because whenever someone dies there’s always curiosity about how. Given that the protesters and the rioters were aggressors, many readers will wrongly assume that the five were killed by the aggressors. Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:53, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

I agree that might be an unfortunate implication—I don't think it's a coincidence that the people who feel stronger about causation are in favor of that phrasing, while the people who are less sure about causation have expressed reservations. But we do have the main page to link to for those who are curious about the deaths, and I just don't think we have a consensus for the types of phrasings you've suggested. But perhaps one will develop.--Jerome Frank Disciple 01:57, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

Then why not just leave it out? Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:59, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

Sure. That's why I initially advocated for clarification of the deaths. Then, I advocated for attribution to the Senate report (7 instead of 5). Now, I'm fine with blanket five. The types of readers that get to this point in the article are not the generic 'lead-only' readers that are more likely to make that kind of assumption. Cessaune [talk] 02:00, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

User:Cessaune, I was hoping to get some clarity in the article body so we can improve the lead which says, “many of them then attacked, resulting in multiple deaths”. This wrongly attributes all deaths to the protesters/rioters, and several should not be thus attributed, including “natural causes”, Ashley Babbitt, drug overdoses…. Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:07, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

One issue at a time. When (if) we figure out this thing, we can then move on to the lead. We're nowhere near consensus on this issue at this point. Cessaune [talk] 02:11, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

You said, “The types of readers that get to this point in the article are not the generic 'lead-only' readers that are more likely to make that kind of assumption.” But what the article body says dictates what the lead says. The two things are not unrelated. Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:17, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

Exactly. This is my entire point. Once what is said in the body is solidified, deciding what's appropriate for the lead becomes much easier. Cessaune [talk] 02:20, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

Even if we shorten the lead to say five people died, interested readers should be able to find detail in the article body. We currently have no detail in the article body, and that’s wrong if we want to mention this in the lead. I’d support the current statement in the article body if we remove it from the lead. Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:27, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

Again, this can be discussed after the conclusion of this already time-consuming discussion. Cessaune [talk] 02:52, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

Who is this "normal reader" who will be left "dissatisfied, because whenever someone dies there’s always curiosity about how" and "wrongly assume that the five were killed by the aggressors"? You’re making assumptions based on your personal opinion. If a reader wants to know more about the January 6 riot, including the deaths, that's what the link to the main article is for. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 11:01, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

@Space4Time3Continuum2x: removed the tag, but, given that @Bob K31416: and @Anythingyouwant: haven't responded to the most recent version and, as I understand, have separate content concerns regarding POV, I think it should remain up until those have been settled. That said, as I've indicated, the current version is satisfactory to me.--Jerome Frank Disciple 16:23, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

It’s not correct that I haven’t responded to content in the most recent versions. I’ll do so yet again in brackets: On January 6, 2021, while congressional certification of the presidential election results was taking place in the United States Capitol, Trump held a noon rally at the Ellipse, Washington, D.C.. He called for the election result to be overturned and urged his supporters to "take back our country" by marching to the Capitol to "show strength" and "fight like hell".[643][644] Many supporters did, joining a crowd already there. Around 2:15 p.m. the mob broke into the building, disrupting certification and causing the evacuation of Congress.[645] During the violence, Trump watched TV and posted messages on Twitter without asking the rioters to disperse. At 6 p.m., Trump tweeted that the rioters should "go home with love & in peace", calling them "great patriots" and "very special" and repeating that the election was stolen from him.[646] [He did ask rioters to stop violently rioting. These one-sided quotes omit widely-publicized quotes calling for peacefulness in rally speech and also tweets at 2:38 & 3:13PM. The only purpose of the 6PM quote is to pretend he only called for peacefulness on 1/6 after the damage was done.] After the mob was removed from the Capitol, Congress reconvened and confirmed the Biden election win in the early hours of the following morning.[647] According to the Department of Justice, there were more than 140 injuries, and five people, including a Capitol Police officer, died.[648][649] [The death info is misleading because it implies they died from injuries which most did not. Same as in lead. Either leave it out of the lead and article body or make clear most did not die from injuries.] More than 1,000 people were arrested in the aftermath of the attack.[650]. [Give readers a clue by saying how many attended rally, and/or what they were mostly arrested for, e.g. trespassing] In March 2023, Trump collaborated with incarcerated rioters on a song to benefit the prisoners, and, in June, he said that, if elected, he would pardon a large number of them.[65]. [It was to pay prisoner’s legal fees. This is phrased to give impression that it was a reward for their law-breaking, but it was only to make sure they get legal representation to ensure proper conviction and sentencing. As I’ve said, there is plenty to criticize Trump for without exaggerating and slanting things.] Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:48, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

Well, I meant, specifically, the edit as to the deaths, which now features in-text attribution to the DOJ (though I note you now have responded to that). You are, once again, talking about many, many issues, which we've discussed but which is, of course, your prerogative. Fortunately, your post does illustrate the variety of content disputes that led to me placing the tag in the first place.

I would suggest you consider a few things:

1. as to each of your points, broken down into individual critiques, do any other editors agree with you (just something that's always worth checking),
2. if so/regardless, how would you like to resolve the dispute? Because it seems to me that most of the editors currently here don't agree with your critiques. Do you want to start an RFC as to any of your points? Do you want to engage in some other form of dispute resolution? I realize I start a few too many sections here, but I might suggest starting separate sections for the issues you care about most? It depends on how you want to follow up.

--Jerome Frank Disciple 16:59, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

As to the deaths, do you agree the current language suggests that five died from their injuries? ("there were more than 140 injuries, and five people, including a Capitol Police officer, died."). Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:04, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

Okay, okay.

1. Find RSs that give due weight. Simple.
2. Sure. I can agree with this one.
3. I feel like that's too much detail, but sure. Whatever.
4. I agree with the last one. It omits crucial info about the nature of the song.

Now, propose alternate wordings, with citations to go along with them. Cessaune [talk] 17:05, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

I’ll use Roman numerals I, II, III, and IV for these four issues.

I. It’s been widely reported that Trump several times called for peace and non-violence on January 6, beginning with his speech that began at noon:

• https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-02-11/trump-team-hoping-peacefully-and-patriotically-will-be-shield#xj4y7vzkg
• https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-55640437
• https://www.usatoday.com/videos/news/politics/2021/02/12/impeachment-trump-said-march-peacefully/6742581002/
• https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/ap-fact-check-trumps-impeachment-defense-team-glosses-over-his-jan-6-tirade

Then his tweets at 2:38 and 3:13 called for peacefulness and have been widely reported, often along with complaints that they were insufficient or were made reluctantly.  Trump tweeted at 2:38PM, “Please support our Capitol Police and Law Enforcement. They are truly on the side of our Country. Stay peaceful!” And he tweeted at 3:13 PM, “I am asking for everyone at the U.S. Capitol to remain peaceful. No violence! Remember, WE are the Party of Law & Order – respect the Law and our great men and women in Blue. Thank you!” That’s in addition to his earlier speech calling for people to protest “peacefully and patriotically”

• https://www.cnn.com/2022/01/06/politics/trump-tweet-january-6/index.html
• https://www.cnbc.com/2021/01/06/trump-tweets-as-political-leaders-beg-him-to-intervene-in-violent-capitol-hill-insurrection.html
• https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2021/07/22/what-donald-trump-has-said-about-capitol-rioters/
• https://www.masslive.com/politics/2021/01/twitter-disables-ability-to-retweet-or-like-president-donald-trumps-tweet-due-to-the-risk-of-violence-after-us-capitol-stormed.html
• https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/donald-trump-january-6-tweets-capitol-b2282478.html
• https://www.politico.com/news/2021/01/06/pence-capitol-rioters-455584

II. Regarding deaths, see my comment just now here.

III. There were more than 10,000 attendees (perhaps many many more per WaPo) which puts 1000 arrests in context…..

• https://www.cbsnews.com/live-updates/jan-6-capitol-riot-timeline-key-moments/
• https://www.abccolumbia.com/2021/02/25/acting-capitol-police-chief-nearly-1000-people-breached-the-capitol-on-january-6/
• https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2021/02/25/joe-biden-live-updates/#link-SASQGWOOPVHTJBSYQPIR2KSASQ
• https://www.rollcall.com/2021/05/10/failure-to-communicate-the-capitol-police-leadership-gap-on-jan-6/
• https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/01/06/january-6-attack-capitol-guide-what-we-now-know/

Although over 1000 have been arrested, the vast majority of people found guilty were only charged with a misdemeanor ("parading or demonstrating in a Capitol building") and not sentenced to any jail: https://www.npr.org/2023/03/25/1165022885/1000-defendants-january-6-capitol-riot

IV. The song does not benefit anyone who assaulted a police officer:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/marisadellatto/2023/03/21/trump-hits-no-1-with-justice-for-all-song-made-with-jan-6-arrestees/?sh=3dab582a4dea

"Profits of the song benefit the family members of those who have been incarcerated in collection to the insurrection—though recipients will be vetted to ensure funds do not go to anyone who assaulted police officers." Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:24, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

Accordingly, I would write: On January 6, 2021, while congressional certification of the presidential election results was happening, Trump held a noon rally near the White House. He called for the election result to be overturned and urged his supporters to "take back our country" by marching to the Capitol to "show strength" and "fight like hell", while mentioning once that they should do so “peacefully and patriotically”.[643][644] Many supporters then joined a crowd already at the Capitol. Around 2:15 p.m. a mob broke into the building, causing the evacuation of Congress.[645] During the violence, two of Trump’s many tweets urged non-violence. Then, at 6 p.m., Trump tweeted that the “great patriots” should "go home with love & in peace", calling them "very special" and repeating that the election was stolen.[646] After the mob was removed, Congress confirmed the Biden election win.[647] Well over 100 police officers reported injuries, and deaths also occurred but the number is a matter of disagreement (one person was shot and there were several eventual deaths by suicide or natural causes).[648][649] Of the more than 10,000 Trump supporters present that day, over 1,000 were arrested, and the vast majority of people found guilty were only charged with a misdemeanor.[650] In March 2023, Trump collaborated on a song to benefit the prisoners except those who had fought with police, and, in June, he said that, if elected, he would pardon a large number of the people who had been convicted.[651]. I've removed the inline attribution to DOJ, since we have reliable sources available regarding police injuries. The word count is 240 words, exactly the same as it was a few days ago at the end of May.[11] Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:56, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

I'm poor so I can't verify all of the sources. I'll take a look at the ones I can.

I. BBC, UsaToday and PBS (AP) all agree on one fact: "peacefully and patriotically" was used by Trump's defense team extensively, while "fight like hell" or other potentially incendiary language was disregarded as "figurative" (BBC). AP claims that Trump's lawyer's defense was "distorted" and non-representative of the facts, while the other two simply characterize the prevailing opinions.

The only time "peacefully and patriotically" is brought up in any of the sources is to refer to when Trump's lawyers used it in his defense. The one op-ed (AP) dismisses "peacefully and patriotically" completely (...seizing on the one instance when Trump spoke of peaceful protest in his “fight like hell” tirade of anger and grievance.) Based on this, I just don't see enough here to include any mention of "peacefully and patriotically", when compared to the much greater weight that "fight like hell" is given in RSs when juxtaposed with "peacefully and patriotically": NYT, NYT, PBS (and that's just a few).

I wouldn't mind linking to some of the peaceful tweets, alongside some of the not-so-peacful tweets, based on the sources.

II. Provide sourcing for this, and then let's talk. A single source isn't enough.

III. Again, I don't understand why we need the context. In addition, referring to "arrested" versus 'charged with a felony' is a whole different question. An arrest is more representative of the happenings of the day IMO—people who were arrested were arrested due to their actions that day, which I find more relevant to the event than people who were charged with a felony after the fact. If anything, refer to both.

IV. Sure, but this isn't the important part. I thought that the important part was that the song was meant to raise money for legal aid.

Pertaining to your version, I kind of hate it. Sorry. It reads badly in my opinion. Cessaune [talk] 02:28, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

Yeah I'd second everything Cessaune said here. In particular, deaths also occurred but the number is a matter of disagreement (one person was shot and there were several eventual deaths by suicide or natural causes) is a sort-of ridiculous statement. For, "deaths also occurred" reads really strangely. For two, it's not true that the number is a matter of disagreement: no one disputes how many people who were on the scene died that day or in the subsequent days. What is disputed is how many are attributable to the event.--Jerome Frank Disciple 02:45, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

I've met my quota of time spent on this article for now. Sorry you don't seem to see a single solitary improvement in my draft of this subsection (or anything that could be made so by minor adjustments). To me, it's pretty obvious, but no more time is available. This does not mean I approve of the subsection as it stands in the article, I think it's atrociously misleading, so please let's have no more talk about how nobody objects to it, thanks. Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:02, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

Huh?

• I wouldn't mind linking to some of the peaceful tweets, alongside some of the not-so-peacful tweets, based on the sources.
• Sure, but this isn't the important part. I thought that the important part was that the song was meant to raise money for legal aid.

That's two times that I agree with something you said? I definitely see at least one improvement. Cessaune [talk] 03:27, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

As per indentation, I was replying more to someone else than to you, User:Cessaune. Regarding legal aid, that assertion was made in the Wikipedia article about the song, but I couldn’t find any support for it, and inserted a “cn” tag. What I did find support for is that the money is not for anyone who fought/injured/killed any police officer, which seems *highly* relevant and noteworthy (in the colloquial sense) and uncontradicted. Anyway, please feel free to use the info and ideas I’ve typed above. I’ll be back, just not imminently. Cheers. Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:35, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

I'm sorry but this style of discussing changes and collaborating is just baffling to me. I told you a few days ago that your approach was making the discussion harder and making it more likely that there'd be "no consensus" as to any of your suggested edits. Now, you've essentially said, "Here's a ton of edits I'm proposing covering several different parts of a passage for several different reasons; I'll leave it to you all to figure out how to get a consensus incorporating some of them into the article." I understand that's the easier than separating your critiques and starting different discussions or tackling issues one a time and trying to forge a consensus yourself, but it's also just not productive. Do you really expect that one of us will be so inspired by one of your modifications that we'll take it up as our own personal crusade for you? I was actually considering helping you craft an RFC on the causes-of-deaths issue, but since you're bouncing, I'm not really sure there's a point. I do agree with some of your edits, but I also think talk-page discussions should be productive and every editor has to pick their battles and be willing to compromise.--Jerome Frank Disciple 15:00, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

I started out by taking only one issue. Then User:Mandruss urged that we edit the whole subsection instead, so I attempted that more than once, responding to extensive requests by User:Cessaune for further research and input. I have run out of time for now. I’m sure that any competent editors will use the info I’ve provided to make any edits that they deem appropriate. You have accused me elsewhere today of “bludgeoning” and bias, and accused me here of being “ridiculous” and seeking a “crusade”, but if this style of collaboration works for you then please proceed. I find it dangerous to edit Wikipedia amid accusations that I find unwarranted, and anyway I have no time. Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:09, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

I never accused you of seeking a crusade? I suggest it was ridiculous to suggest edits in the manner that you have and hope that other editors take up your cause as a crusade. The hard work in working on a contentious article does not come from merely suggesting a mass of edits—it comes from forging consensuses and making compromises. I also never said you were ridiculous—I said that a different article's framing was "a little ridiculous". I did say that you revealed some bias after you—unprompted—described Covid restrictions as "draconian". If you have no time, then this isn't worth discussing further.--Jerome Frank Disciple 17:30, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

Indeed. Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:37, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

You just proved Jerome's point with that article, as well as why the NYPost is not RS. Read the full interview to see the difference. Or, you cn look at the most recent, lengthy, interview.[12] O3000, Ret. (talk) 18:14, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

If by "extensive requests" you mean the systematic verification of your multiple positions, then sure. Cessaune [talk] 18:15, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

Context: Should we include the number arrested?

Per this edit by @Space4Time3Continuum2x:, I suppose we should discuss whether the number arrested should be included. If we mention the mass number of injuries and the dead, I'm not sure why we wouldn't include the number arrested, but I think it's also important context for the song. We don't actually say that anyone was arrested before we dive into discussing a song in support of those who were arrested.--Jerome Frank Disciple 15:43, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

Update: the stat was reinserted by @PhotogenicScientist: [13]--Jerome Frank Disciple 15:46, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

Per my edit summary, I agree that it improves the paragraph as it stood. Honestly, I think it was a relatively straightforward improvement to clarity, since there was no previous mention of incarceration. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 15:51, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

The number of arrests belongs at January 6 United States Capitol attack, as does the cite. We're trying to trim or, at least, not expand this article with details that belong in other articles. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 16:12, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

I have to disagree that it doesn't belong here, for the reasons I said above.--Jerome Frank Disciple 16:30, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

In my opinion, "keeping the article short" is a very good goal, but is low-priority. In this case, I'd give more weight to the improvement of clarity by the addition of context, for the mention of "incarcerated rioters." The mention of the stat is not unnecessarily long, imo. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 16:31, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

Even the shortest mention (in this case 68 characters) comes with a cite (250 characters).

Frankly I'm not sure "bytes" are the right measure for precisely that reason: the characters involved in a citation don't actually contribute to summary-style concerns. Without that sentence, the article jumps into discussing a song for incarcerated rioters without having mentioned that there were incarcerated references, and there'd be a two-sentence paragraph (not to mention the fact that many have discussed erasing the second sentence).--Jerome Frank Disciple 17:14, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

The number of arrests takes very few words and is an important measure of the size and tenor of the action. We do Trump no favor by including that embarrassing song gimmick supporting what is now a steady stream of guilty pleas and convictions. O3000, Ret. (talk) 18:28, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

I would support saying how many were arrested but only with proper context, i.e. if we also say how many people total attended the rally plus Capitol protest, and how many of the arrested people were convicted. Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:43, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

The convictions are ongoing. Courts are not exactly speedy in the US. I don't know if the number of convictions is meaningful and would have to be updated constantly. At some point, that number would be important. O3000, Ret. (talk) 20:53, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

I don't think that context is necessary here - the subject of that paragraph is "the song by/for the incarcerated rioters". The sentence mentioning arrests at the beginning is merely context for that. Could you explain a bit more why you think more context is needed? PhotogenicScientist (talk) 21:11, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

Sure. If we say the number arrested, the normal reader will wonder what percentage that is of the total number of people who attended the rally and protest. When we raise questions in readers’ minds, we should give answers if that will only require a word or two. Anyway, I strongly oppose mentioning the song if we omit that the money was for legal fees. It wasn’t to reward wrongdoing. It was to make sure people have proper legal counsel, so they won’t get a longer or more severe sentence than they deserve. Also, arrested people could not get any money if they already paid all their legal expenses (e.g. they served their sentences already, or were exonerated). Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:02, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

Well, it would be interesting to know the percentage of attendees that were arrested. A lot of stats would be of interest. But arrests are also ongoing. Any number now would likely be incorrect and misleading tomorrow. We are an encyclopedia, not a newspaper WP:NODEADLINE As for your comment about the song; I agree with you in this article. That extreme embarrassment for Trump does not belong in his main article. Besides, how do you know where the money goes? His "charity" was shut down as it wasn't a charity. There are other examples of funds promised not distributed. Better to leave the topic for when the details are known. In an encyclopedia, particularly in contentious topics, patience should always be a keyword. We will eventually know the totals of arrests and convictions. They should be added at that time. O3000, Ret. (talk) 00:12, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

I'm kind of confused; can you clarify your rationale for not including any mention of the song? Thanks. Cessaune [talk] 01:31, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

There are over 100 articles in the Donald Trump series. Why should this gimmick be in the main article for Donald Trump? Is it a defining moment in his life? O3000, Ret. (talk) 01:47, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification; is that the only reason you would like the mention gone? Cessaune [talk] 01:51, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

That is the reason. I simply see no reason for it to exist in this article. The WP:ONUS is on those who think it is noteworthy. O3000, Ret. (talk) 12:01, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

Isn't it the status quo? As in, it's been in the article. So per WP:NOCON I think there has to be a consensus to remove it. (Unless you're saying it's "contentious" and the BLP exception to NOCON applies)--Jerome Frank Disciple 12:45, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

Only if it has been in the article for a long time or consensus was demonstrated when it was added. If it remains, shouldn’t we quote what RS say of it?

“Behind Trump’s tribute to some of the most violent Jan 6 rioters.WaPo

”Music to Trump’s ears: Whitewashing Jan. 6 riot with song”AP

“The move is the latest in a growing trend by Trump and others on the far right of US politics to embrace the January 6 attack on the Capitol as a political cause and portray many of those who carried it out as protesters being persecuted by the state.”The Guardian

“Trump Sings a Song of Sedition”Atlantic

“Republican lawmakers break with Trump over Jan. 6 riot video”USA Today O3000, Ret. (talk) 13:22, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

Yes I believe it has been in the article for a very long time—certainly long enough to have been stable. See this April 5, 2023 version—500 edits ago. Haven't seen any edit warring over its inclusion at all.

In terms of adding more information about it, I think that's worth a separate discussion. I know a few editors are concerned with making this page too detailed, so I'm sure you'll hear that any such details belong on the song's page, but I wouldn't object to a one sentence addition.--Jerome Frank Disciple 13:25, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

500 edits is nothing in this article's recent activity. If they're worried about detail, this silly song recorded over a phone should be the first to go. It most certainly is not a significant point of his notability -- the purpose of the main article. Sure, put it in another article along with the reactions. O3000, Ret. (talk) 13:45, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

I mean more than two months of stability is ... It appears it was added to this particular section March 23, 2023 [14]. I don't personally see a consensus to remove it, but if you want to start a separate discussion re: adding details, by all means.--Jerome Frank Disciple 13:50, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

There are many interminable discussions on this TP. This TP has become nonfunctional. O3000, Ret. (talk) 14:27, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

I'm sure Anythingyouwant feels the same way. It is certainly difficult to get a consensus for a change, and people who oppose the stable status quo (like Anythingyouwant preferring to include the causes of death or you preferring to not include the song) are often frustrated. I've also been on both sides of that, as you know.--Jerome Frank Disciple 14:32, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

I am not frustrated because I am not getting "my way". I am stating that this TP is the most disorganized mess I have ever witnessed in WP and has been that way for a couple months. O3000, Ret. (talk) 14:37, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

Who is this "normal reader" who "will wonder what percentage that is of the total number of people who attended the rally and protest"? I must not be normal because I never asked myself that question. The crowd at the rally was "at least 10,000", and, by the time Trump’s speech ended, many of them "were well on [their] way" to the Capitol. About 2,000-2,500 entered the Capitol building. Now that you brought it up I’m wondering whether there would have been time or room for the other 8,000 or so to enter the building before law enforcement reinforcements arrived and pushed them out. Not to mention officers on the Lower West Terrace holding the line for three long hours. Does this belong in the summary? No. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 11:18, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

Thus far, 1,041 people have been charged. 586 have pleaded guilty. 90 have gone to trial. 89 of those were convicted of some or all charges and one has been acquitted. 514 have been sentenced. 20 cases have been dismissed. The remainder await trial. In summary, 21 of the 1,041 have been acquitted or had their cases dismissed. I see no reason to add this here, although possibly a link could be provided. [15] O3000, Ret. (talk) 12:58, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

Current status of discussion — January 6 deaths

There are currently two places in the article where the deaths are mentioned.

A. Lead,

On January 6, 2021, he urged his supporters to march to the U.S. Capitol, which many of them then attacked, resulting in multiple deaths and interrupting the electoral vote count.

B. Body,

There were many injuries, and five people, including a Capitol Police officer, died.^[648]

648. Cameron, Chris (January 5, 2022). "These Are the People Who Died in Connection With the Capitol Riot". The New York Times. Retrieved January 29, 2022.

What is the current status of this discussion regarding these two items? Bob K31416 (talk) 04:23, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

I think no consensus to change either. As I see it, there are a few proposals in the air:

1. change the number to seven per the Senators' report,
2. list the causes of death to avoid the impression that the five deaths were a result of the violence,
3. separate off the Ashlii Babbitt case in some fashion since that was the only death directly caused by another person

I don't think any of these proposals have a consensus, but the longer this goes on, the more I think an RFC might be, unfortunately, worthwhile.--Jerome Frank Disciple 12:59, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

Four of us said 5 deaths no details. For that matter, I'm OK with the current text, multiple deaths. O3000, Ret. (talk) 13:37, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

There has been no significant discussion about mentioning deaths in the lead, because "this can be discussed after the conclusion of this already time-consuming discussion" about deaths in the article body. The lead says, “many of them then attacked, resulting in multiple deaths”. This wrongly attributes all deaths to the protesters/rioters, and several should not be thus attributed, including “natural causes”, Ashley Babbitt, drug overdoses. Additionally, the description in the article body is very meager, which suggests that the matter is not significant enough for the lead, even if the language of the lead were modified to remove bias. Anythingyouwant (talk) 14:09, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

Are you saying Ashley Babbitt's death was not a result of the attack on the Capital? O3000, Ret. (talk) 14:25, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

It was the result of opposing the rioters. In any event, if this matter is not significant enough to include anything more than a number in the article body, it is not suitable for the lead. Anythingyouwant (talk) 14:40, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

In light of the above comment that we should avoid dovetailing onto this discussion before resolving the question of what to do in the article body, and in light of Objective's recent comment that this talk page is already messy ... why don't we not discuss this until we resolve what to do with the body?--Jerome Frank Disciple 14:42, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

Would there be any interest in changing item B of the body from,

There were many injuries, and five people, including a Capitol Police officer, died.

to,

There were many injuries. Four protestors and a Capitol Police officer died.

Bob K31416 (talk) 19:38, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

Jeffrey Smith, a 12-year veteran patrolman, had his head bashed with a metal rod. His personality changed, he went into a deep depression and shot himself. He should not be ignored. I've been to many protests over the last 50 years, some huge. No one ever died because they were protests, not riots. Ashli Babbitt was not what people usually call a protester - "a person who publicly demonstrates strong objection to something". She was one of the rioters who approached the doors to the Speaker's Lobby, adjacent to the House chambers. Three uniformed officers were posted outside the Speaker's Lobby where they were threatened by the crowd. One member of the mob yelled, "Fuck the Blue". The police backed away. No longer impeded by police, one rioter, Zachary Jordan Alam, smashed a glass window beside the doors. On the other side of those doors, many lawmakers and staff were being evacuated by Capitol Police, but some were trapped in the House balcony. Babbitt, hoisted by two men, began to climb through the shattered window and was shot in the shoulder. The USCP said the shooting "potentially saved members (of Congress) and staff from serious injury and possible death". Your version (1 officer to 4 "protesters" makes it sound like the police were the violent actors. No, we should not simply say protesters died without details. Those details belong in the detailed article. I am fine with five deaths or multiple deaths in this article. O3000, Ret. (talk) 20:17, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

I don't think your reasoning is correct because the only one who died by the hand of another was a protestor. Bob K31416 (talk) 10:42, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

A rioter threatening the lives of Congresspeople. Lawmakers hid on the floor in the aisles with gas masks in fear for their lives as rioters chanted we're coming for you. The police had already been informed that pipe bombs had been discovered. Another rioter was crushed to death by other rioters attempting to push through the police to invade the building. That is death at the hands of others.

"Hours after President Donald J. Trump announced a “wild” rally in Washington on Jan. 6, 2021, his supporters began discussing building a gallows in front of the Capitol.

“Could be built very quickly with the right plan and the right people bringing pre-cut materials to the site!” a user wrote on a pro-Trump online forum. “Anybody got a blueprint for a standing gallows like that? Who’s with me?!”

Days later, a second user posted a diagram describing the cuts of lumber and rope that would be needed to erect a gallows and fashion a noose. A lengthy planning discussion ensued. A third posted a manual on how to tie a hangman’s knot.

“We will be building a gallows right in front of the Capitol, so the traitors know the stakes,” another user wrote.

A striking array of far-right iconography littered the Capitol during the riot by Mr. Trump’s supporters, such as a Confederate flag, Crusader crosses, an Auschwitz-themed hoodie and “white power” hand gestures. But the gallows erected in front of the Capitol, where rioters chanted “Hang Mike Pence” as they stormed the building looking for the vice president, is one of the most chilling images to emerge from a day of violence and extremism.[16] O3000, Ret. (talk) 11:19, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

In all that you wrote, again your reasoning is incorrect because the only one you claimed to have died by the hand of another was still a protestor, who was later found by the medical examiner to have died from a drug overdose, not by being crushed. Bob K31416 (talk) 11:45, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

My "reasoning" against your proposal to say "Four protestors and a Capitol Police officer died" with no details is that the statement suggests the police were bad actors attacking "protestors" with the result being four dead protestors. This fits the narrative given by Tucker Carlson. Peaceful protestors admiring the artwork and taking selfies in the Capitol and then attacked by the police. You are adding just enough detail to make the police look bad. There should be no detail or all the detail. Not what you propose. O3000, Ret. (talk) 13:07, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

I don't think that's true, but I can still try to accommodate you with the following modified version,

There were many injuries. Four protestors and a Capitol Police officer died, with only a protestor dying violently.

Bob K31416 (talk) 14:36, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

That's even worse. Much worse. You are actually calling the justified shooting of a rioter invading the House Chamber a protestor dying violently. O3000, Ret. (talk) 14:41, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

I legitimately can't tell if you're trolling. Feel very safe in predicting that O3000 isn't going to agree to that.

As I currently see it, there are two editors who want to list the causes of death in some way; two editors who are opposed to such a listing; and two editors on the fence. Even if the two on the fence editors (among whom I'm counting myself) budge, there's not going to be a consensus either way. If this is going to end in an RFC, fine, but it needs to be focused on one issue—whether or not the causes of death should be listed. If there are multiple options, things will just get confusing and a consensus won't develop.--Jerome Frank Disciple 14:41, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

It was a move to address the concern O3000 made so that other editors might agree with what I suggested, because I think it's an improvement. Also, I'll add that I didn't think what O3000 wrote about my original suggestion was true because the only implication in the section of violent behavior is by the protestors, so the context is violent protestors, not violent police.

I think there's a real problem here of coming up with something that suggests the false notion that people died at the hands of protestors on that day January 6. Bob K31416 (talk) 15:45, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

I think you and O3000 just fundamentally disagree as to responsibility. I'm sympathetic to your point that there was an implication that the deaths were directly caused by violent protestors, but I also see what O3000 is saying: there are reliable sources that attribute the deaths to the event, and there's also some logic in saying that the deaths were indirectly caused by the rioters.

Regardless, for me, the current version, which, like the source it's cited to, has an in-text attribution to the DOJ, solves any potential NPOV issue.--Jerome Frank Disciple 15:52, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

Having given the issue some more thought, I no longer support the "five deaths" framing. Five seems to be a very arbitrary number—I'm not sure where it comes from. It doesn't come from the NYT article cited, which says:

As a pro-Trump protest turned into a violent attack on the Capitol on Jan. 6 last year, four people in the crowd died.... In the days and weeks after the riot, five police officers who had served at the Capitol on Jan. 6 died.

--Jerome Frank Disciple 14:56, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

The five comes from the people that weren't suicides. Four protestors and 1 police officer. The other 4 officers were suicides. I added in an ABC source the says 5 explicitly. WikiVirusC^(talk) 15:28, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

I think I would support just saying that a bipartisan Senate report attributed 7 deaths to the attack, though I would prefer if we listed the causes of death. I'd support the current version of the article: According to the Department of Justice, there were more than 140 injuries, and five people, including a Capitol Police officer, died.--Jerome Frank Disciple 15:24, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

Shoutout to @WikiVirusC: for finding a source! It didn't actually occur to me we were getting there by disregarding suicides—d'oh! (I'd still have said a source is needed to do that, though, so it all works out in the end.)--Jerome Frank Disciple 15:36, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

If we say According to the Department of Justice, there were more than 140 injuries, and multiple people people died, then this fits all sources and the main article can provide more detail. When sources disagree, WikiVoice should not be used. O3000, Ret. (talk) 15:47, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

So you don't want to highlight the Capitol Police officer dying? I mean, I'm okay with that! Although the DOJ did provide an explicit number—five, per the ABC News source. It seems weird not to use that number. That said, I have no real objection to saying "multiple people" instead of five! For me, as long as there's an in-text attribution to the DOJ (which, again, for me, solves the potential NPOV issue regarding causation), then I'm set.--Jerome Frank Disciple 15:55, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

For reference, here's the sentence from the source,

"Five people died during or after the attack, including four protesters and one police officer, and approximately 140 officers suffered injuries, according to the Department of Justice."[17]

This can be compared to my second first (Bob K31416 (talk) 19:32, 5 June 2023 (UTC)) suggestion from above which was,

"There were many injuries. Four protestors and a Capitol Police officer died."

Bob K31416 (talk) 17:53, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

I think "five, including one police officer," is effectively the same as that, but I wouldn't object to that change. That said, I don't know why we'd change 140 officers to "many injuries"--Jerome Frank Disciple 17:58, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

It's not effectively the same. The four could mean people other than protestors, which is a likely interpretation considering the violent mob context provided by the article section.Bob K31416 (talk) 18:22, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

Per Factcheck.org, "There is reasoned debate about the number who died as a result of the Capitol riot....We take no position in the debate over whom to include in the deaths from the riots." Suicides are tragic, and probably were triggered by the events of January 6, but they often coincide with underlying psychological issues, and the more time separating the suicides from January 6 the more reasonable it becomes to question the strength of the connection. We ought to take an approach like FactCheck.org has taken. Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:00, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

We ought to listen to RSs, and if RSs attribute the deaths to the attack, then we do. Simple. Since most do, then we do. Cessaune [talk] 20:18, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

Agree. It might be useful to include something about the nature of injuries. A CBS article on the bipartisan Senate report includes:"...police officers on the front lines who suffered chemical burns, brain injuries and broken bones" and "Capitol Police were being overwhelmed and brutally beaten by the rioters" [18] O3000, Ret. (talk) 20:38, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

When RS’s conflict, we’re not supposed to just give the majority’s side. But instead of giving a bunch of different numbers, the sensible thing here is to just say there’s a disagreement (or a reasonable disagreement), and give an idea why. Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:24, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

Doesn't have to be too elaborate. We already have other pages, that cover the topic in full. GoodDay (talk) 14:40, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

Update — The item in the body is under discussion and has been changed to,

According to the Department of Justice, more than 140 police officers were injured, and five people, including a Capitol Police officer, died.^[648][649]

648. Rubin, Olivia; Mallin, Alexander; Steakin, Will (January 4, 2022). "By the numbers: How the Jan. 6 investigation is shaping up 1 year later". ABC News. Retrieved June 4, 2023.

649. Cameron, Chris (January 5, 2022). "These Are the People Who Died in Connection With the Capitol Riot". The New York Times. Retrieved January 29, 2022.

Would anyone care to summarize the current status of the discussion of the item in the body? Bob K31416 (talk) 19:08, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

RfC on Jan 6 deaths

In reference to the January 6 United States Capitol attack, the Donald Trump article currently says, According to the Department of Justice, more than 140 police officers were injured, and five people, including a Capitol Police officer, died.

1. Should the causes of death be listed?
2. Should the article explicitly mention the Capitol Police officer?

Thanks in advance, Cessaune [talk] 20:43, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

Pinging Anythingyouwant, Jerome Frank Disciple, Mandruss, Objective3000, Bob K31416, Space4Time3Continuum2x, WikiVirusC, Muboshgu. Cessaune [talk] 20:51, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

Background

Per the New York Times article currently cited in the article (NYT link), on January 6, 2021, four protestors involved in the attack on the Capitol died, and, "[i]n the days and weeks after the riot", five police officers who were on the scene at the time of the attack also died. One member of the mob was shot and killed while entering crawling through a window within the Capitol; two of the deaths—including that of police officer Brian Sicknick—were caused by strokes; one by a heart attack, one by an overdose, and four by suicide. Per that same article, a bipartisan Senate report attributed 7 deaths to the attack, although that report was issued before two of the police officers died by died. Per the ABC News article also currently cited (ABC link), the DOJ attributed 5 deaths to the attack (appearing to omit suicides).

A few editors have suggested that this article's current framing creates an NPOV issue: Specifically, they argue that, by juxtaposing the deaths with the "many injuries" and by failing to state any causes of death, the article implies that the deaths in question were by violent means. These editors have suggested, amongst other options: (1) listing the causes of death, or (2) only mentioning the death of Ashli Babbitt, who died after she was shot while crawling through a broken window to enter the Capitol. Editors opposed to these options have emphasized (1) that multiple deaths were attributed to the event, in particular by the bipartisan Senate report, and (2) that this article, which is on Donald Trump must adhere to summary style, and that the additional details regarding causes of death do not belong here.

Babbitt wasn't shot while entering the Capitol or while crawling through a broken window to enter the Capitol. She was inside the Capitol, part of the mob trying to break down the door to the Speaker's Lounge, a long hallway leading to the House Chamber where members were still being evacuated. After the mob managed to break one of the windows in the door, Babbitt was shot while climbing through it. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 06:19, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

Fixed!--Jerome Frank Disciple 12:30, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

!Voting

• No to both - We've got at least two pages that deal in more detail with the events of January 6, 2021. GoodDay (talk) 21:03, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
• No to both - Of course, singling out any death deprecates the others. Several numbers of deaths are floating around, let’s leave it for the articles about 1/6. Tragic as they were, a few deaths is much less significant than, say, attempting to overturn the U.S. government. And there’s no question that some of the protesters were a lot crazier and a lot more violent and a lot more responsible for those deaths than Donald Trump was. But if the deaths are mentioned then the causes of death need to be summarized. Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:13, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

  But if the deaths are mentioned then the causes of death need to be summarized. Wait ... so you're saying "no deaths should be mentioned, but if they are listed, yes to 1; no to 2"? --Jerome Frank Disciple 21:18, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

  The causes of death shouldn’t be mentioned if the deaths aren’t mentioned, and I don’t think the deaths should be mentioned. As I said, the link to Trump is tenuous, most of the deaths were natural causes or suicide or drug overdose, and allegedly seeking to overturn an election is vastly more significant. Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:22, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

• No to both, but - The deaths must be mentioned. Protests are extremely common, but rarely result in multiple deaths, if any. The extreme violence documented in a huge number of videos, the connection of the deaths to the event by the US Senate bipartisan report including findings of injuries of police officers with chemical burns, broken burns and brain injuries, cannot be ignored. The officer suicides and resignations are also important; but I'll leave that to the detailed article. This event resulted in impeachment (an historic event) and over 1,000 arrests, over half of which have already resulted in sentencing with hundreds more pending. This is clearly a major event in the life of the article subject. As for details, which continue to appear, there are about 100 DJT articles. They belong in the main article on the subject as any inclusion here would need to be too brief to include important details and could therefore be misleading. O3000, Ret. (talk) 21:59, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
• Yes to one, no to two—Assuming a reader understands none of the context around Jan 6, five deaths is too vague of a blanket statement IMO. I did previously argue that it didn't matter, but I'd rather err on the side of caution.

I don't think that the police officer should be explicitly mentioned, as all the deaths are, for the most part, equally weighted in RSs, and I see an NPOV issue with singling out the police officer. Cessaune [talk] 22:14, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

• No to both This page is long enough as it is and these details are not needed on this page. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:00, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
• Leaning yes on one; no on two. When I first read the passage, I assumed that the article was talking about deaths attributable to violence. If you say, "there were a ton of injuries and five deaths" ... my brain doesn't jump to "oh I bet some of those deaths were due to natural causes or maybe accidental overdose". As such, I thought the article gave a false impression. The in-text attribution to the DOJ lessened that concern for me—if we're going to have a slightly false impression, at least we can attribute it. But if we're going to mention the deaths at all, I think we should probably clarify the causes.--Jerome Frank Disciple 00:23, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
• No to both - This is not the place for those kinds of details. There are too many such details to really fit into this article... there's context and explanations and whys and wherefores, and putting in some is opening the floodgates for more (see: WP:PANDORA). Leave the details to the article the covers those details, leave this as a broad overview using the language that broad overviews use. In short: reliable sources broadly summarize it in this way, so we should follow suit. Fieari (talk) 06:20, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
• No to cause of deaths, readers can find that in main article. Yes to mentioning officer, as that got a lot more coverage on it's own, for various reasons. WikiVirusC^(talk) 10:55, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
• Yes to one, No to two as per Cessaune. - AquilaFasciata (talk | contribs) 13:06, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
• Yes to one, No to two as per Cessaune. Length of article is not a sufficient argument against providing context, as arguably the protest directly led to the cause of one death. More information is needed here. Anon0098 (talk) 02:57, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
• No to cause of deaths, readers can find that in main article. and any summary would necessarily over-simplify· Yes to mentioning officer, as that got a lot more coverage on it's own, for various reasons. per WikiVirusC. I don't see any NPOV issue with mentioning the Capitol police officer's death. There is a substantive difference between dying as a result of dangers created by others at one's place of work and dying as a result of voluntary action - whether that action being engaging in a hazardous sport/ climbing on the roof of one's house to fix an aerial/ attempting to overturn an election result. On a personal level all three deaths may have equal impact, but publicly they differ in kind IMO. Pincrete (talk) 06:16, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
• Yes to both. The capitol police officer's death is notable as the only government official on duty who died that day. Died in the line of duty. That's a big deal, and our best available sources all mention it: Google search  · EBSCO  · ProQuest
  The cause of death is also prominently mentioned, especially that Babbit was shot and the other man died of a heart attack. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 16:46, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

  the only government official on duty who died that day. Died in the line of duty. those reports are incorrect. He died of a stroke in the hospital the following day. [19] Anon0098 (talk) 23:25, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

  For the life of me I cannot understand why it has to be one partial, revolution around the sun. It usually takes some time to die of injuries, unless you were hit with a bomb or beheaded. There seems to be less reverence towards the death of officers of the law protecting the U.S. Democracy. OTOH, I am still against this mention as it belittles the deaths of other officers and makes it seem as though the officers protecting the democracy were the primary killers. For that matter, are we now saying those veterans with PTSD who took their lives or had shortened lives due to burn pit exposure or Agent Orange are not victims? O3000, Ret. (talk) 00:13, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

  Suicide is not a natural cause of death. Anon0098 (talk) 02:33, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

  We've been over this above, but just so people in the RFC don't have to wade through that: Because the coroner's natural-cause of death ruling indicated that he didn't die of injuries sustained by another person. Per CBS: "The 'natural' classification is used 'when a disease alone causes death,' the medical examiner's office said in the summary. 'If death is hastened by an injury, the manner of death is not considered natural.' The fact that the coroner made a generic statement that "all that transpired played a role in his condition" to the Washington Post isn't enough for us to assume, contrary to the natural finding, that his injuries were his cause of his death.--Jerome Frank Disciple 13:17, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

  Some of the deaths that occurred as a result of the attack are not medically referred to as "natural causes". So what? We are not using the medical term "natural causes" anywhere. The coroner and the US Senate report both indicate a connection. O3000, Ret. (talk) 13:55, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

  So what? Because if it was a natural cause, there is an indication that it was unrelated to the protest, which makes it WP:UNDUE and WP:POV to include his name in particular. That's the whole point of this discussion Anon0098 (talk) 23:44, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

  I said nothing about including anyone's name. The US Senate report said it was connected and the coroner who said "natural causes" said the cause of death was related.

  Look, this was an incredibly violent insurrection. The only other beach of the Congress was in the War of 1812. In that case, Congress was burned and every book in the Library of Congress was burned after The British attacked (likely with good cause) with professional soldiers and canon against a largely unprotected capital. And yet, only one American died. n this recent case, RS (other than Fox) have displayed large quantities of video showing in detail the massive violence. There is an ongoing attempt in certain media and among many Congressfolk to downplay the violence which may have leaked into Wikipedia. O3000, Ret. (talk) 00:16, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

• No to both per GoodDay. ~ HAL333 15:07, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
• No to both. The page is long enough as it is, let's keep the details to summary-level per consensus item 37. The main article on the January 6 United States Capitol attack and the timeline linked in the section have detailed descriptions of the casualties. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 05:46, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
• No to both per GoodDay.--Ortizesp (talk) 06:19, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
• Yes to both - it provides important context Grahaml35 (talk) 18:59, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

Discussion

• For reference, here's a side by side comparison of the sentence in the ABC source,

Five people died during or after the attack, including four protesters and one police officer, and approximately 140 officers suffered injuries, according to the Department of Justice.

and the sentence in the Wikipedia article,

According to the Department of Justice, more than 140 police officers were injured, and five people, including a Capitol Police officer, died.

Bob K31416 (talk) 00:17, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, you didn't provide the cite. Is that the cite from one year and five months ago about a story that is still building heavily with constant updates? O3000, Ret. (talk) 00:28, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

Yeah it's linked as ABC link in the background section, above. Bob, I have to be honest I don't really understand what the point of the side-by-side is? I'm not sure what I'm missing.--Jerome Frank Disciple 00:34, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

Cessaune, "five people died" is not a blanket statement, a nebulous statement intended to make a point, as you are suggesting. The cited sources say "Five people died during or after the attack", "died", "lost their lives". How many died of "natural causes" like heart attacks or strokes at other events, e.g., the Women’s March in 2017? At least 470,000 participated in D.C., compared to at least 10,000 on January 6, 2021. At the latter event, three people died of strokes and heart attacks and one of an amphetamine overdose, so going by the number of attendees there should have been reports of 141 deaths of natural causes and 47 of overdoses at the Women's March. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 07:02, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

Wait, ... what's the point you're making here?--Jerome Frank Disciple 12:42, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

While I can get behind "nebulous", I wasn't trying to suggest that the statement itself was intended to make a point. Only that a certain point can be inferred from the wording.

Also, the last statement you made suggests OR-ish connections between two vastly different moments and situations. I don't even understand how you possibly could get to where you got to. Cessaune [talk] 15:43, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

"Five people died" is NPOV and the summary-level answer (consensus item 37) to the question "what happened". Mentioning natural causes IMO adds the POV that they could have dropped dead of those natural causes anywhere. That may be so or not, but they died when and where they did. I was merely comparing numbers between the January 6 "protest" and the 2017 Women's March, also a "protest". Also, how do you propose to phrase your preferred answer to the first question? At first reading, the question seems neutrally worded and short per WP:RFCBRIEF but it will lead to another discussion. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 05:57, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

I honestly don't think that describing the manner of death adds POV. If anything, the fact that you say that suggests the dubiousness of the relationship between the deaths and event. This is my question: if five protesters had been shot by Capitol police, would there be a POV issue with saying that five protesters were shot by Capitol police? This is literally the exact same thing.

Omitting the causes of the deaths, however, muddies up the waters a little: we don't know why or how people died, and, based on a face-level reading of the current wording without context, I would assume that four rioters and one police officer were killed, presumably shot/beaten/trampled. I'm not trying to suggest that we need to prove that the deaths are dubiously attributable to the event; while I personally believe that, my personal belief is irrelevant. And while other people might believe that, I think that worrying about whenther or not people will come to their own conclusions about the nature of the deaths is more important than worrying about whether or not people will come to their own conclusion about the fairness of attribution.

"...comparing numbers"? You were creating numbers, bizarrely comparing apples and oranges (perhaps a more accurate description would be a positron and the magnetic field of Betelgeuse). ...going by the number of attendees there should have been reports of 141 deaths of natural causes and 47 of overdoses—what? I get the point you're making, but what? And the numbers were only being created to further a point that I already support (in the context of Wikipedia) and is also supported by RS.

As to your third point, Jerome wrote a wording above that I wouldn't be opposed to. Cessaune [talk] 06:34, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

apples and oranges: nah, just proportionality, a/b = c/d. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 07:40, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

@Cessaune is right that that kind of armchair analysis isn't really appropriate. The problem with drawing implications from straight proportionality is that you're implicitly treating the two distinct populations as being comparable without any effort to control for differences.--Jerome Frank Disciple 14:19, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

I feel like this comment is almost implicitly conceding that "five deaths" is not NPOV? If mentioning the causes of death—which are verifiable—might lead people to think that the deaths weren't caused in some way by the event ... wouldn't not mentioning the causes lead to the opposite conclusion?--Jerome Frank Disciple 14:14, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

• Disciple of Jerome Frank, you changed Cessaune's background section here without clearly saying what you did, i.e., you changed while entering the Capitol to entering crawling through a window within the Capitol. And the second paragraph still says shot while crawling through a broken window to enter the Capitol. Aside from "entering the Capitol" being wrong, the verb "crawling" is inaccurate and POV. Here's an accurate description (attempted to climb through one of the doors where glass was broken out) and here are the videos showing her climbing through the window, then falling backwards after getting shot. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 05:57, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

  First, it's a background section. You're making a mountain out of a molehill here. There are also reliable sources that say "crawling through a window". See Salon. Frankly, I didn't consider there to be a difference between "crawling through a window" and "climbing through a window"—though I suppose crawling could imply the person was on the ground (if the window also went to the ground). But I don't actually care here—I don't object to "climbing through a window" or door or whatever. We can worry about how to describe it after the rfc.--Jerome Frank Disciple 14:25, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

This should likely be corrected: ...more than double those of the nearest losers.

This should likely be changed because it comes across as inappropriate wording for those with financial losses, irregardless of opinions of Donald Trump:

"The losses in 1990 and 1991, more than $250 million each year, were more than double those of the nearest losers."

4th Paragraph in Donald Trump#Wealth Starlighsky (talk) 01:44, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

It sure seems like this wording is off, but I'm not sure if it needs to be changed. While "loser" has been used as an insult, it's also technically correct here, as someone who loses something is by definition a loser. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 01:54, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

I just want add that in this context, it may be better to correct it. This article has been a reference a couple of times for opinions that Wikipedia is politically biased. It could come across as vindictive because Trump has called many people losers, and the use of words implies that Trump is part of classification of losers.

Correcting it can allow Wikipedia to emphasize its political neutrality, which some research on the use of terminology has already established Wikipedia as political neutral. Starlighsky (talk) 02:01, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

I get it, but the text isn't insulting Donald Trump by calling him a loser. Technically, anyone who loses something is a loser. That could be you, me, or a rich businessman/former President of the United States. The text is, in my honest opinion, fine. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 02:12, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

This is an interesting discussion. I just want to add that the objective of the writing is for articles in an encyclopedia type of format. Using Trump's style of speech could take away from the amazing effort Wikipedia has accomplished at maintaining the encyclopedic style.

If a cancer clinic files for bankruptcy, is it a loser? The term should likely be able to be used in any format to avoid bias. It is just a word. Wouldn't it be just be better to use words related to "comparable" and so on. With COVID, a lot of businesses filed losses on their tax returns. Keeping it more in the frame of reference of accounting may sound more professional. Starlighsky (talk) 03:07, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

This entry has been identified as politically biased for good reasons, and taking the term “loser” out to describe financial losses is hardly fixing things. It is a misleading narrative as told from a left-wing perspective. And worse – the Wiki elites have established their views as a “consensus” and are unwilling to tolerate opposing views.

From this entry, we learn that Trump is the worst president ever, according to unnamed “scholars and historians.” He is a racist and lied more than any president ever. There is no evidence to justify any of these subjective positions, no matter how many NY Times op-eds say otherwise; media and academic enmity of Trump is taken as fact.

Another telling example: the special counsel investigation on Russia simply states that it was found that Russia interfered in the election to benefit Trump. But this was not the primary purpose of this investigation, which was to determine if Trump collaborated with Russia to benefit his campaign, which the special counsel determined could not be proven.

This entry destroys any respect I may have had for Wikipedia. It is nothing short of a left-wing rag at this point. I appreciate the attempt to take out politically-loaded language, but this seems rather asinine when the entire flamboyantly biased work is considered. Benjibaird (talk) 14:25, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

I am glad I tried to change the use of the word "losers". I am not at the level here to make changes to this article, but am glad you are bringing this up. What you are saying has been brought up on Quora, a Q&A site, and likely other sites as well. Wikipedia, in a research study based on terminology, has been found to be generally political neutral. Those who can correct this article are helping Wikipedia maintain political neutrality as an encyclopedic source of information. Starlighsky (talk) 14:55, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

Being technically correct is not the end goal here. Defiect (talk) 13:09, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

I changed "losers" to "taxpayers". Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 07:09, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

That's good. In my opinion, this helps Wikipedia because it helps maintain political neutrality. Starlighsky (talk) 13:31, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

Good edit imo — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 16:42, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

Great. This is an actually neutral phrasing. Sean Demers (talk) 13:07, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

Good points. The Capitalist forever (talk) 05:18, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

Racism

Are we really going to pretend that Trump is racist. I mean this is the guy that was hanging out with Rosa Parks, Ali, Mike Tyson, Kanye west, had a black girlfriend and endorsed multiple black/Hispanic candidates and judges for jobs in federal court and government. Also there is no source for proof of connection that “many comments have been racially charged and or racist” that’s simply interpretation and or opinion there is also a major problem with saying “many of his comments have been described” the same thing could be said for Biden and dementia even though it’s probably true Biden does not have dementia but people still assume he does based off how he talks. Trumps actions on this do not come across as racist and therefore we should delete that part because it’s not based on fact but off interpretation. Also there is no source to back up that the majority of people believed he was racist. At least consider it I just think it’s important we treat all people and their pages with respect and dignity no matter how polarizing. we have to keep a non biased approach thank you if you read all that. 2601:14E:80:46D0:24CA:3C05:7B28:2919 (talk) 02:01, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

Please quote the article where it says Trump is racist. ―Mandruss ☎ 02:29, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

That’s my point there is no article, it’s all interpretation that does not match Trumps actions when it came to policy and social interactions towards the black/Hispanic community. It’s not up to Wikipedia to call a man racist with no source and with plenty of evidence pointing to the very contrary. Donald Trump was never considered racist and has a lot of poc he’s helped and endorsed etc. my point is I don’t think the racism lines are very fair to just label people with republican or democrat. 2601:14E:80:46D0:590A:CE16:949B:3390 (talk) 04:05, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

It alludes to that as if trying to push a point it doesn’t belong on one of the first lines in the man’s biography to start with saying “many of trumps comments have been called racially charged or racist” is completely inappropriate to put in an article for the whole world to read it sounds like a smear and alludes to him being racist for the person reading with absolutely no evidence/sources to confirm. A lot of politicians Joe biden, Hillary Clinton, Lyndon Johnson all have racist comments on tape none of them have a line like that in their bios it just seems very unfair and believe me people notice and that’s why they’re skeptical of alot of the things they read because there’s so much bias out there in recent times. All I’m asking is to take it into consideration, it’s not a fair line to put in the bio especially when all these other people literally have tapes of them saying very racist things. Also thank you for taking the time to read I know it’s a lot. 2601:14E:80:46D0:590A:CE16:949B:3390 (talk) 04:14, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, the article's racism-related content is consistent with Wikipedia's content policies. It never says Trump is racist; it says in effect that many reliable sources say so, or that they say that some of his comments have been racist in nature. That's a big difference. If reliable sources have said similar things with similar prominence about Joe Biden, Hillary Clinton, or Lyndon Johnson, then those articles should also report that (I'm fairly confident they have not). You might have a look at the most pertinent policy, Wikipedia:Neutral point of view.

That said, if you can provide a few reliable sources that support your viewpoint, it could possibly be included in addition to what the article already says – but not instead of it. ―Mandruss ☎ 05:07, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

hanging out with Rosa Parks, Ali: are you referring to the misinformation tweeted by Trump's then-lawyer Michael Cohen on October 18, 2016? It was debunked here and here but, of course, it keeps popping up on social media. girlfriend: as told by Trump on the Howard Stern show. Trump dated model Kara Young in 1997 before or while he was dating another model, Melania Knavs, in 1998 while he was married to his second wife until 1999. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 16:52, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

There are no reliable sources that say Trumps comments are racially charged or racist, that’s my point those are opinion pieces written by left leaning sources of news. But as far as the other comments that were actually racist made by other politicians on both sides of the aisle don’t get reported on their bios. It’s just not a fair and non biased call to leave that part in there for Trump. there’s literally no sources quoted to back that line up either. It just seems like bias to people that read the article. 2601:14E:80:46D0:590A:CE16:949B:3390 (talk) 10:47, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

Not true, without examples. Slatersteven (talk) 11:37, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

There are 28 cited sources in the Donald_Trump#Racial_views section. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 17:37, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

The sources you’ve listed again are interpreting racism not proving racism. Also here’s the source for the trump and Rosa parks meeting

https://news.yahoo.com/donald-trump-met-rosa-parks-photo-201818139.html

it is a fact not false information. Also your sources are quite literally the New York Times and the Washington post which both have clear left leaning biases. The comments and sections in those “racist comments” quite frankly are not racist unless you interpret them that way. Trump calls a poor country a “shithole” that has nothing to do with the race of the country and everything to do with the economics and government of the country. Also there are many sources to include literal racism on tape caught by multiple politicians that quite frankly are racist or at the very least racially insensitive here are the sources

Hillary Clinton https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2016/aug/28/reince-priebus/did-hillary-clinton-call-african-american-youth-su/

Joe Biden https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/bidens-tough-talk-on-1970s-school-desegregation-plan-could-get-new-scrutiny-in-todays-democratic-party/2019/03/07/9115583e-3eb2-11e9-a0d3-1210e58a94cf_story.html

Woodrow Wilson https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/11/wilson-legacy-racism/417549/

All of these politicians named have said blatant undeniably racist things on tape and or written laws that have been deemed racist, yet not one has in their Wikipedia article on one of the first paragraphs of their biographies “many have charged so and so’s comments as racist”. Even though with Trumps comments and actions it’s arguable that he’s not racist. With regards to the comments these other politicians have made they are undeniably racist. The way this article is phrased it almost seems like it’s trying to steer readers a certain way. The fact that this article leaves out in the main sections the middle eastern peace treaties, the de-escalation of tensions with North Korea, Operation Warp Speed, The Right To Try Act, Historic low unemployment numbers for women, black, Hispanic, and veteran populations seems to a lot of people like it’s not a very well and detailed biography of the Trump accomplishments. Yet if you read any other politicians bios the bios state the majority of the laws passed and their accomplishments. I agree that there were negative things to say about the presidency Trump held, but people have noticed there has been a stark difference in how Donald Trumps biography and presidency has been reported on compared to other presidents on both sides of the aisle from Wikipedia. I read Wikipedia daily and study politicians that’s why I’ve compiled this report for the wiki editors, to point out what the average reader might take from the contrasts of this page and other politicians. That being said, thank you for reading. 2601:14E:80:46D0:D4A5:BF12:4568:E138 (talk) 05:10, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

There appears to be a lot of deflection in this comment so let's make it simple: the sources are all considered reliable and they describe Trump's comments as racially charged. A source being perceived as left-leaning doesn't invalidate it.

This article indeed takes a different approach to other comparable articles, and that's to reflect how the sources describe him. No other comparable POTUS has had quite as many accusations of racism as Trump has, so we WP:WEIGHT our articles accordingly. — Czello ^(music) 06:50, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

I just gave you sources and names of presidents and politicians who actually said racist things and yet in their articles main passages there is no mention of their racist actions therefore readers consider bias when comparing articles. Is that simple enough for you? 2601:14E:80:46D0:D4A5:BF12:4568:E138 (talk) 06:55, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

Again, Trump has received far more accusations of racism than his contemporaries. Again, the WP:WEIGHT of the article must reflect the weight of the sources. If you think these accusations should be added to the articles of other politicians you should discuss it on their talk pages: all we do here is make sure that this article reflects what mainstream consensus on him is. — Czello ^(music) 07:18, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

Here’s one thing to consider as well. The mainstream media is dominantly left-leaning. So of course there is going to far more sources that talk bad about Trump, even if they are false. I’m not going to debate about the validity of those sources in the article because I only write in an objective way online, but on this topic of racism, there are a lot of articles out there that talk good about him on this topic, even left leaning ones. Here are a few examples:

https://apnews.com/article/c4834e48841d97c5a93312b1bf75302a

This article talks about a bipartisan bill that Trump signed that provided more than $250 million in funding to HBCUs. AP News is left-leaning and definitely in the mainstream media.

https://www.diverseeducation.com/demographics/african-american/article/15107830/hbcus-have-a-champion-in-president-trump

This article talks about how Trump has really helped out HBCUs and has given them more than any other president. Although Diverse Education may not be big in the media, it provides a solid voice for minorities online and talks about diversity issues, mostly within the black community.

https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/trump-black-americans-history-2020-deroy-murdock.amp

This article talks about Trump’s successes both socially and economically for African-Americans. It talks about the record unemployment rates and the criminal justice reform that Trump enacted. It also again talks about Trump’s contributions to HBCUs and the black community. Fox News is right-leaning, but it is definitely part of the mainstream media.

There A LOT more articles out there from both sides that praise him on the topic of racism, but for the sake of this response not being too long I only put 3. I read at least 20 positive-Trump articles during the time of this response, but decided on those 3. Anyway, back to the topic, there are definitely a lot of reliable sources out there that say he is racist, but there are definitely a lot of reliable sources out there from the mainstream media that he is not racist and did many great things for minority groups, especially African-Americans. From what I have stated above, there is absolutely enough reliable sources in the mainstream media to make the statement that Trump is not racist and that his contributions have helped minorities in a big way.

In conclusion, here is my edit request. In addition to what the lead section already says about him being considered racist you can put, “…, but many also consider him a non-racist and that he has helped minority groups in many big ways.” In addition to what the Racial views section of his page already says about him being considered racist, you can put, “…, but many of his actions have also not been considered racist as he had helped minority groups in a big way during his presidency.” You can include the sources that I listed above, but you can also find other ones if need-be. You don’t also have to use those lines stated above word-for-word, but anything close to that would be good. Thank you for reading all of this. I hope you take this into consideration and make this edit request. Thanks, Rane43. Rane43 (talk) 22:08, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

Since you are new to editing political pages, please read Wikipedia’s guidance on reliable sources, neutral point of view, and, in particular, the section on false balance. Two of the sources you mention are opinions by Republican commentators and activists Paris Dennard and Deroy Murdock. The third one, AP, only mentions Trump as having signed a bipartisan bill and then quotes him taking credit. The full story is more complicated. He first tried to cut funding for HBCUs and related programs from his budget proposals. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 12:43, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

I’ve read those policies you gave me several times. I know what they are. But here’s what I think you’re missing. There are a lot of Republicans in the mainstream media, and they have written just as much reliable sources that show the anti-racist things he has done. There is a lot of general consensus from reliable sources that Trump is not racist and that he helped out minorities. The AP article describes how he gave permanent funding to HBCUs and simplified the FASFA. In the end, he still signed this law, even though he may wanted to cut it at first. But IN THE END, he signed this law and that is considered a non-racist accomplishment. He actually signed an executive order in his first 100 days before this bill was passed that showed his commitment to HBCUs and minorities. Here is a great PBS article to read.https://www.pbs.org/newshour/amp/nation/trump-signs-executive-order-black-collegesThere is obviously a lot of right-leaning articles that say he’s not racist, but there are definitely left-leaning ones too. I have found a total of 22 of them at the point of this response in just a few hours. Again, for the sake of this response, I am not going to put 22 articles on here, but here is what I’m trying to say. There is definitely enough weight, from both left and right reliable sources, that a general consensus could be made that Trump did not do things racially motivated and this he is not racist. There are a lot of sources out there that say he is not because of the contributions he made and actions he took. That’s all I’m saying. Yes, there is a consensus that he may be racist, but there is also one that say he is not, maybe even more than the former. I know the guidelines. I’ve read them 100 times. But I’m just trying to make people be aware that there is another general consensus from the mainstream media. This topic focuses on racism, but there are also many more to be discussed. Thanks for reading and I hope you understand the point I’m trying to make. Rane43 (talk) 13:50, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

Okay, I'm not going to be too long here, but just to clarify, I assume what you're objecting to is the racial-views section and this from the lede:

Many of his comments and actions have been characterized as racially charged or racist ....

Let's, for now, just focus on the lede and be clear as to what that's saying: Trump has said or done things, and those things have been characterized as racially charged or racist.

I think one issue with what you're saying emerges when you look at this sentence in isolation: "There are a lot of Republicans in the mainstream media, and they have written just as much reliable sources that show the anti-racist things he has done." But we have a WP:SYNTH problem here: You're providing examples of actions that Trump took to specifically benefit black communities, and most of your examples you have supported with reliable sources. Great so far.

But here's where the problem comes in. We have two sentences (which I'll paraphrase):

1. "Many of Trump's actions/comments have been characterized as racist."
2. "Trump signed an executive order to help HBCUs."

But those sentences don't at all contradict each other! The fact that some of Trump's actions haven't been called racist (or might even be "anti-racist", though I would note that's your evaluation—it's not in the PBS article or the AP article) doesn't cast doubt on whether many of his comments/actions have been characterized as racist.

The same issue emerges when we consider the racial-views section. Here, it's a bit more nuanced, but, in short, that section describes actions or comments that have been considered either reflective of Trump's views on race or his willingness to exploit racist appeals. So, if you're saying the HBCU story should be in there as a counterexample, then you need reliable sources suggesting that the HBCU executive order is reflective of Trump's racial views.--Jerome Frank Disciple 14:36, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

Ok, so what you are saying is that I have to find reliable sources that say that xxx policy/words that Trump enacted/said reflects that he is not racist. Not just the things he did, but the article has to make the point that he isn’t racist and that people don’t view him as so. Is that correct? If so, that is fine. I will find enough to make a general consensus and report back here. Thank you though for clarifying. I understand the policies, I’m just trying to put this all in a way where it is acceptable because of the vast amount of them that there are. Thanks again for the response, I’m glad to be having these discussions. Rane43 (talk) 18:36, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

I move that we add the right to try act, operation warp speed, opportunity zones, and school choice int the summarized version of the Trumps bio. If you commit to that on the basis that we compile the sources citing the following I and others will gladly do it. This isn’t defending Trump just adding information that belongs in the summary. 2601:14E:80:46D0:6080:980C:E405:54BA (talk) 02:19, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

No editor will commit to that without seeing your sources. That would be foolish. By the way, are you Rane43? ―Mandruss ☎ 02:53, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

I am not I just read just study politics/politicians and noticed that there were some irregularities when contrasting this POTUS bio with other POTUS. I understand where you’re coming from with the editorial stuff I will work on that soon. 2600:1002:B183:A57B:39C8:99E6:544B:37BA (talk) 03:22, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

Nope, none of these users are me. Rane43 is my only account. We are all just genuine people who are trying to make Trump’s page better. Rane43 (talk) 14:03, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

Also there was no deflection everything I’ve wrote was fact and non-biased, that’s why I included sources. You also didn’t address warp speed right to try act and other things I mentioned not being in Trumps main passages on the bio. 2601:14E:80:46D0:D4A5:BF12:4568:E138 (talk) 07:00, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

There is no such thing as unbiased media. If a source claims to be the unbiased truth, that's not news, it's propaganda. Everyone has a bias, whether intentionally or not. You are not unbiased, and you are not immune to propaganda. No one is. Ferocious Flying Ferrets 23:00, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

Okay you didn’t answer the question of why racism is involved in the main bio but the laws and accomplishments for the Trump presidency such as the right to try act are not but whatever keep showing the bad and hiding the good. 2601:14E:80:46D0:A467:3E3C:D9A7:4E4A (talk) 04:19, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

Neutrality does not mean balance. Giving undue weight to perceived positives for the sake of countering with notable information that you view unfavorably is intellectually dishonest. Your disagreement with which sources are reliable is irrelevant. Ferocious Flying Ferrets 08:00, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

I’m not disagreeing with the sources I’m saying your bias is clear there are plenty of good things to take away from the trump admin such as the right to try act, Covid relief funding, operation warp speed, unemployment rates,no new wars, k-9 protective bill, permanent funding for hbcus, opportunity zones which heavily helped minority areas, and also school choice. But none of these things are included in the bio, but you know what is, how his comments that were perceived by the opposite party and left leaning news sources to be racist. It doesn’t make sense and I’m starting to think maybe you don’t want to make an edit the article not because I’m right or wrong but because maybe you just dislike trump. 2601:14E:80:46D0:6080:980C:E405:54BA (talk) 01:39, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

First Step Act

The First Step Act was one of the more notable pieces of Legislation in his administration alongside being the most high-profile bipartisan pieces of legislation signed during the Trump presidency. Despite this, there has been no mention of it at all within the presidency section of his article and there should probably be some mention of it as at least a paragraph as was done with 'The Respect for Marriage Act' and 'Lilly Leadbetter Fair Pay act' of his predecessor and successor. LosPajaros (talk) 02:25, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

I think it's a close call. I will say, as someone semi-involved in criminal-justice reform, I was a little surprised to see it not mentioned. Sources covering the act generally agree that it was both (1) only a start on the matter of mass incarceration but (2) still "the most significant [federal] criminal justice reform legislation in years" Vox. That said, Trump's relationship to the Act is complicated, as noted by several sources, including this recent Semafor article: Donald Trump used to brag about the First Step Act. Not any more.

There is, of course, an article on the Presidency of Donald Trump, and, per WP:SUMMARY, this article should only include the top-line-level details. So the question here is, "Is the First Step Act a top-line-level detail?" I actually think that's a close call: Now, a lot of editors hate doing this, but I think the only way a real answer to that question can be answered is by looking at what the article currently considers top-line-level details. Under Social issues (which I imagine is where reference to the First Step Act would go), we currently discuss his rollback of "key components of the Obama administration's workplace protections" for LGBT people and his anti-marijuana position. Based on my review of sources, the First Step Act got far more coverage, proportionally, than either of those items. As such, I think you're probably right that it should be included.--Jerome Frank Disciple 13:59, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

I still think it should be mentioned as a notable piece of legislation passed during his presidency. Even if you can argue that he was not super personally involved with the process in general, it was still one of the most notable pieces of legislation passed during his presidency and one that he does in fact take credit for to the level where he actually is getting some attacks for it by his primary opponents. Not all pieces of legislation have super in-depth involvement by the president they were passed under. For example, Lyndon Johnson was not super involved in the passing of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965 but because it is a fairly notable piece of legislation it is still noted as a piece of policy under his domestic legacy and personal Wikipedia article with the noted caveat that he had limited involvement with it. Additionally, George W. Bush wasn't super involved in the creation of PEPFAR but it is still mentioned under his article as well. I do not see why Trump would be treated differently in this regard. LosPajaros (talk) 20:52, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

Conflicting Information in "Misogyny and allegations of sexual misconduct" Section

The Misogyny and allegations of sexual misconduct section has what could be taken as conflicting accounts of the same event. I do want to start with what Trump said was wrong, and he apologized for what he had said. However, there are conflicting accounts in the two adjacent sentences. It says that he said women will let him grab them. The adjacent sentence says he was groping women without their permission. I completely understand what the author(s) are trying to say, but it seems that this could be worded in a way where the two sentences do not contradict each other. Starlighsky (talk) 14:13, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

I don't see the contradiction. Full Trump quote: "I’m automatically attracted to beautiful women — I just start kissing them, it's like a magnet. Just kiss. I don't even wait. And when you’'re a star, they let you do it. You can do anything," he said in the 2005 conversation. "Grab 'em by the pussy." He seems to be saying that "stars" have women's tacit consent to be "grabbed and kissed", but saying it doesn't make it so. 26 women said that he didn't have their consent. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 13:22, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

I am glad you pointed that out. What you wrote gives greater clarity to the idea being presented. If that can be added to the article, it avoids any notion of contradiction. If it is preferred, I am able add it. Starlighsky (talk) 13:26, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

I have not seen mainstream sources express concern that there is any contradiction, ambiguity, or lack of clarity about Trump's recorded remarks. SPECIFICO talk 14:02, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

I have in terms of Wikipedia's coverage of Donald Trump in general. That is why I am trying to help. I am at the editorial level that I am allowed to edit the article myself, and wanted to go over the article here before I make an edit. Starlighsky (talk) 14:07, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

NO contradiction, he made a claim and his victims disputed it. Slatersteven (talk) 14:06, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

The more information the better, as it should be for any former president. Starlighsky (talk) 14:08, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

That is not the saem argument as contradiction. Slatersteven (talk) 14:11, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

I wanted to discuss any significant item I could add to the article beforehand. I could add the full quote, which adds more clarity to the wrongfulness of what he said. Starlighsky (talk) 14:16, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

Then start a new thread, do not shift the goal posts of this one. If there is no contradiction accept that or point out what it actually is, as noo one else seems to see it. Slatersteven (talk) 14:19, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

Is there affirmative consent for just adding the full quote?

It would take me a moment and gives the entire context of the wrongfulness of what he said. Starlighsky (talk) 14:23, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

Starlighsky, please, self-revert this edit. That's too much detail for the top bio. Also, Wikipedia is not a reliable source, per WP:NOTRS. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 14:58, 25 June 2023 (UTC) And this one, too. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 15:00, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

^ Agreed. That's just too much.--Jerome Frank Disciple 14:59, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

I assume the content dispute is settled? GoodDay (talk) 18:19, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

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)

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)

I think (as this is a BLP) we have to include his denial. Slatersteven (talk) 14:21, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

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)

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)

"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)

But we should also include any court findings. Slatersteven (talk) 14:22, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Ok...What is BLP? Starlighsky (talk) 14:23, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

wp:BLP biography of a living person. Slatersteven (talk) 14:26, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

More specifically WP:PUBLICFIGURE. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 14:49, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

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.

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)

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)

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)

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

There was a consensus. Someone seconded the idea. Starlighsky (talk) 15:11, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

Not quite, they agreed we should have his denial, not how we should have it. Slatersteven (talk) 15:15, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

Ok...I have to give up on this. I will work on other articles instead. Starlighsky (talk) 17:12, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

References

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." [20] 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)

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

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)

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)

@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. [21] 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)

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)

@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)

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)

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:

• Business Insider
• Vice News
• ABC News
• Independent
• Yahoo News

Can, of course, get more if requested--Jerome Frank Disciple 19:35, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

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)

"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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

First, you're wrong about the Yahoo and Business Insider story:

• Business Insider link (from above): "the president has broadly denied all of the sexual misconduct accusations made against him".
• Yahoo! link (from above): Trump has repeatedly denied any accusations of sexual assault

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Nor do we need to satisfy one holdout editor demanding others persuade them.--Jerome Frank Disciple 16:00, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

I agree with following BLP policy and therefore including the denial. Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:21, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

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" [22]. 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)

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[23]). Is succinct while Satisfying BLP, RS and DUE. O3000, Ret. (talk) 21:07, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

@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."[24]

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)

"Baselessly"? Really? Baselessly? Cessaune [talk] 19:27, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

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)

It's not bad. I woudl support it. But, still, "baselessly" is shocking to me. Cessaune [talk] 21:41, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Seconded.--Jerome Frank Disciple 18:12, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Legacy / Public profile

Hello! I saw there was some dispute over what to title the public profile/legacy section. @Interstellarity: I usually agree with you that consistency across articles should be promoted, but in this case I really think Space4Time3Continuum2x is right: Particularly given that Trump is actively running for president again, it'd be a little strange to use "Legacy" to title the section here.--Jerome Frank Disciple 13:03, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

I mean, even if he wasn't, he's not dead, and Legacy sections are typically reserved for dead people/previous events (unless it was smething like Post-presidential legacy, which it isn't). Public profile fits better IMO. Cessaune [talk] 16:43, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

Hi everyone, I just saw the message regarding Space4Time3Continuum2x's revert of my edit on the title of the section. After thinking about it for some time, it usually makes sense for a legacy section to be made when a person is no longer actively in the news or is dead. Trump seems to be in the news a lot since his indictments and presidential campaign. We actually do have some people that are still alive that have a legacy section like some of the former presidents that are still alive. I'd be interested in hearing your thoughts if you have any or if you agree fully of what I have said. Interstellarity (talk) 17:40, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

Oregon fire district election

Donald Trump won election to Hubbard fire district through write-in votes. If he had nominated for the election, this would be included in the article. Since the election would not be noteworthy otherwise, the connection to Trump in that instance would render it noteworthy for inclusion. I would argue that a write-in campaign, even one unbeknownst to the candidate, provides a similar connection rendering it worthy of inclusion in the article of the person who was elected. Therefore, I feel this election should be included in the post-presidency section. Alextheconservative (talk) 10:07, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

He got two votes and then won by a literal roll of a die to be the fifth member of the board of a fire district, a job no one ran for? No, this isn't close. O3000, Ret. (talk) 10:40, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

The amount of votes cast is irrelevant; the fact is that it was an election, and Trump won. Regardless of the position, I feel it should be included. It would be included on an "Electoral History of Donald Trump" page. Alextheconservative (talk) 10:57, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

Why, is this a major election, or some trivial rubbish no one even cared about (not even, in fact, him).? Slatersteven (talk) 11:14, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

Mickey Mouse and Donald Duck regularly get write-in votes in actual, major elections. O3000, Ret. (talk) 12:34, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

Hubbard Rural Fire Protection District, Director (unpaid position, one of five, three up for election, two with incumbents running, no candidates for the third position, 286 votes total, and you have to live in the district to be eligible). Trump and four other people received 2 write-in votes each, 15 received one vote. We don't mention Trump's hair, and that has received much more attention than this. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 13:30, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

More relevant audio recording?

I know there has been some debate about whether the current audio file is super relevant to his presidency as a whole or not so I thought I'd provide another option for a more relevant piece if it is deemed preferable. The audio file presented is of Donald Trump's presidential address to the Nation following the announcment of the Covid-19 pandemic as a worldwide pandemic by the WHO. Given the pandemic was likely the most notable event to occur during his presidency (with maybe the exception of January 6th) I don't think there should be any debate as to whether it's notable or not. If others believe that the current audio file is fine that's also fine with me. I just know there was some initial concern about relevance to his presidency as a whole so I thought I'd provide a potential replacement if consensus is reached in that regard. the file is as follows:

Donald Trump speaks on declaration of Covid-19 as a Global Pandemic by the World Health Organization.ogg

The date of recording was March 11, 2020 LosPajaros (talk) 05:39, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

Criminal justice reform

The first step act should be added

https://trumpwhitehouse.archives.gov/briefings-statements/president-donald-j-trump-championed-reforms-providing-hope-forgotten-americans/

It was a great bi-partisan achievement and is worthy of mention. 2601:14E:80:46D0:9CF9:22D4:A8FB:F620 (talk) 06:00, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

Hi! This has been brought up before, and I think my opinion hasn't changed, though I do think it's a semi close call. If there aren't objections I'll try to think of a one-sentence inclusion we could put under "social issues". For now, just restating my reasoning from before.

Per WP:SUMMARY, we have to ask, essentially, whether the Act is a top-line level detail. Sources covering the act generally agree that it was both (1) only a start on the matter of mass incarceration but (2) still "the most significant [federal] criminal justice reform legislation in years" Vox. That said, Trump's relationship to the Act is complicated, as noted by several sources, including this recent Semafor article: Donald Trump used to brag about the First Step Act. Not any more.

Given the other subjects the article currently covers in the social-issues section (including Trump's anti-marijuana position or his rollback of LGBT workplace protections, which both got significantly less attention than the First Step Act), I think you're probably right it should be included.--Jerome Frank Disciple 12:39, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

Opposed. More like a drop in a bucket bill bill, much ado (Kim Kardashian!, Kanye West!) about relatively little, per Vox and its source, this WaPo analysis. The act has one sentence in Presidency_of_Donald_Trump#Criminal_justice, i.e., he signed a bipartisan criminal justice reform bill. ("Sought to" — not a word about how Trump's Justice Department implemented it or, rather, didn't.) Also, re anti-marijuana position ... got significantly less attention than the First Step Act, how many of the incarcerated drug offenders are incarcerated for cannabis?) Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 14:43, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

Exclusively cannabis? ... very, very, VERY few. I promise far more people have been released early due to the First Step Act than are incarcerated on federal charges for exclusively marijuana-related offenses. The advocacy org you link cites some studies showing 3000 people would be released if marijuana were retroactively decriminalized. But 3000 people were released early thanks to the First Step Act in just its first year, with the total as of July 2022 around 7500. (The ~10000 number they use is itself ... complicated—I mean, it includes "individuals that have cannabis offenses treated as secondary offense" ... but, except to the portion of a sentence that's exclusively attributable to the marijuana offense, those persons would be incarcerated anyway.) Also, even more significantly, Trump's personal opposition to marijuana would have very little to do with the vast majority of the persons incarcerated for marijuana. Trump's unilateral action would only affect a small fraction of the number incarcerated—as Biden's pardon showed. (Granted, even Biden refused to pardon persons accused of selling or distributing marijuana.) As The Marshall Project reported: "As far as bold acts of mass clemency go, [Biden's pardon] won’t lead to many people getting out of prison. In fact, it will lead to none. According to the White House and a report this week from the U.S. Sentencing Commission (USSC) there is no one currently in federal custody for simple possession of marijuana."

But I think the larger issue I take is more philosophical—asking whether reliable sources or editors should determine due weight for the purposes of WP:SUMMARY. If reliable sources–including contemporaneous coverage and retrospectives are more likely to mention the First Step Act than Trump's marijuana views, then I think it's fairly obvious that this article should, too. In fact, retrospectives are exceedingly unlikely to mention Trump's marijuana views, and it seems a bit dangerous to say, in the face of those sources, "well I've personally researched the matter and those views were actually more impactful than the First Step Act" (which, for the record, none of the sources say! In fact, not even the link you provided says Trump's personal opposition to marijuana was significant!).--Jerome Frank Disciple 15:26, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

Regardless of personal opinion it should be added it was signed into law by and supported by Donald Trump. 2600:1002:B157:B56:4AD:FE6D:1629:32F7 (talk) 19:12, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

Opportunity Zones

Opportunity Zones should be added to the presidency part of bio the trump admin did 9,000 opportunity zones for low income areas.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/29/business/tax-bill-economic-recovery-opportunity-zones.html 2601:14E:80:46D0:9CF9:22D4:A8FB:F620 (talk) 06:04, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

Opposed. This was part of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, and it rated one sentence in the Miscellaneous tax provisions section. Isn't even mentioned in Presidency of Donald Trump. How should we mention it, under Economy, subsection "Windfalls for the rich"? ProPublica, NBC, Politico, FactCheck, NY Times — quote: Among the early beneficiaries of the tax incentive are billionaire financiers like Leon Cooperman and business magnates like Sidney Kohl — and Mr. Trump’s family members and advisers. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 10:54, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

Agree with Space4Time3Continuum2x. Given that this article is split per WP:SUMMARY, we have to consider relative noteworthiness here—which can, usually, best be judged by examining the proportionate attention a subject received relative to the overall coverage of Trump by reliable sources. Above, I agreed that the First Step Act should probably be mentioned, but that has to do with the amount of attention both it and its association with Trump have received. But opportunity zones are just not generally written about as a significant issue in terms of Trump's presidency or legacy.--Jerome Frank Disciple 12:34, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

Ok your bias is crazy right now I’ve been reading your responses and honestly when it comes to political discussions and accuracy you should just not talk, every response you type is just your opinion and this is not the place for that @spacetime. 174.216.50.35 (talk) 19:19, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

Right To Try Act

The Right to Try act should be added to the bio as it gave access to experimental treatment for terminally ill patients who without the right to try act could not even try to benefit from experimental treatments.

https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2018/05/30/politics/right-to-try-donald-trump/index.html 2601:14E:80:46D0:9CF9:22D4:A8FB:F620 (talk) 06:08, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

Hi! I appreciate that you're using reliable sources, but my response in the above section, unfortunately, also applies here. Perhaps you could suggest inclusion on Presidency of Donald Trump (if it's not already there)?--Jerome Frank Disciple 12:35, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

Oppose. "Trump signed" is the extent of his involvement per Right-to-try law, no mention in Presidency of Donald Trump. Found a few sources that boil down to this: Motivated by efforts to weaken FDA regulation and sold as providing greater access to experimental drugs, the federal Right to Try Act (RTT) was passed in 2017. It reduces FDA oversight by not requiring physicians to report safety data and foregoes approval of protocols by local institutional review boards. Additionally, Right to Try does not actually give patients the right to try any unapproved drug they wish to try. Instead, it gives them the right to request access to an unapproved drug from the company that makes it, without having to go through the FDA. Bypassing the FDA does not necessarily mean that such access will be granted.. Also Bloomberg Law, CNN. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 12:43, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

Ok so it was signed into law and supported by Donald Trump and you won’t mention it at all @Space4Time3Continuum2x ? Seems like more of a personal bias than actual reporting on the Trump Presidency. 2600:1002:B157:B56:4AD:FE6D:1629:32F7 (talk) 19:24, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

"Changes the meaning"

@SPECIFICO:, can you explain how "more than once" changes the meaning in a way that doesn't make the statement "Trump is the only American president to have been impeached [twice / more than once]" more accurate? [25]--Jerome Frank Disciple 15:59, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

I hope we can all agree that 2 > 1! Then again, can't take much for granted on this page. I guess I can upload a picture of my fingers to show my work.

I don't actually think this needs to be addressed, but "only to be impeached twice" is, at least arguably, ambiguous—which is why, I imagine, another editor added "two or more times". Technically, you could argue that a president impeached three times was impeached twice, since he had to be impeached twice to be impeached three times. But let's imagine that every other president in history had been impeached—some once, some three times, some four times. It would also be accurate (though perhaps ill advised) to say "Trump is the only American president to have been impeached twice." There, it would not be accurate to say Trump was the only president impeached more than once. Conversely, it is accurate, in our real-world history, to say Trump was the only president impeached more than once.--Jerome Frank Disciple 16:08, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

Completely uninvolved, just watching these edits today. I don't want to speak for anyone, but I think twice is more precise, closer to the actual number, but not necessarily more or less accurate. My best guess is that it could be construed by the uninformed that he was impeached more than twice. I don't mind one way or another. - AquilaFasciata (talk | contribs) 16:12, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

Yes, and also that, well, they all get it once but only Pres. Trump did more than once. SPECIFICO talk 16:43, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

Fair enough! I was trying to capture the prior user's "2 or more times" edit, which I thought was awkward, but I'm also okay with twice.--Jerome Frank Disciple 16:50, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

"Twice", would be less wordy & still get the info across. GoodDay (talk) 19:21, 29 June 2023 (UTC)