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 Superseded by #15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 (Nov 2016, Dec 2016) (Superseded by #15 since 11 February 2017)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 Superseded by #35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 (Sep 2016, February 2017, wording shortened per April 2017, upheld with July 2018) (superseded by #35 since 18 February 2019)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 Superseded by #17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 (Jan 2017, Jan 2017, Jan 2017, Jan 2017, Jan 2017, Feb 2017) (superseded by #17 since 2 April 2017)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

Flouting of democratic norms

I proposed a Democratic backsliding section in January, which was not discussed in depth. I'm now presenting an improved version. This section is not about Trumpism, but about Trump's direct impact on America's democracy. It is sourced solely to scholarly sources, which is far better than most of our article. And it uses these sources to put forward an analytical appraisal, which our articles needs more of. I use two sources: a study by Yascha Mounk and Stefan Foa, published in the high-impact factor Policy Studies Journal. And a book written by two scholars, Steven Levitsky and Daniel Ziblatt, called How Democracies Die, which The Economist described as "the most important book of the Trump era", and which we don't currently use. The heading could be "Flouting of democratic norms", or "Abandonment of democratic norms".

Political scientists have analyzed Trump's presidency as both a cause and a consequence of America's increasing polarization. Levitszky and Ziblatt say that Trump benefited from a democracy weakened by "extreme partisan polarization", and was the first U.S. president in the last century to meet all four criteria of their "litmus test for autocrats": a weak commitment to democratic norms, delegitimization of political opponents, toleration and encouragement of political violence, and a willingness to curb the civil liberties of opponents and critics. Foa and Mounk say Trump disregarded democratic norms through his tacit or active endorsement of vigilante groups, his lack of commitment to respecting electoral outcomes, and his lack of repudiation of political violence, which weakened the country's "institutional equilibrium", and may "prove to be his most damaging legacy".

Please don't just treat this as an up-or-down vote, which would make it hard to reach a consensus.

DFlhb (talk) 23:21, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

References

I’m not convinced this adds much to what’s already in this BLP. For example, this BLP already discusses the problem respecting electoral outcomes. It may be worth pointing out that political polarization created fertile ground for his election in 2016, but perhaps political polarization is already common knowledge. Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:35, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

We do already cover election denial and incitement to violence, but we lack anything about the resulting hard-to-reverse damage to American democracy, which is echoed by many other sources (I just picked the two WP:BESTSOURCES, which happen to frame it the most conservatively rather than calling him an "authoritarian" like many other WP:RS). The word norm doesn't appear in our article, despite plentiful sourcing. DFlhb (talk) 00:08, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Your proposed paragraph appears to be an example of what it mentions, "extreme partisan polarization", since the paragraph reads like a one-sided attack piece. However, in that regard it is somewhat consistent with the rest of the article, so it's hard to exclude it for that reason. Bob K31416 (talk) 00:03, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Focusing on norms would be fine, but then it would be necessary to discuss other norms, like the norm of not indicting a former president, or repeatedly impeaching him, or marshaling the intelligence community in an effort to label him a foreign agent, etc etc. Norms work both ways. Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:19, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

They do work both ways, as Foa & Mounk describe (it's on Sci-Hub), which is why norm violations are dangerous. My previous version included a (peer-reviewed) analysis by Steven Simon that made this point more explicit; I'd be happy to re-include him. But I don't think sources support the idea that the things you list were partisan efforts by Democrats. DFlhb (talk) 01:17, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Please don't write nonsense like "norm of not indicting a former president." SPECIFICO talk 01:46, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

"The expected prosecution of Trump shatters an unwritten American political norm and brings the United States more in line with dozens of other nations, including democracies such as South Korea, Brazil, France, Italy and Israel, that have criminally charged, convicted and in many cases jailed former leaders."

This statement about norms is not nonsense at all, User:SPECIFICO. Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:49, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

unwritten norm. It's a cherry-picked quote from a long article citing legal scholars and historians on how and why this happened/had to happen (short version: because the U.S. is not a banana republic). Do you have any sources for the other "norms" you mention (not indicting a former president, not impeaching a sitting president more than once, and "marshaling the intelligence community")? Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 09:43, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

I disagree it’s “cherry-picked”, and I’m not eager to find more sources that you can then call cherry-picked too. The point I was making is that breaking some norms is widely viewed as good, breaking some norms is widely viewed as bad, and Trump has both broken norms and been the target of norm-breakers. These are my present comments about how to research and write a paragraph about Trump and norms. I’m not proposing any such paragraph, just responding to a user who sounded like he might want to research and write such a paragraph. Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:07, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

LOL. MANDY. Of course it's not cherrypicked. OK. SPECIFICO talk 17:54, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

I understand “LOL” (which is no more persuasive than “ROFLMAO” would be) but I don’t understand why you mention “MANDY”. Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:59, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Nobody was really expecting you to acknowledge that it was cherrypicked. That would be flouting the norm. SPECIFICO talk 19:04, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Anythingyouwant, I think you made a good point with your source and they didn't. I've seen the false cherry-picked accusation made before, where 3 supporting RS (CNN, Washington Post, and New York Times) all had the supporting material for the same item in both the title and body. It's nonsense but it seems to fly on this talk page if it supports an anti-Trump position. Maybe that will change someday. Who knows. Bob K31416 (talk) 19:24, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

SPECIFICO and Space4T, simply shouting that something is 'cherrypicked! cherrypicked!' without providing a rebuttal source/sources or justifying why said excerpt is cherrypicked by actually analyzing the source is a useless, time-wasting exercise. It's a cherry-picked quote from a long article citing legal scholars and historians on how and why this happened/had to happen (short version: because the U.S. is not a banana republic) is not an analyzation of the source (or at least not what I would consider a good one), and you provided no sources to stuff that disproves the point Anything is trying to make. Please actually prove your point instead of stating a point as if it's a fact into the air so we can move forward (the subsequent snarky comments after the inital cherrypicking comment affirm this claim; SPECIFICO, you literally state ...nobody was really expecting you to acknowledge that it was cherrypicked as if the fact that Anything's statement is cherrypicked is an undisputed truth). Speaking of the snark, SPECIFICO, I fully condemn it. Especially considering that you didn't actually justify your own point (neither did Space4T, who made the original cherrypicking accusation) and only put it out there in an 'my point is obviously correct' kind of way, and then used that false assertion that the cherrypicking performed by Anything is a fact rather than your opinion as a conduit into language that, best case scenario, is unnecessary/ill-timed, and, worst case scenario, lowers editor morale, causes unnecessary annoyance, incentivizes constant talk page screaming, and creates a hostile editing environment where people feel like !voting and RfCs are the only way to actualy get things done. This practice of yelling 'cherrypicked! cherrypicked!' without even an attempt to prove that statement needs to stop.

Note that this doesn't necessarily mean that the cherrypicking accusation isn't correct. However, I agree with Anything's statement, and, going off of the source provided, Anything's statement above IMO isn't cherrypicked. Key quotes:

The expected prosecution of Trump shatters an unwritten American political norm and brings the United States more in line with dozens of other nations, including democracies such as South Korea, Brazil, France, Italy and Israel, that have criminally charged, convicted and in many cases jailed former leaders.

“Anyone who is worried that this will be the beginning of a pattern of indicting past presidents is right to be worried,” said Jill Lepore, a Harvard University historian and author.

“It’s the failure to indict Mr. Trump simply because he was once the president that would say we were well on the way to becoming a banana republic,” said Laurence Tribe, a Harvard University legal scholar.

“Part of it has also been an unfortunate view that ex-presidents deserve some kind of monarchical immunity that normal citizens do not,” [Michael Beschloss] said. “How do you explain to someone who steals toothpaste from a drugstore that they are more subject to American law than a president is?

This isn't cherrypicking at all IMO. It seems obvious to me that the source is presenting both sides of the argument in tandem. They can both be used effectively to argue the point that 'while indicting a former president and major presidential candidate breaks a clear American norm and may set a very dangerous precedent, it does not mean that we shouldn't do so, and, in fact, not doing so might set an equally dangerous precedent'. This is definitely more in line with Anything's line of reasoning than the cherrypicking line of reasoning IMO, as Anything's claim is something that was explicitly stated: unwritten American norm being broken here, which is not disproven by any claim later on. The cherrypicking claim above tries to state that the article is talking about the reasons why Trump's indictment is necessary. Again, it seems pretty obvious to me that that isn't the case and that the article isn't actually arguing a point but simply characterizing the two sides, which aren't even really sides because you can believe in both simultaneously and be wholly correct. Cessaune [talk] 02:26, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

This is Anything’s comment I was "snarking" about: Focusing on norms would be fine, but then it would be necessary to discuss other norms, like the norm of not indicting a former president, or repeatedly impeaching him, or marshaling the intelligence community in an effort to label him a foreign agent, etc etc. Norms work both ways. They then later contradicted Specifico's opinion that that sentence is nonsense with the article in question. I don’t even support adding DFlhb’s or your proposed text to the article but Anything turned DFlhb's a weak commitment to democratic norms, delegitimization of political opponents, toleration and encouragement of political violence, and a willingness to curb the civil liberties of opponents and critics "exactly backwards and upside-down" - and that’s quoting Laurence Tribe as quoted in the WaPo article, the part you did not quote: "It’s the failure to indict Mr. Trump simply because he was once the president that would say we were well on the way to becoming a banana republic," said Laurence Tribe, a Harvard University legal scholar who taught Barack Obama and advised his presidential campaign and administration. "Those who fear that indicting a former president would say that U.S. democracy is in trouble have it exactly backwards and upside-down." Here’s another "key quote" (now I'm snarking about your "key points") from the same article: But many scholars of the Constitution and the executive branch say the charges demonstrate the strength of U.S. democracy, proving that not even a former president is above the law. My last point about the article: none of the quoted scholars and historians mention the word "norm". Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 11:11, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

1) The snark comment was directly aimed at SPECIFICO, not you.

2) I did quote the Laurence Tribe thing, just not the last sentence. I thought that what I had quoted was sufficient to prove the point you just made above.

3) The last sentence you quote, if anything, reinforces my point that the article wasn't actually making a point, especially when juxtaposed with the earlier ...several said it was a moment that could open a new era of legal peril for former presidents, including the possibility of tit-for-tat, politically motivated prosecutions. It's just a chacterization of the two 'sides' of the argument. Maybe that weakens Anything's point, but it's definitely not cherrypicking. Right? Maybe I'm wrong. Cessaune [talk] 12:32, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

You’re wrong, and I was the one who said "cherry-picked", not Specifico. DFhlb’s attributed proposal says that Trump met "all four criteria of their 'litmus test for autocrats’" and disregarded democratic norms through endorsements of vigilantes, not accepting electoral outcomes, and not rejecting political violence. Anything countered with "what-about". No sitting president having been impeached twice, no former president having been indicted prior to Trump - that’s history, an unwritten "norm" only because it hadn’t happened before. And "marshaling the intelligence community" - I don’t know which conspiracy theory that’s referring to, but it’s definitely not mentioned in the WaPo article which deals with opinions on whether Trump should be indicted. Also, the article was written before Trump’s arraignment. Trump wasn’t handcuffed, there were no MAGA riots, and New Yorkers shouted down Greene and made her tuck tail and run. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 15:50, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

I was only referring to the specific issue of indictment, not the broader context. The entire phrase by Anything—like the norm of not indicting a former president, or repeatedly impeaching him, or marshaling the intelligence community in an effort to label him a foreign agent, etc etc.—I don't necessarily agree with. Only the first phrase. And, as I thought was clear, the source provided by Anythin is only an attempt to justify the first part of the phrase, not the entire thing.

Statements like that’s history, an unwritten "norm" only because it hadn’t happened before are potentially true, but where's the RS to qualify it? Anything provided one. Cessaune [talk] 15:57, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

Another quote you quoted partially: Michael Beschloss, a presidential historian and author, said the long U.S. tradition of not indicting former presidents is partly because "in general, presidents did not misbehave, in a criminal sense, to a degree that would have made that seem urgent." "Part of it has also been an unfortunate view that ex-presidents deserve some kind of monarchical immunity that normal citizens do not," he said. "How do you explain to someone who steals toothpaste from a drugstore that they are more subject to American law than a president is?" Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 16:36, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

Again, the fact that I partially quoted the quote was merely logistical and not an intentional omission. My point above still stands. Cessaune [talk] 17:01, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

References

First of all, I would definitely use the scholars' first names. Who is "Foa"? No first name makes it harder to look them up online, and stylistically, it's just weird IMO. Secondly, I kind of hate it. Though these four may be subject-matter experts, I don't think their opinions on Trump are relevant enough to include as a broad chacterization of the man. I would grab a bunch of subject-matter experts, preferably 8-10, and do something like this (I just made up stuff that scholars might say for the sake of example):

Several political scientists have analyzed Trump's presidency... Steven Levitszky and Daniel Ziblatt say that Trump benefited from a democracy weakened by "extreme partisan polarization"... [Person C] and [Person D] argue that Trump's practice of hiring far-right advocates and "often implicit, occasionally explicit" support for far-right causes "emblodened the far-right and alt-right to a degree unheard of in contemporary American politics, one that sets a dangerous precedent"... [Person E] argues that "[Trump's] systematic subversion of the traditional notions of American presidency, and the excessive amounts of lies, falsehoods and denials told to further his false narratives... may be the most damaging parts of his legacy"...

Something like that. Cessaune [talk] 02:35, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Cool. Thanks for your solid feedback. See new proposal below. DFlhb (talk) 20:08, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

Well, I have to admit that Trump was the first US president (in my lifetime) to put up such a commotion to overturn a prez election result. So... whatever yas decide on this 'topic', is acceptable. GoodDay (talk) 21:12, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Refined proposal

New proposal, improved based on Cessaune's suggestion:

Under Trump's presidency, scholarly assessments of the state of U.S. democracy have sharply declined (see the V-Dem and BLW surveys), with leading scholars arguing that America was experiencing democratic backsliding. Steven Levitsky and Daniel Ziblatt say Trump was the first U.S. president in the last century to meet all four criteria of their "litmus test for autocrats": a weak commitment to electoral outcomes, delegitimization of political opponents, toleration and encouragement of political violence, and a willingness to curb the civil liberties of opponents and critics. Robert R. Kaufman and Stephan Haggard contend that Trump deepened America's political polarization and tribalism, though he was limited by institutional safeguards. According to Michael W. Bauer, Stefan Becker, and Charles T. Goodsell, Trump sabotaged the administrative state by delaying 1,200 political appointments, politicizing vital departments, nominating heads of the EPA and CFPB who openly opposed their agencies' mission, issuing new policies without consulting his cabinet, and attacking the independence of the Federal Reserve and the intelligence community. Roberto Foa and Yascha Mounk argue that Trump's tacit or active endorsement of vigilante groups may "prove to be his most damaging legacy", marking America's shift into a "dirty democracy" where "tit-for-tat partisan norm-breaking" is normalized.

DFlhb (talk) 20:10, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

References

Was there anything in those sources that was critical of democrats' and news media's treatment of Trump? Or showed any defense of the criticism against Trump? Bob K31416 (talk) 20:30, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

None criticize the treatment of Trump. The closest are Levitsky & Ziblatt, and Foa & Mounk. Levitsky (chapter 9) condemns calls by journalists and some progressives to "fight like Republicans" or "take a page from the GOP playbook" as dangerous escalation, but they don't bring up anything that would be due (for example, early attempts to impeach Trump by Maxine Waters before he'd committed any crimes, or calls to "obstruct everything" by some journalists). Foa criticizes calls to pack the court and "taciturn" condemnations of vigilantism (Antifa). Again, not due in this article. DFlhb (talk) 21:02, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for that. It strikes me as too long and detailed. I don't think that each evaluation needs to be attributed in text. The first 3 sentences, with some copyeding seem like enough. Also the first sentence reads weird because it circles around instead of just stating Trump did this. SPECIFICO talk 22:15, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

Going along with what SPECIFICO said above, it's a bit lengthy. Three or four sentences would be good, and the beginning needs to be workshopped a bit, but I like it otherwise. Cessaune [talk] 03:41, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

I'd support removing the second part of the first sentence; and removing the Foa & Mounk sentence. I'd also replace "According to Michael W. Bauer, Stefan Becker, and Charles T. Goodsell" with just "According to public administration scholars" which is more concise. If anyone is concerned that these three scholars may be non-representative, we can add a few more citations (bundled): [1], [2], [3]. — DFlhb (talk) 10:31, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

So Trump is an autocrat, but he was voted out of office, and his attempts to overturn the results were unsuccessful. I oppose adding a democratic backsliding section - there’s a Democratic backsliding in the United States article. Quoting one of the cited sources (Carey, Helmke, et al): "It is too early to say whether the long-term quality of democracy in the United States will suffer." It’s too early to assess whether and, if so, how much of this belongs in Trump’s personal bio - there are others involved, from the Federalist Society, McConnell’s Republican-majority Senate, the deep pockets of the Kochs, Mercers, Thiel, to Fox News. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 17:28, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

Age

I feel like it's worth mentioning that Trump was the oldest elected president until Biden's election in 2020. At age 70 in 2016, Trump surpassed the previous record-holder, Ronald Reagan (age 69 on Election Day 1980). Given how much attention presidential ages have gotten in recent years, both among office holders and candidates, I would think this little factoid deserves an insertion somewhere in the article, to give context to such a hotly debated issue, especially with President Biden's recently announced reelection bid. Age was even brought up as an issue with John McCain (age 72) back in the 2008 election. In both the 2016 and 2020 elections (and likely the 2024 election as well), all major candidates were above age 69, with Hillary Clinton turning 69 only days before the 2016 election, Donald Trump at 70 in 2016 and 74 in 2020 (and 78 in 2024), and Joe Biden at 77 in 2020 (and 81 in 2024). A lot of emphasis is placed on Biden's age and practically none on Trump's when in reality, Trump and Biden are less than 4 years apart! They could've attended the same high school together for goodness sake! In fact, although Biden holds the current record for oldest serving and oldest elected president, if Trump wins in 2024 and serves all four years, he will retake the records on both accounts! Four years to men who've roamed the earth nigh on four score represents about 5% of their life spans! Fair's fair. If one is attacked for his age, so should the other. Perspective, people. Just thought someone could edit it in since the article is locked. Thank you. 66.91.36.8 (talk) 07:10, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

So he was a record holder until someone beat him, unsure we need that. Slatersteven (talk) 09:34, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

Seems a bit trivial here. The article is already excessively long, and adding low-importance information to it at this time seems like a bad use of space. --Jayron32 16:10, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

"Roamed the earth nigh on four score" . Grassley has roamed the earth nigh on four score and ten, and Iowans reelected him to a six-year term in the Senate last year. If Trump wins in 2024 — we'll cross that bridge when we get to it (or jump off it). Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 16:15, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

I don't think it's necessary to include, as it's not a notable fact and doesn't really say anything about his fitness for office. It was notable, for example, when Kamala was elected vice president, and even more notable when Obama was elected president, because the first black president and the first female and black vice president are relevant to not only why they were elected but the broader context of their post-election policy and the like. Trump's age isn't why he was elected, and isn't really relevant to anything about him. Cessaune [talk] 16:37, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

I'd exclude this here, and include it in the 2024 campaign article (and the articles on Trump and Biden's respective campaigns), iff age turns into a major issue of the campaign. There's just far too much to say in the main BLPs. DFlhb (talk) 20:27, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

Petition to swap out Voice Audio Box

The current audio box on file is great (I was the one who sourced it afterall), however in hindsight the audio quality of Trumps voice is a bit lower quality compared to the other presidents. Given the purpose of the voice box is to make sure the person it represents voice is clear and properly articulated I think it might be best to replace it with another similar, short, non-partisan, and more clear voice box. As such, I have provided one below in both the .ogg format and with a link for listening on wikimedia in advance to publishment.

File:Donald Trump Ordering Missile Attacks in Retaliation for Syrian Chemical Strikes.ogg https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/4f/Donald_Trump_Ordering_Missile_Attacks_in_Retaliation_for_Syrian_Chemical_Strikes.ogg

I think if you compare the differences in audio quality between the two sources the one I am currently recommending does have a notable increase in audio quality overall largely due to the fact the current audio source was taken from an outside commencement address which unfortunately causes some tepid interference with optimal audio quality. The audio from this file in question is in reference to the Khan Shaykhun chemical attack and was recorded April 6, 2017 if that information is needed for proper audio replacement. Again, the audio I have presented here remains heavily neutral but more importantly provides a clearer quality of his voice for potential readers which I feel is more important overall and also is what the voice box was designed to do to begin with. LosPajaros (talk) 01:29, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

Voicing my support again. It's higher quality, and it's consistent with foreign-policy-focused voice files for other Presidents. I put it in a month ago, and it was reverted here, with a rationale I disagree with. DFlhb (talk) 08:00, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

Adding links to previous discussions. The consensus a month ago was to "add something", and three weeks before that to not use the "Big Lie". How do George H. W. Bush’s comments on receiving a medal, Reagan’s comments on civil rights, Ford’s comments at his swearing-in ceremony, Johnson’s comments on the passing of the Civil Rights Act fit into your alleged tradition/custom of a "foreign-policy-focused voice file"? The voice file should be representative of the way Trump speaks, and the proposed one isn’t, neither in pitch nor modulation. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 14:46, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

There's Obama, GWB, Clinton, Carter, Nixon, Truman, and FDR; all foreign policy-focused. Objective3000 brought up "historic" as a criteria to use, which is a criteria met by voice files in all presidential BLPs. The Syria strike audio is representative of how he speaks with a teleprompter, which covers almost all his presidency. Do you really think we should pick an audio where he slurs words, which you described as a "monotonous drone"? That would be as inappropriate here as it would be at Joe Biden. DFlhb (talk) 16:01, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

O3000 also said that we won't know until years from now whether s.th. was a historical event. Biden (BTW, also not a foreign policy-focused clip, and I doubt that his COVID infection meets the "historic" standard) sounds pretty much the same as he always does, Trump doesn't. Here's a compilation of typical Trump speech, including the info at 2:28 that the Spanish Flu in 2017 ended the Second World War because all the soldiers were sick. A twofer, can't get more historical than that. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 17:18, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

To be fair, his speech in the compilation you've given is of him speaking very casually which is something that is expected to differ with a more reserved and forthright presidential speech. Obama himself sounds notably more consistent in tone in his announcement of the assassination of Osama bin Laden then he would giving a casual speech promoting his book on the Jimmy Kimmel Show. the same is said for all prior presidents too. Trump is of course going to be slightly more stilted in his speaking pattern because the announcement of strikes themselves were a matter of serious international importance (at least at the time). In the same way Johnson would not act crass and vulgar while giving his address on Civil Rights despite him having no qualms with doing so on the telephone when ordering pants with wider in-seems. In the same way Reagan speaks differently on his leaked call with Nixon then he does when giving his address to "tear down this wall!". All leaders talk differently when addressing different crowds and Trump is no different. To be perfectly honest, I think the source I provided actually does a better job at coming closer to his most casual speaking style as the Space Command Address is notably more stilted then the announcment of air strikes. So if the ultimate goal of the audio file is to get a video of him at his most off-guard and unaware of being perceived, I still think this audio file provides a better edge towards that end goal (even if I disagree that that's what the purpose of the audio file is to be). Additionally, I want to reiterate that the file in question does have a notable increase in audio and voice quality. Even if you perceive this audio clip to have no change whatsoever in terms of the "accuracy" of his speaking voice, the audio is substantially clearer and more free of outside interference. This difference in clarity alone should be valid enough for a change given the neutrality of the event is not in question. LosPajaros (talk) 23:52, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

representative of how he speaks with a teleprompter — no. Reading off the teleprompter: from Chili to the oranges of the investigation. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 17:28, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

We're now using clickbait "worst of" compilations as a metric for "representativeness" in an encyclopedia. Meanwhile, scholars from top journals arguing he caused historic harm to democracy: section goes off-topic, subsection gets ignored. Jon Stewart, as ever, was right. Sigh. DFlhb (talk) 18:18, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

the current file sounds fine to me. all we want here is a sample of the subject's speech, we're not going for hi-fi Marvin Gaye here. ValarianB (talk) 12:22, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

Definitely sounds more natural, but it's uncharacteristically slow. I Like it a little better. Cessaune [talk] 13:10, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

The Space Command audio sounds clear to me, no worse than the missile attack audio. (I don’t have $400 computer speakers or headphones, so there’s that.) What do you mean by "properly articulated", as in Trump not slurring words? is what the voice box was designed to do to begin with - is that explained anywhere (MOS, etc.)? Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 14:39, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, sorry, I guess I can perceive the audio quality differences a bit more because I have a relatively new computer so that might be a reason for our lack of mutual agreement on audio quality. That being said, when I was referring to "properly articulated" I was trying to highlight whether or not there was a clear consistent speaking pattern present of the person within the audio that is more in line with their natural cadence. In Trump's case that difference in cadence comes across more strongly in the Space Force Audio then it does in the Air Strike audio. He does speak relatively slow in both but overall he comes off significantly less stilted in the latter audio than the former. Also, and this is a side note, in the clip he does an aside where he talks to an onlooker where there is a dip in volume as he's away from the mic so the audio currently in use is not consistent in that regard either.LosPajaros (talk) 01:11, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

Response to claims of bias

I rewrote the Response to claims of bias page:

User:Cessaune/Trump/Response to claims of bias

What do y'all think? Cessaune [talk] 20:09, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

Significant improvement. DFlhb (talk) 20:17, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

Very good. May still be improved, no doubt, but I would be fine with immediate implementation. Thanks for this effort. On a related note, I learned from Officer Mandruss this afternoon that I have violated penal code 13.0 archiving a dead thread. I'm a bit confused by this. We often summarily revert or archive unconstructive "suggestions" and complaints to avoid rubbernecking and soapboxing. Something seems wrong with this rule. SPECIFICO talk 21:10, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

It's cool, with me. GoodDay (talk) 21:15, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

I went ahead and changed it. Cessaune [talk] 22:13, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

Two hours and four minutes and — presto — consensus? Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 12:34, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

You're welcome to oppose the change if you like. Cessaune [talk] 17:44, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

(summoned by Chief Magistrate Mandruss) I like the new version. Of course, the biggest problem will be to get the people posting to read the response blurb. Most of the time, it seems the people posting that we are biased are one-time posters (IPs or SPAs) and are uninterested in what we have to say in defence. While I like the suggestions to point the person to appropriate avenues for them to raise their comments further (and think they are an improvement), I think it's more of a futile effort, as they rarely engage beyond the first initial post anyway. However, if we manage to send just a couple people there who will read it and act on its suggestions, we have done our job. :) Mgasparin (talk) 05:25, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

Handling bias complaints

After a discussion with Bob K31416 (permalink), I would like to try for a consensus on what I believe is the best way to handle bias complaints at this article. There were discussions about this a couple of years ago, but no explicit consensus. I figured the benefits were obvious enough that it would just "catch on", but I was apparently mistaken.

The key elements of this method are:

• Instead of dismissively removing a bias complaint, inform the reader respectfully and give them time to read that.
• Otherwise, avoid wasting editor time repetitively fielding complaints from readers who don't understand Wikipedia policy.

The method is as follows:

• Reply briefly with a link to Talk:Donald Trump/Response to claims of bias.
• Close the discussion using {{archive top}}/bot.
• Wait at least 24 hours per current consensus #13.
• Manually archive the discussion.

If we can reach a consensus on this, I will create a new item in the consensus list. If not, I will drop the issue and abandon the method. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:36, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

Given the unfortunate fact that editors on all pages end up in little debates, policy scolding, etc on vague complaints and unspecific edit requests, I think we need to be able to do what we do everywhere else -- which is sometimes to delete or archive such posts. SPECIFICO talk 22:53, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

For the sake of Wikipedia's image, a good-faith complaint deserves a respectful reply. Not all complaints are in good faith, but this one was. Ignorance is not bad faith, and Wikipedia's policies are somewhat counterintuitive. Try to imagine yourself on the outside looking in. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:18, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

When the same telltale language appears over and over, it's most likely somebody who's been hanging out and repeating what they see in a chat room or something. But in the recent one, there was a kind reply and the archiving was to prevent an extended discussion. I do however see that we need to give the visitor enough time to return to read the reply to their query. SPECIFICO talk 00:18, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

If it'll cut down drive-by editors/ips, complaints. Then indeed, close & archive. If an editor chooses to go the RFC route? then that's (of course) a different situation. GoodDay (talk) 22:55, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

I lke the idea, but preemptive closing of discussions without giving the editor a chance to respond (I assume that's what's being proposed) just seems unfair. At the very least, asking the editor to reword the statement to comply with what is present on the Bias page, giving them 24 hours, then closing the discussion seems reasonable to me. Cessaune [talk] 00:06, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

Nothing prevents them from starting a new and better discussion after reading the response page, and I think that should be obvious to them. In fact, the response page makes that abundantly clear beginning with Any user, including you.... But in all my years at this article I have yet to see a single one of these readers come back with the requisite suggestion for a specific, policy-based improvement. They simply don't care to dig into the policy enough to know what "policy-based" means, exactly (nor would I, probably). That suggests that your suggestion would merely add unnecessary complication to the process. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:17, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

Okay, but this is irrelevant. It's not ultimately that disruptive to keep a discussion open for 24 hours, and, as SPECIFICO says above, we need to give the visitor enough time to return to read the reply to their query. To not give a user that time at all isn't fair, regardless of whether or not the editor simply [doesn't] care to dig into the policy enough to know what "policy-based" means. I went and looked through policies, when I made my first edits here, so when you say I have yet to see a single one of these readers come back with the requisite suggestion for a specific, policy-based improvement—I tried to in the past, and continue to try to now. I definitely know I wouldn't be a Wikipedia editor at all if someone had shut down my first Trump talk page contribution without even giving me a chance to reply.

Also, I made changes to the Bias page, and included a bunch of relevant policies (WP:AGF, WP:DGF, WP:CIVILITY, WP:RSP). We can be more specific and encouraging to motivate these newcomers to actually create those specific, policy-based improvements that we speak of, which was the whole point of my edits, and should be the whole point of the bias page. Our words should also reflect that when pointing the editor towards the bias page. Cessaune [talk] 00:36, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

It's not ultimately that disruptive to keep a discussion open for 24 hours Not so much disruptive as a waste of time. Basically we're spending our time educating readers about Wikipedia policy, when the policy is already written down for them to read if they're interested (and they aren't, as I said). We're here to work on this article, not to educate readers who have no interest in being educated. Our responsibility ends after we point them to the policy pages.

as SPECIFICO says above, we need to give the visitor enough time to return to read the reply to their query. Exactly right, and this method gives them 24 hours to read the reply. If that wasn't considered enough time, consensus 13 wouldn't read as it does.

Your proposed changes to the response page are a separate and independent issue. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:48, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

Basically we're spending our time educating readers about Wikipedia policy, when the policy is already written down for them to read if they're interested—I'm only suggesting two sentences or so. It wouldn't be that big of a deal. Cessaune [talk] 01:07, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

Here are three sentences, pursuant to step 1 of the proposed method. The rest is on the response page and would be redundant (and incomplete) within the thread. ―Mandruss ☎ 01:14, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

Here's how I would do it:

• Reply briefly with a link to Talk:Donald Trump/Response to claims of bias, making sure that they are aware that no response within 24 hours will lead to closure of the topic.
• Wait at least 24 hours.
• Close the discussion.
• Wait at least 24 hours per current consensus #13.
• Manually archive the discussion.

In an ideal world, I would like it if we articulated that they are not only welcome to try again, but that we encourage them to try again. My issue with an immediate close is that, for someone who isn't familiar with Wikipedia policy, closing a thread they started before even giving them a chance to reply fully hinders their want to restate anything. Closing someone's thread immediately also may have more negative consequences: people may start a new thread, claiming that we are censoring/silencing their opinions. There is little downside to simply waiting 24 hours, and, if needed, we can add a clause so that if the conversation starts heading south, it can be closed before the 24-hour period. Cessaune [talk] 02:37, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

I would like it if we articulated that they are not only welcome to try again, but that we encourage them to try again. By all means, feel free to change "welcome to" to "encouraged to" on the response page. The whole point is that anything that needs to be said can be said on that page, and the thread itself should be kept to little more than is required to point them to it. In the example above, I added just a little extra just because that's how I roll. It wouldn't be a requirement under my method. Otherwise, I still think your extra steps add unnecessary complication, but that consensus would be better than none. ―Mandruss ☎ 03:04, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

Fair. Cessaune [talk] 03:43, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

A 24-hr waiting period, also suffices. GoodDay (talk) 01:21, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

I think consensus item 13 is a good policy, and I've been adhering to it, although on occasion my responses may have been less diplomatic than they could have been. The 24-hour waiting period before archiving the closed discussion probably is a sufficient amount of time for the complainant to see the response to their complaint since in all likelyhood they'll be watching the page for it. It may be a good idea, though, to leave it on the talk page for a longer period (a week?), for other potential complainants to see and be deterred. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 12:48, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

I've never seen any indication that other potential complainants read existing discussions before complaining. Your suggestion would result in three different retention periods: (A week?) for bias complaints, 24 hours for other closed discussions per #13, and 14 days for everything else (automated archival). Again, can we avoid over-complicating things? ―Mandruss ☎ 18:52, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

In consensus item 13, the discussion [4] that the 24 hour time was based on, was closed with the following statement. "Consensus to keep bot archive at 7 days and allow manual archiving of formally closed threads after 24 hours." The term "formally closed" means that there was a request made at Wikipedia:Closure requests. The statement of consensus item 13 improperly generalized "formally closed" to "closed" without consensus. With that in mind, the 24 hour rule for archiving in the case considered here would be new. So what is the argument for archiving after only 24 hours a summarily closed discussion, not a formally closed discussion, consisting of only two messages? Bob K31416 (talk) 13:40, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

First, I don't see any indication that the closer used your interpretation of "formally closed" — even if you could point to a guideline that supports your interpretation. More likely, he was simply contrasting the use of {{archive top}}/bot to {{collapse top}}/bot, the latter being more common at that time than it is these days at this article. Collapse is not closure, but it was being used that way a lot.

The argument for 24 hours is that it's ample time for the OP to read the reply, if the OP is interested in reading it. (It's 24 hours after the close, not 24 hours after the opening comment, just to be clear.) It's a concession being asked of the editors who would prefer to shoot on sight, without acknowledgement or reply, as we saw the other day. Maybe you could meet them halfway.

It is not unimportant that item 13 has gone unchanged since Nov 2019 without a challenge. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:50, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

I think we can mostly agree, that it can be a tricky situation to handle. We must take caution, not to be seen as 'anti-Trump', when shutting down discussions. GoodDay (talk) 00:30, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

I generally agree with the sentiment, but I think we should avoid the phrase "shutting down discussions". We're not shutting down discussions, which is anathema at Wikipedia, but rather nipping them in the bud before they get started. We're shutting down pointless threads. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:59, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

When Wikipedia speaks of "freedom of discussion", I do not believe we have uninformed readers in mind. Discussion is part of Wikipedia editing, and Wikipedia editing is best left to Wikipedia editors, who have invested considerable time and energy in learning policy and common practice. It takes years to grasp a lot of this stuff, and non-editing readers have nothing useful to say regarding this article's neutrality. That's true whether they love Trump or despise him, and we do see complaints that the article is not tough enough on him. Trump haters want us to use the words "lies" or "liar", and that's prohibited by consensus 22, for example.

It's not unlike using representative government, instead of deciding every issue by popular referendum. Common citizens are not qualified to govern, and the world has known this for thousands of years. (Our governments may not be qualified to govern, either, but that's a separate issue.) The analogy ends when you recognize that we're not elected representatives, but it's a useful one as far it goes. Per policy, unlike our governments, we're not supposed to represent the public. We have no constituents except reliable sources. ―Mandruss ☎ 02:12, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

Everyone is uninformed until, well, they're not. Freedom of discussion applies to anyone, not just Wikipedia editors, otherwise there would be no Wikipedia editors. To give editors no time to discuss under the pretense that discussion may be pointless and may waste editor time is antithetical to the entire point of Wikipedia. Everyone deserves at least a chance to back up their statements, editor or not. Cessaune [talk] 03:12, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

Freedom of discussion applies to anyone, not just Wikipedia editors, otherwise there would be no Wikipedia editors. So Wikipedia editors become editors so they can engage in discussions with non-editing readers? I was not aware of that. Are they trying to educate the population about Wikipedia policies? If not, they're violating WP:NOTFORUM. And neither is good.

pretense that discussion may be pointless and may waste editor time Sorry, no. The history of this article could not possibly be clearer: It is pointless and does waste editor time. No reader bias complaint has ever resulted in a change to the article. If that's not a waste of time, I don't know what is. If an editor sees the bias complaint and it stimulates him or her to think of a "specific, policy-based" suggestion, no problem — he or she may start a new thread about it. There's no benefit to doing it in the complaint thread.

Everyone deserves at least a chance to back up their statements, editor or not. I won't argue that point, but we are not denying them that chance. We are merely asking them to do it in a new thread, this time "specific, policy-based". The time required to start a new thread will be insignificant compared to the time required to read the policy and even attempt to put together something "specific, policy-based". As I've said previously, we have yet to see a complaining reader come back with something "specific, policy-based". The history of this article could not possibly be clearer: They have nothing further to say. But if they do, they may — within policy. ―Mandruss ☎ 04:20, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

Something I would like to say: editors are not required to respond to anything. The fact that discussion is going on doesn't mean that you have to put your $0.02 in, and, if you do, that's a personal limitation. Timesink arguments have always struck me as dumb: Since I'm addicted to doing something, rather than avoiding that thing, no one else should be able to do it, to help me avoid doing it, because my time can be spent elsewhere. Yes, editors might, in their pursuit of one topic, forget/ignore another one, but the truth is, at least on this page, that doesn't happen often, except in the case of RfCs overshadowing smaller issues. Two, three, sometimes four separate discussions take place simultaneously on this page all the time. As long as we all generally agree to avoid WP:FORUM situations (something that essentially all editors on this page are guilty of) we should be fine on a timesink level.

My main point is that the path to becoming a good editor generally requires one to fail. A lot. We are merely asking them to do it in a new thread—my belief is that asking them to start a new thread with a new question has the effect, unintended or not, to stifle discussion completely.

Now, it is entirely fair to say that people who are unwilling to take the time to understand policy are not worth editor time. However, I enjoy giving people the benefit of the doubt. Being unwilling to reasearch policy is perhaps an unintended consequence of having so much policy to research. It is much easier to understand Wikipedia's policies and guidelines by observing policy in action, especially observing discussions about the implications or actual meanings.

Basically, the system as it stands now sets up users to fail. Guiding users to intentionally vaguely defined guidelines such as MOS:LEADCITE or MOS:OVERLINK simply serves to confuse, and the broader pillar policies such as WP:NPOV or WP:NOR, despite seeming simple on a surface-level, are so complex and massive, and require such an extensive knowledge of the secondary and tertiary policies around them, that it is almost unfair IMO to say 'go read this and come back with something coherent.'

In addition, the Bias page, and consensus item 13, are essentially formalities, put up as if to pretend that we care about these users' opinions. We don't. And that's sad, at least to me.

This is why I say that Everyone deserves at least a chance to back up their statements, editor or not. In the same thread, I might add. While the closing of one thread and the opening of another might seem trivial to one who understands that the implications of doing so are next to nothing, it is not the same to a good faith user who doesn't understand it. Instantly shutting down their good faith opinions (because that's how closing is perceived when you aren't an established editor) disincentivizes new good faith and policy-based opinions.

Now, all this being said, if it's not good faith, everything above is irrelevant. Cessaune [talk] 05:53, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

WP:CIR is "only" an "explanatory essay", but you see it come up regularly anyway at places like ANI. It's not some obscure thing that nobody subscribes to. If we apply it to editors, why are non-editing readers exempt? Q.E. effin D. ―Mandruss ☎ 06:53, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

CIR is only applied after all other options have been exhuasted, and it applies only to repeated mistakes, not a singular one. You cannot reasonably judge the competence of anyone after a singular interaction, and for Wikipedia's purposes, you cannot reasonably judge the competence of anyone even after an arbitrarily high number of interactions, unless it's obvious they aren't acting in good faith (vandalism, sockpuppetry, personal attacks, etc.) or it's a language barrier thing. Cessaune [talk] 07:03, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

Great, then they can demonstrate their competence by opening a new thread with something "specific, policy-based". If they want to become Wikipedia editors, they are welcome to come on board. In my opinion, the article would benefit from more people on the Trump side who know the policy and are prepared to comply with it and use it. Once on board, it will be worth more-experienced editors' time to help them along. ―Mandruss ☎ 07:19, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

My point is not that users are necessarily 'competent until proven otherwise', but that competence is acquired. It's not about demonstrating competence, it's about becoming competent in and of itself. Which, again, circles back to my main point: pointing people to policies and guidelines doesn't work that well if the goal is to actually foster good conversation and to have people actually start new threads that ask specific, policy-based questions—but, as I said before, I believe the Bias page and consensus item 13 are not intended to actually foster good conversation, but to stop bad conversation under the guise of fostering good conversation, which is a tactic I despise.

Secondly, the path to becoming a Wikipedia editor is not so simple. I'm only an editor because I played so much random article Wikipedia game with friends that I began to optimize links and fix grammar mistakes at big articles to gain an unseen advantage. If they want to become Wikipedia editors, they are welcome to come on board—becoming an editor is, at least in my limited experince, a gradual process that requires failure. To become an editor by saying "hey, I want to edit, time to read up on the rules to figure out what I should and shouldn't do"—that almost delves into a Citizendium or Nupedia-type formality, one that Wikipedia is directly against. This is why I believe it's important to actually help people instead of telling people to do stuff, and then claiming that we tried to help but they were unwilling to listen, when, in reality, we didn't really try to help at all. Cessaune [talk] 07:50, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

You should sign up as a mentor for Wikipedia:Adopt-a-user or contribute at WP:TEAHOUSE. Those are places where editors have signed up to spend significant amounts of their time and energy helping uninformed people along. I didn't sign up for that, I find your arguments unconvincing, and you can't dictate that I must do that. There's a time and place for almost everything. I understand that a lot of people are averse to organization. ―Mandruss ☎ 08:14, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

I understand that a lot of people are averse to organization—can you clarify the meaning of this? Thanks. Cessaune [talk] 08:26, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

Well, to many, organization is synonymous with bureaucracy. To say, "If you need this kind of help, go here" seems to them like imposing an undue burden. To them, any limits on what can be said in any particular venue, per its purpose and mission, are contrary to some sacred, lofty Wikipedia principle. To them, such limits hinder the free exchange of ideas, and the encyclopedia suffers as a result. Open range is good and barbed wire fences are evil. My brain doesn't work that way.

The purpose and mission of an article talk page are to work on the article. "Helping" others with policy is limited to what's necessary to protect that article. ―Mandruss ☎ 08:34, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

Hmm. I'd advocate for a more active role, but I guess we've just gotta agree to disagree. Cessaune [talk] 15:38, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

easier and obvious solution is if there is only one disruptive user who keeps reverting obvious closes, then remove them from the topic area. ValarianB (talk) 12:10, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

We have a consensus list for a reason, so you and SPECIFICO don't get to arbitrarily decide when to archive, and OneClickArchiving without abiding by the 24 hour closure period isn't allowed at all. Of course, Bob probably should've brought the issues to the talk page, but, per consensus, he was in the right. Cessaune [talk] 13:29, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

No, Bob was not in the right, and his reversions are almost exclusively focused on Specifico. to the point where if it was me, I would be filing harassment and wiki-hounding charges. if SPAs and IPs come to this talk page with blatantly loaded and inflammatory "this is biased, remove it now!" posts, I will freely and cheerfully remove them, invoking WP:IAR if necessary. ValarianB (talk) 16:27, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

Bob is only in the right per consensus item 13, unless there is something I am missing about Bob's reverts. Please point my mistakes out if needed.

I agree that Bob's edits undermine SPECIFICO and your good faith edits. However, my point above still stands. The consensus says we have to do something, so we do it, and if Bob is abiding by consensus, then a topic ban is entirely unwarranted. Also, SPECIFICO is basically the only person who archives in such a way. To claim that [Bob's] reversions are almost exclusively focused on Specifico is a true statement, but a statement that misses the bigger picture. Cessaune [talk] 16:44, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

I doubt the bit about only me is true. Anyway, it's beside the point. Bob's entire record speaks for itself. SPECIFICO talk 16:59, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

Not necessarily only you, but mostly you. Cessaune [talk] 17:07, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

IAR is often code for "fuck consensus". It is not some kind of trump card that immunizes an edit from challenge. Thankfully, an edit against consensus will be reverted, and a re-revert will be actionable disruption. I don't use IAR, never saw a need for it. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:02, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

The monkey under the bed

The real problem (the monkey hiding under the bed, the lizard in the closet, etc.) is WP editors who pile on and use such inquiries -- good faith or not, well-formulated or not, specific or vague -- as an opportunity for a late-night college dorm debate. Once a reply has been given, WP editors need to step back and not continue to reply to OP, at least until OP has responded with some new addition. So I suggest, when we respond the first responder should use the green checkmark to show the issue has been addressed. And everyone else needs to start a new thread if they are inspired to share their thoughts. SPECIFICO talk 12:45, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

Basically, avoid WP:FORUM situations. GoodDay (talk) 14:47, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

Given how often I have had to deal with "Ahh no one has replied in 1 hour to my latest post, I have consensus" scenarios I am not sure that will achieve the aim of stopping forum debate. Slatersteven (talk) 14:52, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

Yup, it's the old 'last word' approach. An editor will keep arguing their point, with the hope that those who oppose them, will eventually stop answering them. Then, the editor takes the silent treatment as a sign of consensus. GoodDay (talk) 21:27, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

What about anti-Trumpers?

What about unspecific bias complaints from anti-Trumpers? These complaints are less common than the other kind, but they do occur and should not be given greater consideration merely because they are anti-Trump. To prevent them from being given greater consideration, they need to be covered by any consensus arising from this discussion.

Almost all of the response page applies equally whether they are pro- or anti-Trump. The last sentence of the second paragraph does not: Since reliable sources are widely critical of Trump, this article must reflect that.

Should there be a separate response page for the anti-Trumpers, or will the existing one suffice — possibly with a slightly different reply in the thread? Or, should the existing response page be modified so that it works equally well for both camps? ―Mandruss ☎ 23:31, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

I just changed "must reflect" to "reflects". Other than that, I think "biased towards/against" in the FAQ and the response page suffice. I don't remember any unspecific complaints that the page is too positive towards Trump (then again, maybe I'm blind on that eye), just specific requests wanting his latest outrageous toots, running tallies of the lawsuits, etc. mentioned. Can you point out one or two? Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 11:45, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

I recall the odd comment in regards to we need to be more negative about him, they also get short shift. Slatersteven (talk) 11:49, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

---

Can I close this and revert to status quo? Cessaune [talk] 01:24, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

Identifying a consensus as a "rough" one

Mandruss, I'm directly challenging this revert. Rough consensus is an unnecessary sub-characterization of consensus, especially given the fact that no other consensus item contains anything of the sort. Even more especially since Space4T literally talks about this specific consensus on their user page (one which went against the opinion they !voted for in the lead-linking RfC, the opinion Space4T has advocated for for a while now) and is the editor who decided to include the rough consensus characterization initially. It's a completely fair characterization, no doubt, but one that has no real reason to exist, which is why it shouldn't. Cessaune [talk] 08:59, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

I hold no position on that, except that it shouldn't have been changed without some kind of agreement on this page, as I said in my revert. We're here with that (thank you), so I'm happy. ―Mandruss ☎ 11:33, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

The reason is the three-sentence closing, with two of those sentences featuring "rough consensus":

A rough consensus has emerged to implement Option 1, which is to insert the 10-ish links described in the proposal. While Option 2 had substantial support, especially among later commenters, many suggested Option 1 as an alternative in case Option 2 failed to gain enough support. While proponents of Option 3 (de-linking) widely mentioned SEAOFBLUE, a rough consensus of editors have argued that, as paraphrased from Rhododendrites' comments, this is a wiki, and that links are what make Wikipedia unique among reference sources.

The initial version of item 60: There is a consensus to include a reasonable number of links in the lead, especially for specific items such as the Iran nuclear deal and the Trans-Pacific Partnership. My version: There is a rough consensus to insert the links described in the RfC January 2023. Current version: Insert the links described in the RfC January 2023. (Rough consensus) It was a badly formulated RfC, and editors responded with opinions such as "Links are what makes Wikipedia stand out among reference works" (little-known reference works such as Britannica also use them, but meh). I think we should keep the qualifier. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 13:04, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

Editors also responded with opinions such as 'it'll create a SEAOFBLUE', which was never at any point relevant per the actual meaning of SEAOFBLUE. If we go down the route that the RfC was bad, only 2 out of 22 editors argued that point, so the RfC as a whole was found to be sound by most editors who participated. The fact that the close talks about rough consensus doesn't make it a necessary addition. Cessaune [talk] 13:38, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

Conspiracy theorist in lead sentence?

Given there's a whole article (based on almost 70 reliable sources) and category, it looks like the majority of editors involved don't consider this redundant, that there is precedent for mentioning this, and that this forms a significant part of Trump's notability and impact on politics and public discourse (including before, during, and after his presidency), therefore meeting WP:SUSTAINED.

To name but two, his involvement as the figurehead of the birther movement is often described as the harbinger of his presidency and now going into the next election reports indicate roughly 70% of Republicans believe Trump's big lie. GhulamIslam (talk) 14:20, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

No. --Jayron32 14:32, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

To be clear, are you proposing changing, "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." to "Donald John Trump (born June 14, 1946) is an American politician, media personality, businessman, and conspiracy theorist who served as the 45th president of the United States from 2017 to 2021."?

If that is your proposal, I would oppose it as I do not think that conveys enough context and nuance. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 14:59, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, and how you've linked to the article is preferable and directs to the context, but more than that there's a section devoted to it.
It isn't being used as a negative attack term by the way, he's undoubtedly the most prominent conspiracy theorist in the world. If such a term is appropriately substantiated by extensive reliable sources, it may be included in the lead paragraph to describe Donald Trump without running afoul of WP:BLP. It's a description widely used by unbiased reliable sources both academic and journalistic.
Trump is beyond a WP:PUBLICFIGURE so there is a huge exception to the usual care taken to be careful to avoid negative info in BLPs. "In the case of public figures, there will be a multitude of reliable published sources, and BLPs should simply document what these sources say. If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs in the article—even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it." GhulamIslam (talk) 16:10, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

I'm not sure why it would need to be mentioned in the lede sentence when it's already mentioned in the lede section. ––FormalDude (talk) 16:36, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

The third paragraph of the lead (not lede) says that "Trump promoted conspiracy theories and made many false and misleading statements during his campaigns and presidency, to a degree unprecedented in American politics." We have many RS describing the theories he promoted but are the majority of them saying he's a conspiracy theorist? Recent RS: PBS—embracing and amplifying false fringe QAnon conspiracy theory, museJHU—conspiracy theory after Trump, CNN—has been a conspiracy theorist for years, FactCheck.org—espousing or leaning into conspiracy theories, VOA—moving closer to QAnon conspiracy, TIME—weaponized conspiracy theories, Atlantic—Trump needs conspiracy theories for political and personal ends, AP—Donald Trump is overtly embracing QAnon. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 17:21, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

@Space4Time3Continuum2x: Could these sources be added together with a reference like ref. 4 on the Marjorie Taylor Green article? GhulamIslam (talk) 18:02, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

We don’t call Trump a conspiracy theorist in the body because RS don’t call him that, so we can’t call him that in the lead. (List of conspiracy theories promoted by Donald Trump doesn’t call Trump a conspiracy theorist, either, and I don’t know that the one-sentence lead of that article is correct about Trump having created any of the conspiracy theories the article lists.) RS say that pushing conspiracy theories is one of Trump’s patterns of behavior. He uses them as long as he thinks they’re useful, and moves on to the next one when they appear to have outlived their usefulness. Promoting—check, amplifying—check, but only one RS, CNN fact checker Daniel Dale, calls Trump a conspiracy theorist. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 14:40, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

Well, he is an executive. So, like most of that cohort, he doesn't really do anything. He causes actions to be effected by his staff and entourage. But sources attribute at least Stop the Steal directly to him. As to what's a conspiracy theory and what's a passing falsehood, the line is not always clear. Sometimes the incidental falsehoods come back as a recognizable refrain. In general, I think labels are too easily misunderstood and not encyclopedic. But I would agree with OP that some indication of the conspiracy theory content needs to be prominent up top. That's why I think we should consider ways to put it in a second lead sentence of the first paragraph or to elevate that and some related content to an extension of the first paragraph or swap of #4 above 2 and 3. SPECIFICO talk 15:45, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

Please provide sourcing to indicate that this is currently the dominant mainstream description of him. Without that, it cannot be stated up top in his bio. We editors cannot make an inference from a collation of conspiracy theories he has promulgated or endorsed. SPECIFICO talk 16:05, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

However, we should consider swapping the third and second lead paragraph positions to put the more current significant part first. SPECIFICO talk 17:05, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

I imagine the former, similarly to Marjorie Taylor Greene and Mike Lindell's lead paragraphs, except "conspiracy theorist" would link to List of conspiracy theories promoted by Donald Trump. GhulamIslam (talk) 17:20, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

The second paragraph covers education and private business endeavors prior to the presidency. The third and fourth paragraphs are about Trump's election and presidency. I don't think it would be an improvement to move the second paragraph in between those two. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 17:37, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

This is already dealt with well enough in the third paragraph. ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 17:35, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

But it should, IMO, be in the second paragraph. The life details are not significant relative to his official acts and the influence and visability of his current roles far exceeds his business and American silly-media presence. SPECIFICO talk 17:38, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

Fair enough, I'm just opposed to the addition to the lede in the way the proposer suggests. ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 17:47, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

@GhulamIslam: What do you think of swapping the positions of the second and third paragraphs? SPECIFICO talk 18:13, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

The first paragraph doesn't seem as immediately important but swapping them confuses the chronology, I'd either leave it as it is or not include it in the lead. GhulamIslam (talk) 18:35, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

I'd disagree that the "pre-politics" details aren't significant. It led to the whole emoluments thing, which was pretty huge for a brief period (and which we mention in the body) and he was already notable decades ago for the 2nd paragraph stuff in contemporary sources. It also wouldn't make sense, since it would break the chronology — DFlhb (talk) 18:16, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

I don't think sources treat his TV show or his business failures as being more significant than his presidency or ongoing role as a political leader. I also don't see a rationale for following chronology when we'll still have it high up in the lead position 3 and his prior life was so unimportant compared to his life in politics. Nor for that matter is the emoluments allegation among the most noteworthy things about his life. SPECIFICO talk 18:38, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

Current sources, sure, but not the decades of sourcing prior to that. Recentism in BLP leads is one of my pet peeves. I think MOS:CHRONOLOGICAL backs me up on that, and current practice across almost all BLP leads. (Emoluments are certainly not among the most noteworthy things, hence why it's not mentioned in the lead) — DFlhb (talk) 19:02, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

That's not how we define recentism. Chronological order is more like a middle-school writing assignment. Not following why you raised emoluments initially. SPECIFICO talk 19:17, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

Chronological order is essential to good lead writing, and I see no benefit to going against that. If some readers lack the attention span to make it to the third paragraph, TikTok is thataway. I find our lead quite excellent, and it's the most scrutinised part of one of our most scrutinised articles; changing it would require quite an obvious consensus — DFlhb (talk) 16:43, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

Chronological order is essential to good lead writing That is the part I don't understand or agree with. "Essential" is an absolute standard, and I don't think it's always required. Otherwise we'd start our articles with babies in the hospital. here is a counterexample. The manger doesn't even appear in the lead. SPECIFICO talk 17:05, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

I am unsure this is one of the things he is most noted for. Slatersteven (talk) 11:51, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

I recommend excluding, fwiw. Keep in mind, that around this time next year, info in this BLP's body, will quite likely go through quite a few changes. GoodDay (talk) 16:01, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

Alternative proposals

What about just moving the first sentence of the third paragraph and making it the second sentence? "Trump's political positions have been described as populist, protectionist, isolationist, and nationalist." You don't need to follow it immediately with accusations of conspiracism, lying and racism since these positions already infer that. TFD (talk) 18:21, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

Bad idea, although Trump would probably support the move since he was and is running on all four. Populists, protectionists, isolationists, and nationalists may also be conspiracy theorists, liars, and racists or any combination thereof but that's not indicated by any of the terms. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 12:06, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

While I agree that those 4 views do not imply or entail "conspiracy theorist, liar, racist" I think TFD provided the germ of a good suggestion, to wit: A minimal summary in the opening short paragraph before launching into the biographical array. I think we can find a satisfactory middle ground. SPECIFICO talk 12:48, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, I'd oppose putting those in the first paragraph too, since threshold to put traits in the first paragraph is much higher (they must be definitional, i.e. labels that are frequently mentioned in passing every time his name is mentioned). Trump's "populism" is, at least per some sources, more of an electoral strategy than something he actually believes in. Not to mention the constant flip flops. None of those political positions are definitional; they're opportunistic. DFlhb (talk) 13:04, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

But the lies, conspiracy theories and pandering to racist views are definitional. I agree the other four are better understood as modalities to engage aggrieved voters. That's why it's important to put a concise indication of his modus operandi in the first paragraph. We have long acknowledged that RS erred for several years on the side of deference to Trump due to the stature of his office. RS have now acknowledged that error and recent narratives are very clear in emphasizing the core modalities, and -- as you say -- not defining him in terms of gross categories such as "populism" and "nationalism". SPECIFICO talk 15:06, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

Trump is microphone, willing to amplify whatever his supporters views are & possibly what some independents' views are. That's the premise that I'm seeing, but I'll go along with whatever write up, the rest of you can work out. GoodDay (talk) 15:29, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

• No, conspiracy theorist should not be in the first sentence of this article. His promotion of conspiracy theories has not been identified by reliable sources as a defining characteristic of Trump in the same way as politician, businessman, and media personality. Also, no, the second and third paragraphs of the lead should not be swapped in an attempt to give Trump has promoted conspiracy theories... more prominence or weight. Doing so would put the lead out of a rough chronological order and I reject the notion that his pre-political career is not important (see the reasons by DFlhb). Iamreallygoodatcheckers ^talk 15:00, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

  That is an illogical comparison. It compares parameters from two different dimensions. Similarly, "businessman" is not a more defining characteristic than "human" "male" "two-legged" but we do not see those in the first sentence. So -- as you state -- conspiracy, lies, etc, is not "in the same way" as professional roles, but it describes most noteworthy characteristic of his behavior in all of those roles. Such clarification in a brief additional sentence would not violate chronological order. Forget about "populism" etc. which may indeed by empty words. The disregard for fact is described by RS as his core. For compact mentions of non-professional non-chronological content up top, there are many examples on WP, e.g. Jesse James Benito Mussolini John N. Mitchell Robert F. Kennedy Jr. Anthony Weiner Joseph McCarthy Leona Helmsley. A short additional sentence in the first paragraph will not create disorder. SPECIFICO talk 16:19, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

• Not in the lead sentence. The lead sentence is usually used to describe the subject's profession(s), as it now does: "politician, media personality, and businessman". Descriptions of the most noteworthy behavioral characteristics - such as believing in and spreading conspiracy theories - belong later in the lead section. Exactly as our lead section currently does in the third paragraph. -- MelanieN (talk) 16:57, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

  P.S. And I don't agree with swapping the second and third paragraphs, either. -- MelanieN (talk) 17:02, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

  I think both of those are no longer proposed. What do you think about adding one sentence to the first paragraph that incorporates the characterization that's currently farther down, after the life chronology? It would not need to use "conspiracy theories", just something to describe his approach to politics and public life? SPECIFICO talk 17:07, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

  No, I would oppose that. And it's against MOS. See MOS:OPENPARABIO. The first paragraph of a biography is often very short, often a single sentence as it is here. Here is what the opening paragraph is supposed to cover: Name and title, dates of birth and death, context (such as nationality), "One, or possibly more, noteworthy positions, activities, or roles that the person is mainly known for, avoiding subjective or contentious terms," and possibly "The main reason the person is notable (key accomplishment, record, etc.)" That's the first paragraph. The remainder of the lead section - the later paragraphs - can go into biographical detail, what they have done or accomplished, and even what their most noteworthy opinions are. That is exactly what this article's lead section does and we should leave it alone. -- MelanieN (talk) 21:19, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

  P.S. I wish you were right about those ideas being "no longer proposed", but in the paragraph immediately below this one, the person who originally made this proposal makes it again, as if none of the preceding discussion had happened. -- MelanieN (talk) 21:19, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

  I took care to cite half a dozen counterexamples to the claims above that such content would violate the canons of the lead. There are hundreds more like those that briefly characterize the BLPerson in the opening paragraph. Particularly, it seems, when the individual's most significant features were recognized somewhat late- or mid-career. SPECIFICO talk 21:45, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

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

According to the Collins English Dictionary, a conspiracy theorist is "someone who believes in or spreads conspiracy theories". As I've said before, if appropriately substantiated by extensive reliable sources, such a term may be included in the lead paragraph to describe Donald Trump without running afoul of WP:BLP. It's a description widely used by unbiased reliable sources both academic and journalistic. Trump is beyond a WP:PUBLICFIGURE so there is a huge exception to the usual care taken to be careful to avoid negative info in BLPs. "In the case of public figures, there will be a multitude of reliable published sources, and BLPs should simply document what these sources say. If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs in the article—even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it." GhulamIslam (talk) 20:12, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

Re "It's a description widely used by unbiased reliable sources both academic and journalistic." — How do you know they are unbiased? Bob K31416 (talk) 21:14, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

Actually we don't, but they're considered reliable and they're making the same inference. GhulamIslam (talk) 22:13, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

If someone provides a wide list of reliable sources—an actual wide list of reliable sources (not the 8 or so above)—then let's talk. Trump is beyond a WP:PUBLICFIGURE so there is a huge exception to the usual care taken to be careful to avoid negative info in BLPs—since he's an active, extremely prominent politician, not only in America but to a limited extent worldwide, I would err very far on the side of caution. There is no real benefit to characterizing Trump as a conspiracy theorist in my mind (we have a page devoted to the conpiracy theories he has promoted, so if people want to, they can still find the relevant info), and as I see it, the potential negatives are so much greater than any potential benefit.

If the only benefit to calling Trump a conspiracy theorist is that it is a relevant characterization, I would most definitely advocate against this. Especially since any characterization of this sort could realistically have an impact as great or greater than the Seigenthaler incident. It's not an issue I think we as Wikipedans need to drag ourselves into, and, again, relevant info about it is present on multiple pages, including this one. Cessaune [talk] 01:07, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

We are only discussing where to locate content that is already in the lead. That comparison is off the wall. SPECIFICO talk 01:38, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

Maybe I'm mistaken, but I thought OP was advocating for a change—I propose changing the lead sentence to "Donald John Trump (born June 14, 1946) is an American politician, media personality, businessman, and conspiracy theorist who served as the 45th president of the United States from 2017 to 2021." I'm confused. Cessaune [talk] 01:40, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

Off topic
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Just an aside, why isn't the term conspiracy theory used to describe the claim that Trump secretly conspired with Russia to win the 2016 election and that Trump conspired secretly with law enforcement officials to clear protesters near the White House for a church photo op? Both were later debunked by official government investigations. Bob K31416 (talk) 15:06, 9 May 2023 (UTC) Both were later debunked by official government investigations. please do not disrupt discussions with off-topic, egregious falsehoods. This is sanctionable. ValarianB (talk) 17:08, 9 May 2023 (UTC) Mueller finds no conspiracy, but report shows Trump welcomed Russian help and Police did not clear D.C.'s Lafayette Square of protesters so Trump could hold a photo op, new report says Bob K31416 (talk) 18:06, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

Removals of content

Previous added major information to the article with multiple sources, which @Space4Time3Continuum2x: removed and gave some commentary on.

As this is a Wikipedia article covering the topic of Donald Trump, and Wikipedia is not WP:CENSORED, all of the information is clearly critical and notable. Donald Trump article is not just a biography, but is also an encyclopedic article about a figure in world history. Further all the content relates biographically to Donald Trump and is cited to reliable sources (RS).

The following two passages were removed together.

In the Real Estate Manhattan developments section

By 2012, the Industrial and Commercial Bank of China was Trump Tower's largest office tenant.

Note: Cited to reliable sources and more can be found. The largest tenant of Trump Tower, during any length of time, in a historical article, is major information about Donald Trump. That's why we have the whole section about his business career and not just the presidency.

In the Conflicts of Interest section

According to Forbes staff, by October 2020, Trump had received approximately $5.4 million from the China state-owned bank ICBC through its $1.9 million annual rent in Trump Tower. Trump also maintained a Chinese bank account until 2018 which became a 2020 campaign issue. It was revealed that in 2016 and 2017, he paid more taxes to China ($188,561) than to the United States ($750).

Note: This is very critical to the encyclopedic concept of conflicts of interest certainly the biggest 'individual' detail for a section with that heading, and articles are sourced from late 2020. If the year was 2100 and this was a history article and Donald Trump was no longer a political subject, this would be amazingly crucial content to read about.

For both of the above, some context was given during removal, but doesn't seem like an actual removal reason except a suggestion of "moot". The edit summary was: Mention and cites at Trump_Tower#Commercial_tenants. The bank has been a tenant at Trump Tower (not Trump Building) since 2008 and downsized its space in 2019. Conflict of interest/emoluments: moot after Trump’s term had ended, per SC decision.

Counterargument: downsizing the space in 2019 doesn't reduce the historical relevance, this detail was true and reported on for over a decade into 2020 and 2022 which makes it easily relevant for the encyclopedia. Same for conflicts of interest. The widespread coverage makes it notable to include and even if it is just an event in time, it's critical and should easily pass the WP:10YEARTEST, like the other chronology in the article. The RS's cited are a fraction of the widespread coverage of both passages but are enough to justify inclusion.

This third passage was also removed.

The section about Truth Social currently has an incomplete version of events that is not updated to 2023.

A previous version, which was updated to 2023 using reliable sources, was removed. It looked like this:

Trump registered a new company in February 2021. Trump Media & Technology Group (TMTG) was formed for providing "social networking services" to "customers in the United States". In October 2021, Trump announced the planned merger of TMTG with Digital World Acquisition, a special-purpose acquisition company (SPAC). A main backer of the SPAC is China-based financier ARC Group, who was reportedly involved in setting up the proposed merger. The transaction is under investigation by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. Shanghai-based ARC also offered $2 million to get Digital World Acquisition off the ground. The CEO of Digital World Acquisition, hired from Wuhan-based operation Yunhong Holdings, broke ties with China in December 2021.

The removal edit summary was: Moved newly added content to the umbrella brand, Trump Organization. Too much detail in Chinese company & personnel for top bio.

First of all, 80% of this passage is already in the article. Let's say we're worried about that section looking like minutiae about registration; the additional info that RS's like Reuters and The Guardian discovered in 2023, actually clarifies why it is notable and is notable in itself.

I would consider the removal reasoning weak, because events this massive and international are relevant to readers seeking information about Donald Trump and Wiki is WP:GLOBAL as well as not WP:CENSORED. Given wide RS coverage, this is arguably the most notable information about Truth Social besides its other controversies and funding concerns. It also connects directly back to Trump and in its widespread coverage is fit for "top bio".

In summary, the above passages are major content to include on the Donald Trump article and both biographically important cited to reliable sources and also encyclopedically important in world history.

Sources

Thanks for reading. Feel free to comment below -- Rauisuchian (talk) 20:56, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

Trump Tower tenant ICBC

The Chinese bank rented the offices in 2008, and they were only the third-largest tenant after Gucci and the Trump Organization. In 2008, Trump was a reality TV celebrity, and I doubt the bank had a clairvoyant on its payroll who predicted Trump's 2015 presidential announcement. Emoluments: why did the bank downsize its Trump Tower office in 2019 when he was in office and the tower had plenty of vacant space? Conflicts of interest: tenants tend to pay rent, unless your Clarence Thomas's mother and Harlan Crow is your landlord. The Forbes article doesn't say whether the rent was high, low, or average for a NY 5th Ave. location. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 11:43, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

TMTG

Clarifying: you're proposing to add Shanghai-based ARC also offered $2 million to get Digital World Acquisition off the ground.[10] The CEO of Digital World Acquisition, hired from Wuhan-based operation Yunhong Holdings,[11][10][12][13] broke ties with China in December 2021.[14] Too much detail for this top bio. The first four sentences of the paragraph are in the article. You mention additional info that RS's like Reuters and The Guardian discovered in 2023. What are you talking about? The Reuters article you cite is dated February 10, 2022, and your sources don't include a Guardian article. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 11:30, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

I found the Guardian article, at Truth_Social#Russian_finance, which is where the mention belongs, for now. "According to [Guardian] sources familiar with the matter", NY prosecutors are investigating Trump Media for money laundering. The article mentions then-Trump Media CFO Philip Juhan, Trump Jr., and a few others, no mention of Trump. Until we know whether anything comes of this WP:NOTNEWS applies. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 13:07, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

I appreciate your attention to detail in discussing this. I'll revisit in a bit -- Rauisuchian (talk) 20:52, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

Post-presidential investigations

Can this section be updated? All the info is now out-of-date. Prisoner of Zenda (talk) 09:39, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

I don't think so. Per WP:NOTNEWS "Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events." The criminal investigations mentioned are ongoing. The next hearing in the NY case he was indicted on isn't scheduled until December. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 11:16, 7 May 2023 (UTC) Just updated one item (Trump Org. CFO's conviction for tax fraud). Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 12:29, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

Should add E Jean Carroll's suit against him [5] Swizzard (talk) 19:21, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

Guilty as charged 81.77.149.7 (talk) 19:37, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

No finding of "guilt" has occurred. This content needs to be worded closely follwing RS. He has been found liable for damages relating to sexual assault and defamation. There has not been finding of "rape" and there is no criminal finding. SPECIFICO talk 19:53, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

No as it wasn't a criminal trial. However, any of these phrases would be accurate: "Perpetrator of sexual assault and defamation" "Offender of sexual assault and defamation" "Liable for sexual misconduct and defamation" "Responsible for sexual assault and defamatory actions". Chicago god (talk) 22:46, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

Agree with the two above. Guilty isn't the word as a criminal finding is absent. But, clearly WP:DUE with the correct language. O3000, Ret. (talk) 00:10, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

Lead

In the lead, does to a degree unprecedented in American politics require an inline citation/citations? Surely something like this needs to be cited if we are going to state it in Wikivoice so matter-of-factly. Cessaune [talk] 02:52, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

I don't see any harm in adding this source for it: ––FormalDude (talk) 03:36, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

References

Stating that the jury found him not liable for rape

When I originally added the sentence about the civil trial between Carroll and Trump today, it included that the jury found Trump not liable for rape, which is true and identified by reliable sources. NPR: The nine jurors... did not find that Trump raped Carroll. But they agreed that he "sexually abused" her.. and The Hill: The nine-member jury found Trump did not commit rape, but jurors found him liable for sexual abuse, another form of sexual battery. (these are both of sources cited in the current prose). Anyway, the clause mentioning Trump was found not liable for rape was removed by SPECIFICO with the rationale in the edit summary being: NPOV. Just the facts, ma'am.

To respond to the two claims made here. (1) Trump being found not liable for rape is a verifiable fact that is covered by reliable sources (as demonstrated with the sources above). This was part of the verdict in the same way as him being found liable for sexual abuse and defamation. A jury finding someone not liable for something doesn't make something less mentionable in an article. (2) It absolutely is not a NPOV violation to include this clause; in fact, quite the contrary, it is a NPOV and BLP violation to not mention this along side the rest of the verdict by the jury. How could it be considered neutral for us to willfully ignore one part of the verdict and include another? This comes across as POV cherry-picking of facts to make this appear worse for Trump. A neutral article should include both what he was found liable for and what he wasn't found liable for. In the same way, it would violate the NPOV to say Trump was not found liable for rape, but exclude that he was found liable for sexual abuse and defamation. Iamreallygoodatcheckers ^talk 05:00, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

Absolutely this BLP should say what he was found liable for, and also what he was found not liable for. Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:05, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

Totally agree. CNBC, Politico, CNN, the Washington Post and NBC News in their news stories on this trial all state that the jury did not find that Trump had raped Carroll. Certainly this is reliable information. The Capitalist forever (talk) 05:40, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

It is UNDUE for that brief mention and the full story is at the wiki-linked page on the matter. SPECIFICO talk 06:31, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

Seems that news outlets are mentioning both in the same breath, either in the same sentence, or at least in the same paragraph. I also think there's merit to the NPOV/BLP arguments, so we should include both — DFlhb (talk) 07:51, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

WP is not a news outlet. SPECIFICO talk 08:00, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

We rely on them to determine dueness — DFlhb (talk) 08:20, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

Breaking news coverage?? No. That is incorrect. Of course on Fox the lead was "Trump exonerated of rape." SPECIFICO talk 08:48, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

Further, to be clear, this page does not say that Carroll alleged rape. Adding that would necessitate a lot more detail on the trial that is not DUE for this page. SPECIFICO talk 09:30, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

Honestly, it wasn't just Fox News that said that the jury didn't convict Trump of rape, it was also all the "democratic" news outlets as well. For one, the media actually all stated the same fact, even if it was exaggerated alittle.The Capitalist forever (talk) 09:01, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

The jury didn't conclude that Trump didn't rape her, they concluded that there wasn't sufficient evidence to hold Trump liable for rape. There's a significant difference between these two statements. As per Politico: "The jury found that Carroll did not prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that Trump raped her." Alcibiades979 (talk) 10:00, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

It does give undue weight to not put that Trump was not found guilty of rape by the jury. Also, Specifico, to be honest, I highly doubt people read the references these days, so the other part of the story should be mentioned. Though wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not a news outlet, it should cover the other side of the story. Not wanting to offend. The Capitalist forever (talk) 08:04, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

• I haven't all the evidence or the jury instructions. But, had I been on the jury, I likely would have voted against a finding of rape due to the difficulty in proving it, even though I am quite certain it was rape. I think it should be included that the jury did not find the evidence adequate for a finding of rape, with wording such that it is clear that this does not mean there was proof it didn't occur. I do think the term battery should be added and linked. O3000, Ret. (talk) 10:19, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

Yes we mention it all. Slatersteven (talk) 12:10, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

Fellows, the word "rape" does not appear in this long article. We can't bring it up and say he was not found to have raped her. That's like saying he doesn't have broccoli growing in his ear or he's not on dialysis. As a matter of fact, to do so would be like the famous Trump disinformation tactic of insinuating an idea by denying it, attributing it to gossip, or attributing it to "lots of experts say...". Further, the more significant points discussed in RS accounts are, among others, 1) his doubling down on the Access Hollywood credo that he is a star and stars are entitled to commit sexual assault 2) his not testifying or attending the trial after the devastating deposition video was introduced, and 3) his mistaking Carroll for his wife Marla, and 4) his agitated and incoherent statement post-trial in which, btw he calls the whole thing corrupt and illegitimate (including presumably the failure to find "rape").

The central narratives by Carroll and by media reports have not been about "rape" but about assault. Today, "rape" and its sexual connotations are widely rejected and deprecated in the mainstream discussion of such assaults. Only Trump, in his deposition that discussed which women were attractive enough for him to rape, has promoted this misogynistic view. All the details and context about the events are presented in our wiki-linked article about the case and at Donald Trump sexual misconduct allegations. SPECIFICO talk 13:12, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

I'm sympathetic to your general argument, SPECIFICO, but I lose you on two points: "We can't bring it up and say he was not found to have raped her. That's like saying he doesn't have broccoli growing in his ear or he's not on dialysis." and "The central narratives by Carroll and by media reports have not been about 'rape' but about assault."

The jury didn't sua sponte find Trump not liable for rape, and Trump certainly didn't bring the claim against himself. The reason the jury made a finding as to the rape charge is because Carroll brought a claim for battery which she premised on several theories, including rape. As Carroll said in paragraph 135 of her complaint:

Trump’s actions constitute sexual offenses as defined in Article 130 of the New York Penal Law, including but not limited to rape in the first degree (§ 130.35), rape in the third degree (§ 130.25), sexual abuse in the first degree (§ 130.65), sexual abuse in the third degree (§ 130.55), sexual misconduct (§ 130.20), and forcible touching (§ 130.52).

Primary source. Secondary source. You seem to be suggesting that Carroll never formally alleged rape, but she did. The jury did not make a finding as to "broccoli growing in [Trump's] ear" because Carroll didn't bring a claim based on that.--Jerome Frank Disciple 15:04, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

• The jury in question also did not find him liable for the Kennedy assassination. We don't mention everything he didn't get found liable for. Simply saying "he was found civilly liable for sexual assault against Carroll" is sufficient and complete as it is. No extra information is needed. --Jayron32 14:24, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

  I just want to point out my above argument applies to this point, too. Carroll brought certain claims. One of those claims was for rape. The jury made a finding on the rape allegation because Carroll brought that claim. Carroll did not bring a claim related to the Kennedy assassination. The jury didn't make any finding—liable or not—on Trump's involvement in the Kennedy assassination because Carroll didn't bring that claim.--Jerome Frank Disciple 15:08, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

  Also we say he had been accused of rape, so we need to say that in the one instance the accusation was taken to court it was found to not be proven. Slatersteven (talk) 15:11, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

  We're not saying he was accused of rape, we're saying he was found liable for sexual battery and defamation. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 15:53, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

  "At least 26 women have publicly accused Trump of rape", if we include that we have to also point out how in then only one was brought to trial he was found innocent of the accusation. Slatersteven (talk) 15:58, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

  This is what our "public profile" section says: At least 26 women have publicly accused Trump of rape, kissing and groping without consent, looking under women's skirts, or walking in on naked teenage pageant contestants.[812][813][814] In 2016, he denied all accusations, calling them "false smears" and alleging a conspiracy against him and the American people.[815] It was a civil lawsuit brought by one of the women. The jury found Trump liable for sexual assault and defamation, and not liable for rape which is the term Carroll for the sexual attack. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 16:23, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

  So he did not rape at least one of those accusers, which means we have to say that. We can't accuse someone of a crime they have been found not to have committed. Slatersteven (talk) 16:26, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

  What does this lawsuit have to to with the dozens of accusations other women made over the years? Also, we're not even mentioning that Carroll sued him for rape. The jury found Trump liable for sexual battery and defamation, and not liable for rape which is the term Carroll used for the sexual attack. "Judge Lewis A. Kaplan offered jurors three forms of battery under which Trump could be liable: rape, sexual abuse and forcible touching." Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 16:32, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

  I'm not sure about the connection to the other accusations, but we should absolutely say Carroll was suing him for rape and sexual assault, particularly given that the jury's findings as to those two claims were the most widely reported. Also—I just want to be clear again, Carroll argued rape, sexual assault, and forcible touching in her complaint.--Jerome Frank Disciple 16:34, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

  Same WaPo source: For the jury to find it was rape, the judge said it would have to find that there was sexual intercourse by force, including penetration. For sexual abuse, the requirement was touching sexual or intimate parts by force. It found that the latter was likely. (Kaplan said forcible touching “includes squeezing, grabbing, pinching, rubbing or other bodily contact that involves the application of some level of pressure to the victim’s sexual or intimate parts.”) The verdict will at least allow Trump to say that he wasn’t found liable for an offense as serious as the one Carroll alleged. But the size of the damages and the speed with which the jurors reached their verdict (just a few hours) suggests they were easily convinced Trump engaged in the kind of conduct he spoke about on the 'Access Hollywood' tape, in which he said that if you were a star, women would let you get away with what you want. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 16:47, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

  Yeah that seems like a great source! ... But wait I'm not sure what that has to do with mentioning the not liable finding re: rape.--Jerome Frank Disciple 16:54, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

  It was a civil lawsuit, not an indictment. The jury found Trump liable for sexual battery to the tune of $5 million, i.e., squeezing, grabbing, pinching, rubbing or other bodily contact that involves the application of some level of pressure to the victim’s sexual or intimate parts. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 17:04, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

  ... You're losing me further. Nothing that I said suggested it was an indictment?--Jerome Frank Disciple 17:19, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

  I concur with both JFD and Slatersteven. The jury considered whether or not he was liable for rape, not all these other absurd examples that have nothing to do with Trump. Iamreallygoodatcheckers ^talk 15:21, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

• This blog citing an interview Trump gave Fox News Digital appears to be the only source for Trump saying that he'll appeal. WP:NOTNEWS — the sentence is undue until he actually files an appeal. Also, I moved the text into the post-presidency section, Donald_Trump#Civil_lawsuit_for_sexual_battery_and_defamation. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 15:45, 10 May 2023 (UTC) Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 17:16, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

Correcting myself: The NPR source says that In an email to NPR, a lawyer representing Trump said the former president would appeal the decision. We don't need to and shouldn't quote Trump. IMO, WP:NOTNEWS also applies to the lawyer saying that he would appeal but meh, after looking at the comments in this thread. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 16:08, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

• E. Jean Carroll accused Trump of rape, and sued him for it. The jury considered the accusation of rape and did not find that Trump raped her. This has been excluded from the article. Bob K31416 (talk) 17:20, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

In light of the BLP concerns raised above, I've re-added the explanation to the article [6] (relevant subsection, which, I should point out, is only four sentences). I believe our WP:NOCON policy suggests that when a BLP concern is raised, the article text should be modified to the "safe" version until the BLP discussion is resolved. (In the event of content that arguably violates BLP, that means exclusion pending discussion, and I think it follows that omission arguably violating BLP yields inclusion pending discussion.)--Jerome Frank Disciple 17:42, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

There is no BLP problem. In fact, there's arguably a BLP problem to add that content, given how the page has framed the narrative of that section. Please do not add content that is under discussion. SPECIFICO talk 18:13, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

You're unilaterally deciding that there's no BLP problem, but there's a dispute—other editors, including @Iamreallygoodatcheckers, Anythingyouwant, and DFlhb:, have said it is. And, I'm sorry, what's the argument that including the full verdict creates a BLP problem? Here's the text of what was there—I'm actually a bit fascinated to know how it presents a BLP issue.

In 2022, E. Jean Carroll sued Trump for sexually battering her in a Manhattan department in the mid-1990s and for defamation when he denied her story during his presidency. As to the battery claim, Carroll's complaint alleged Trump's conduct met the standard of several crimes under New York's penal code, include rape, sexual abuse, and forcible touching.^[1][2] In May 2023, after three hours of deliberation, a federal jury in Manhattan found that Trump was liable for the sexual-abuse and defamation claims but that Carroll had not proven the rape claim.^[3][4] The jury awarded Carroll $5 million. Trump's lawyer told NPR that Trump would appeal the finding.^[4]
[1] Klasfeld, Adam (November 24, 2022). "E. Jean Carroll Files Long-Anticipated Lawsuit Accusing Trump of Rape, as New York's Adult Survivors Act Goes into Effect". Law & Crime.
^[2] Fadulu, Lola (May 9, 2023). "New York law gave jurors three types of battery to consider in the Trump case". New York Times.
^[3] Choma, Russ (May 9, 2023). "Donald Trump Sexually Abused and Defamed E. Jean Carroll, Jury Finds". Mother Jones.
^{[4] a, b} Sullivan, Becky; Bernstein, Andrea; Marritz, Ilya; Lawrence, Quil (May 9, 2023). "A jury finds Trump liable for battery and defamation in E. Jean Carroll trial". NPR. Retrieved May 10, 2023.

The way this is headed, I imagine an RFC is on the horizon, and we should probably notify BLP noticeboard, too, particularly as to the question of what the article should say in the interim. Per WP:NOCON, given that the inclusion of just part of the jury verdict has been called a BLP issue, and you're (apparently?) saying the inclusion of the full verdict is a BLP issue, then we should remove any mention of the jury verdict while the discussion is resolved.--Jerome Frank Disciple 18:25, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

• I posted this to the BLP noticeboard since four editors have raised BLP concerns.--Jerome Frank Disciple 18:47, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

Here is the jury's verdict. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 19:35, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

• FYI, The article currently uses the source [7], which begins with the following two paragraphs.

A federal jury has found former President Donald Trump liable for battery and defamation in the lawsuit brought by writer E. Jean Carroll, who says he raped her in a Manhattan department store in the mid-1990s.

The nine jurors, who deliberated for barely three hours before reaching their unanimous conclusion, did not find that Trump raped Carroll. But they agreed that he "sexually abused" her and that he defamed her when he denied her story.

The Wikipedia article currently says,

In 2022, E. Jean Carroll sued Trump for sexually abusing her in a Manhattan department in the mid-1990s and for defamation when he denied her story during his presidency. In May 2023, a federal jury in Manhattan found him liable for sexual abuse and defamation and awarded her $5 million. Trump's lawyer told NPR that Trump would appeal the finding.[706]

Note that there is no mention of rape in the Wikipedia article but it is prominently in the source. The story for almost a year was the accusation of rape. Now that the jury considered the accusation of rape and unanimously did not find that it occurred, this Wikipedia article ignores that. Bob K31416 (talk) 19:01, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

and unanimously did not find that it occurred is a lie, again. not enough evidence to secure a conviction is not a finding that "it did not occur". ValarianB (talk) 19:39, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

Bob, nobody's ignoring anything. Deciding not to include excessive and fraught detail in the bio of Trump's many years -- when we link to two other articles full of the details you crave -- is not "ignoring" anything. That is not a substantive argument, nor is it responsive to the many concerns raised by numerous editors here. SPECIFICO talk 19:44, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

@ValarianB: I'll be honest ... I work in law, and I love distinguishing cases ... but that distinction is ... really thin. Just to put it in its proper context, it would be just as valid to say, "The jury didn't find that the sexual abuse occurred. They found that the evidence presented indicated that sexual abuse most likely occurred."--Jerome Frank Disciple 19:51, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

• This is the top bio on Trump. The jury said that Carroll proved, by a preponderance of the evidence, that Trump sexually abused and defamed her. That's the important part, and that's what our text said. Further details belong in the main article. How is not saying that the jury said that Carroll did not prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that Trump raped her a BLP problem when we don't say that Carroll accused him of rape? Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 19:55, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

  So, to start, why do we not say that Carroll accused him of rape? Surely that accusation is significant, no? Is it just to avoid mentioning the jury's finding?--Jerome Frank Disciple 20:02, 10 May 2023 (UTC)