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 Superseded by #15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 (Nov 2016, Dec 2016) (Superseded by #15 since 11 February 2017)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 Superseded by #35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 (Sep 2016, February 2017, wording shortened per April 2017, upheld with July 2018) (superseded by #35 since 18 February 2019)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 Superseded by #17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 (Jan 2017, Jan 2017, Jan 2017, Jan 2017, Jan 2017, Feb 2017) (superseded by #17 since 2 April 2017)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

Ineligible for public office

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

Alright. Time for some late night analyzation.

Fourteenth Amendment, Section Three:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

They go on to state, quote:

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

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

Wow, thanks for such a detailed response! I do wonder a bit about your point in quoting the bit that says (paraphrasing), “It’s probably not technically a rebellion, and they only insurrected for one day.” One (1) insurrection is plenty for the section to come into effect! Most elected officials have no problem engaging in zero.

And I’m a bit puzzled by your conclusion: that last bit you quoted says quite clearly “he is no longer eligible.” The preceding “if” statement modifies only “it’s not even close.”

In fact, I would say it’s an open-and-shut case after he tweeted, “We love you, you’re very special,” to the violent mob shitting in the halls of Congress. If that doesn’t count as “comfort to the enemies (of the Constitution of the United States),” I can’t imagine what would.

But I am open to reasonable rephrasings of the statement to add nuance. It’s an important topic to discuss. Lynn Ami (talk) 13:05, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

I would say it’s an open-and-shut case... sure, go ahead and say that. However, Wikipedia policy bars us from stating anything that isn't reliably sourced.

My entire point revolves around the idea that it is the authors' opinion that Trump is ineligible per Amendment 14, section 3. This is made clear by the numerous times they say things like [i]n our view, it seems to us to be quite clear, etc. Even if the authors of this paper did not explicitly state that their writings were opinion, it would still be their opinion. At least to me, it's clear that they are synthesizing an argument using facts, logic, and reasoning, but their overall point is not a fact, merely an opinion.

At the end of the day, we won't be able to state something like it would currently be unconstitutional (by the 14th Amendment, section 3) for him to actually appear on ballots or hold office, especially given that you've only provided a single source to back that claim up. A singular source is not nearly enough to state something in Wikivoice so matter-of-factly. Cessaune [talk] 15:26, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

All right. I still think there's very little wiggle room for interpretation here, but how about something more like, "Trump's eligibility to run for public office again under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment is the topic of ongoing debate and at least one pending lawsuit."

The 14th Amendment theory that could define 2024: Is Trump eligible to run? - POLITICO

[1]https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2023/08/donald-trump-constitutionally-prohibited-presidency/675048/

[2]https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2023/08/29/trump-ballot-disqualification-constitution/

(There are a lot of news articles about this right now, how many would be needed?) Lynn Ami (talk) 18:02, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

The problem, of course, is in the word "engaged". A finding of fact would have to be made that he did so personally. Predictably, red states are not even remotely going to bar him from the ballot, and it's fairly unlikely at this point that any state will do so, regardless of the seeming truth of the matter to all fair onlookers. 69.131.24.177 (talk) 16:08, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

And when his candidacy is rejected on these grounds this matters, otherwise it is just speculation. Slatersteven (talk) 13:08, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

Any other candidate for political office with an active lawsuit challenging their eligibility would have that included in the article as significant, would they not? [3][4]https://www.palestineherald.com/news/lawsuit-seeks-to-keep-trump-off-the-new-hampshire-ballot/article_d33d0c62-495b-11ee-86b4-17747e8b2353.html#:~:text=CONCORD%2C%20NH%20%E2%80%94%20New%20Hampshire%20is,27%20in%20Merrimack%20Superior%20Court. Lynn Ami (talk) 21:00, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

AFAIK, he's still a candidate for the 2024 Republican presidential nomination. GoodDay (talk) 15:46, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

You would have to show that the opinion has WEIGHT before including. While I'm not an expert, the article appears to be weak when defining insurrection. For historical context, it's a term used in colonial laws for suppressing slave revolts and is not part of English common law or statute, hence the difficulty with definition. And Trump cannot be charged with insurrection because it requires first that the president declare a state of insurrection exists. TFD (talk) 17:10, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

USA has been independent of England for some time now. The content as proposed is UNDUE, but "insurrection" is certainly a part of American law and canon. On that point, your position appears to be internally inconsistent. SPECIFICO talk 17:19, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

Independent of the "Kingdom of Great Britain" (now United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland), not only England. GoodDay (talk) 17:41, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

That's not what TFD said. Let's not add irrelevant comments. SPECIFICO talk 18:15, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

But only since 2020, when Trump signed the real declaration of independence. Slatersteven (talk) 17:43, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

When the U.S. obtained independence, all the laws continued in force until changed. The only difference was that the laws could be changed in the U.S. For example, if you went on trial for murder after July 4 1776 you could not say that the murder statute no longer applied because it had been passed when the U.S. was a colony. Also, the Supreme Court of the United States decided that terms in the U.S. constitution derived from English common law would be defined as they were understood by lawyers practicing in the colonies before independence. The term citizen for example is used in the U.S. constitution and prior to the 14th amendment, citizenship cases always referred to English common law definitions.

Do you actually believe that all laws were abolished in 1776? TFD (talk) 06:12, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

[5]https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/speeches-remarks/2022/01/06/remarks-by-president-biden-to-mark-one-year-since-the-january-6th-deadly-assault-on-the-u-s-capitol/

"This wasn’t a group of tourists. This was an armed insurrection." - President Biden

Not sure why a presidential declaration is required, but it's there if you need it. I don't think "insurrection" is as difficult to define as you claim, and it's hard to see how any reasonable definition could fail to cover Jan 6th. Also, Trump was literally already charged with insurrection when the House impeached him (the second time). That's WEIGHT. Just because the Senate failed to convict doesn't change the facts. He's not required to be convicted in order to be disqualified from office.

Just as importantly, the disqualification does not even hinge on any definition of "insurrection." In my opinion the article is weakest by not emphasizing more the indisputable status of the Jan 6th mob as enemies of the Constitution - their undisputed purpose being to delay, disturb, unduly influence, and outright contravene the constitutionally-mandated counting of votes by Congress. Anyone who broke their oath of office to give them aid or comfort is as ineligible for future office as if they took up arms themselves. Lynn Ami (talk) 20:27, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

The declaration must be made by the serving president. The Insurrection Act 1807 says, "in all cases of insurrection...it shall be lawful for the President of the United States to call forth the militia for the purposes of suppressing such insurrection." The fact that the Insurrection Act was not used makes it unlikely that an insurrection occurred. TFD (talk) 06:21, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

That's a red herring. The proposed content is not about the Insurrection Act, it is about the 14th Amendment. Moreover, we know that the reason the Insurrection Act was not used is because the "serving president" was leading the insurrection and would not even make a public call for it to stop. In fact, POTUS' key insurrection advisers advocated him falsely invoking the Act to cancel various state presidential elections. There's also a simple logical mistake in this argument. "In case of fire, break glass." does not entail "If the glass was not broken there was no fire." That's the argument you've presented. It fails elementary logic. SPECIFICO talk 16:12, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

That's a silly and facially defective argument. In fact, you start by saying "must" and at the end retreat to "unlikely". The Insurrection Act does not define the applicability of the 14th Amendment, as you must know; it defines an extra presidential power (calling forth a militia) in case of one occurring. In addition, your garbage argument would intentionally create a loophole for insurrections engaged in by active presidents. 69.131.24.177 (talk) 16:04, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

If and when any state declares Trump ineligible to run and takes him off the ballot, we’ll mention it but until then the authors' opinion is just a legal opinion. Space4Time3Continuum2x ^(cowabunga) 18:38, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

Removal talk is leftie trolling. SPECIFICO talk 19:11, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

We don't need to debate the 14th Amendment issue on this page, and it's a waste of space-time to do so. It's sufficient to recognize that the issue will most certainly be decided in the U.S. Supreme Court, even if it gets pushed that far, which is not certain at all. If it requires nine SCOTUS wise men and women to sort this out, it can't be as cut-and-dried as the OP asserts.

I have not seen enough RS coverage to justify mention in this article at this time, although it might be suitable for a different book in the massive Wikipedia Library of Donald Trump. At this point, it's little more than partisan speculation and YouTube fodder. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:12, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

ABSOLUTELY CORRECT Mandruss! 72.189.246.254 (talk) 13:08, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

I agree, Mandruss.--Jack Upland (talk) 02:46, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

IMO there is more than enough RS coverage to warrant a brief mention. Cessaune [talk] 15:38, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

WP:NOTNEWS: "not all verifiable events are suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia" and "most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion". It's a debate among a few legal scholars and historians, and there's the precedent of a candidate convicted for sedition running for president from prison. Space4Time3Continuum2x ^(cowabunga) 17:50, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

An interesting comparison! I read up a little on Debs as I was not familiar with him before. The fourteenth amendment could conceivably have applied to him, since he was elected to the Indiana General Assembly in 1884, presumably took an oath of office, and then in 1918 made a speech which got him thrown in jail for sedition, and he subsequently (for the fifth and final time) ran as a third-party candidate for President in 1920.

His conviction was upheld by the Supreme Court because “the Court found he had the intention and effect of obstructing the draft and military recruitment. Among other things, the Court cited Debs's praise for those imprisoned for obstructing the draft.”

Is draft resistance something that would qualify as insurrection or rebellion? Someone could make a case for it, I suppose, but it’s hardly taking up arms. Is it giving aid or comfort to the enemies of the Constitution? I think someone wishing to define draft objectors as “enemies thereof” would have their work cut out for them, though again I imagine the argument could be made. So I think Debs would’ve been overall a much weaker case than Trump for disqualification under the 14th, sec. 3.

But perhaps I’ve gone down a rabbithole, and you only meant to propose the comparison of someone running for President from prison as a gauge for Wikipedia’s inclusion standards. In which case, I merely point out that it is indeed referenced in the introductory section of his article that you linked to. Lynn Ami (talk) 22:49, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

In my book, the SC decision on Debs ranks not quite up there with Dred Scott but not far behind. But I only mentioned it because it’s one of the reasons some scholars, e.g. David T. Beito, say that the 14th amendment argument fails. The article on Trump’s 2024 campaign has a section on the eligibility debate. For now, that is the place for the pro and con opinions, IMO. The section hasn’t been updated with the renewed debate following Trump’s indictments. Space4Time3Continuum2x ^(cowabunga) 10:46, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

Legally it is fair to consider if Trump is eligible to run..the law is vague and opaque by nature..laws are written by lawyers who practice rhetoric for their own gain which goes against the principals of Socrates who founded the modern legal system..in other words the large print giveth as the fine print taketh away...the written law does not represent the ethical and moral law...nevertheless the idea of whether or not he is eligible to run under the constitution is obviously extremely relevant and should be included in the article if it`s not already there and expanded upon Anonymous8206 (talk) 15:20, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

I`m going to amend this to just stating the facts..Trump incited the rioters..how is that not inciting an insurrection ? Anonymous8206 (talk) 01:32, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

I'm confused. How is this relevant to the point at hand, if you don't mind me asking? Cessaune [talk] 04:50, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

Trump was acquitted of inciting the "rioters," riot and insurrection are separate offenses under the USC and no one has been convicted of riot or insurrection.

Also, while there are constitutional restrictions on who is qualified to be president, there are none on who can run for office, particularly considering that votes do not elect the president directly.

In the end, Congress will count the votes and decide if Trump is qualified, while no doubt there will be protests outside. TFD (talk) 06:35, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

As I said above, I think this content would be UNDUE. But I suggest that you read the argument that Tribe, Luttig, and others have made. It's not helpful to misrepresent them in this discussion, which you've done in several different ways - now with misinformation about the ballot and the role of Congress. SPECIFICO talk 16:18, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

I wasn`t aware that he was acquitted of anything but then I don`t pay much attention to him..he may be legally allowed to run that doesn`t mean he wasn`t attempting to incite a mob who`s intent was to take the law into it`s own hands..it seems reasonable that it should at least be considered whether he ignored his oath to the constitution Anonymous8206 (talk) 17:28, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

Of course he was not acquitted of anything. This statement, In the end, Congress will count the votes and decide if Trump is qualified is false in any event. The theory being advanced and now pursued in some states, concludes that he would not be allowed on the ballot. That is why it's being investigated by secretaries of state in various jurisdictions. SPECIFICO talk 18:48, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

“Also, while there are constitutional restrictions on who is qualified to be president, there are none on who can run for office, particularly considering that votes do not elect the president directly.” An eyebrow-raising claim. Would it similarly be your position that an eighteen-year-old should be considered eligible to be on the ballot for President, although not to occupy office?

It is true that Congress has the final determination if a president-elect is qualified, but only after the electoral college, voters, and state election boards all make their own determinations, all alongside the courts if questions come before them. Lynn Ami (talk) 23:37, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 20 September 2023

The authors of this page have used manipulative language to create a negative portrayal of President Trump. Wikipedia articles need to tell the verifiable truth, not frame opinion and speculation as fact. For example, the statement of "many false and misleading statements" is an example of such language that either needs to cite a verifiable source or replace it with language that is defensible as truthful. This statement should be rewritten as "controversial statements". CoreyDel (talk) 02:46, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

"many false and misleading statements" is well sourced soibangla (talk) 02:58, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

It's so notable, well-documented, and dominant an aspect of his modus operandi that we have a fully sourced article devoted to the topic: False or misleading statements by Donald Trump. No other public person is as deceptive. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 04:41, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

While it is sourced in the article, per current consensus #58 I think we should also cite it in the lead. Cessaune [talk] 17:20, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

"New research published in Public Opinion Quarterly reveals a correlation between the number of times President Donald Trump repeated falsehoods during his presidency and misperceptions among Republicans, and that the repetition effect was stronger on the beliefs of people who consume information primarily from right-leaning news outlets." -- New study reveals correlation between Trump’s repeated falsehoods and public misperceptions. Valjean (talk) (PING me) 05:47, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

It sounds reasonable that the extent of his documented misleading statements should be in the lead Anonymous8206 (talk) 21:22, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

At this point in Donald Trump's life and career, it is not "contentious and controversial" to note his characterization as a habitual, deliberate liar. I would oppose invoking Current Consensus #58 to cite this in the lede. Zaathras (talk) 01:04, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

Per the RfC close: While it is common to avoid usage of citations in the lede since that section of the article should be a summary of its body, where everything should already be cited appropriately, it is true that contentious material, likely to be challenged, can and should still be cited in the lede, according to MOS:LEDECITE. The material isn't just 'likely' to be challenged, it has been challenged. Cessaune [talk] 01:12, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

THen lets source it, then have a FAQ saying its sourced. Slatersteven (talk) 10:36, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

No. A lone naysayer doesn't get to hold up their finger and say "it's challenged", otherwise we'd be ceding power to any rando that swung by saying "I don't like that, cite it!, and we'd be back in the original boat of a seriously over-cited lede. There needs to be consensus here, not just "me me me". Zaathras (talk) 13:36, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

A) There are currently two cites in the lead. As long as we use common sense, we can avoid over-citation. However, what actually qualifies as over-cited in your opinion?

B) The lead has not been seriously over-cited for a very long time, if at all IMO. Or maybe I'm mistaken. Do you have a diff that shows an over-cited lead?

C) Can you clarify how the consensus process would be used in this situation? Cessaune [talk] 17:30, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

The lead is fine, in its current status. GoodDay (talk) 13:50, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

I disagree..he is a stereotypical pathological liar which has been demonstrated time and time again..how can that not be relevant ? Anonymous8206 (talk) 14:52, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

The lead needs NO citations. None at all. The article attached to any lead IS its citation. What is needed is people willing to tell the complainers to read the damn article. If they find something in the lead that ISN'T covered by the article, then we have a problem. Until then, I don't really care how much they whine.--User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 13:55, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

Khajidha, what about item #58? Cessaune [talk] 13:59, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

Should be struck as pointless and contrary to sense. A lead is cited to its article. That's all that's needed. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 14:11, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

Alright. It is a valid opinion, but a opinion nonetheless, and consensus overrides a single user's opinion. If you are able to generate consensus for your opinion, then sure, but otherwise what you're saying doesn't help advance the discussion. Cessaune [talk] 14:18, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

I second pointless and contrary to sense. However, since we are stuck with #58, the consensus also says that "editors should further discuss which sentences would benefit from having inline citations". This particular edit request was made by a drive-by editor whose only other activity on WP was an edit on Ken Paxton's page changing "false claims of election fraud" to "controversial claims of election fraud". The editor didn't cite any sources to support their claim that "'false' is not factual" and immediately left the discussion they started here. And yet, here we are mired in another discussion. Space4Time3Continuum2x ^(cowabunga) 14:54, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

Close this as a waste of our time. Slatersteven (talk) 14:57, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

Once again current news ie inflating his worth indicates he is a habitual compulsive liar..it`s an ethical issue..it needs to be in the lead Anonymous8206 (talk) 15:34, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

The lead includes the passage "Trump promoted conspiracy theories and made many false and misleading statements during his campaigns and presidency, to a degree unprecedented in American politics", with a link to an entire Wikipedia article (of considerable length) about the lies he tells. I think we're covered, ethically. AntiDionysius (talk) 15:48, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

This is true..I don`t know why I didn`t catch that but I get physically nauseous reading this article and try not spend a lot of time doing so..it seems like the awareness of his deception is constantly increasing however..where does it end ? eventually what will be the catylist to make it be more notable ? Anonymous8206 (talk) 15:57, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

NY liability for Fraud Judgment

The subject has been judged guilty of fraud. C.f., [6] The subject also faces, what, 94(?), felony criminal indictments in four separate federal and state trials? Realities such as these should appear toward the top of the summary. Catuskoti (talk) 23:40, 26 September 2023 (UTC) Such information seems more relevant to readers than, e.g., his alma mater or his major in college.

This is a serious setback as it could affect some of his and his families investments at an inopportune time. But we really should wait for analysis. (Although, I doubt we will.) O3000, Ret. (talk) 23:52, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

How the event affects his and his family's / families' investments doesn't affect the realities: the subject has been convicted of fraud in NY and faces multiple federal indictments.

These realities are more pertinent than his educational history and should be among the first few sentences of the entry. Catuskoti (talk) 23:58, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

Please be careful in a WP:BLP. This is a civil trial in which the judge has stated he and his adult sons are libel for fraud as a matter of law, which will continue. He was not convicted. When he is convicted of charges, it will be given more prominent space. O3000, Ret. (talk) 00:18, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

It's a finding of civil liability, like his liabilty for denying rape,etc. SPECIFICO talk 00:15, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

I appreciate these corrections. Nonetheless, are these findings of civil liability pertaining to, e.g., sexual assault and fraud, not more pertinent to readers than the subject's alma mater and major? They are key to neutral biography of the subject. The state and federal indictments the subject faces also seem, to me at least, more relevant to readers than, e.g., the subject's college history. Catuskoti (talk) 00:32, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

None of the civil judgments are final. Trump's appeal of the sexual assault/defamation finding is pending, and Trump's attorneys in the NY civil fraud case, which will go to trial next week, said that he will appeal the judge's ruling. The consensus view so far is that the lead follows the chronology. If and when Trump is found guilty of any of the criminal charges, the consensus may change. Space4Time3Continuum2x ^(cowabunga) 13:34, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

The lead doesn't all follow the chronology. Otherwise his indictments would be the first thing in the lead, right? SPECIFICO talk 15:08, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

Huh? He was indicted before he graduated in 1968? Space4Time3Continuum2x ^(cowabunga) 17:02, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

Fundamental NPOV issue with this article

This article has been created over a long period during which the mainstream narratives and RS secondary reporting on Trump have changed markedly.

For a long time, even in the face of unprecedented "negative" facts and actions by Trump, the media gave him what in hindsight is now considered undue deference owing to his stature as a political figure and president. Some of this article content and the way it's organized are sourced from Trump's era of undue deference.

The mainstream view of Trump is today overwhelmingly focused on events and his actions of the past 3 years. The article and the narrative of the lead do not reflect this, per recent comments and edit requests here. Some of the negative facts, narratives, and tertiary conclusions about Trump need to be more prominently presented in the lead and article content.

At the same time, it is a fact that 20-40 percent of the American public do not share what Wikipedia considers mainstream reliably sourced views. Fortunately, there is a lot of secondary and tertiary sourcing about Trump's steadfast support that can be used to balance the more negative article content while not presenting his statements and actions with the false equivalences and unwarranted deference that were prevalent in the past.

This is going to be a lot of work, but it does need to be done. The article now is not well organized or balanced. SPECIFICO talk 15:49, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

Who are you, and what have you done with Specifico? The negative facts need to be more prominently presented with less mainstream reliable sources while the article also needs to balance the more negative article content — pray tell, how? Of course the news are overwhelmingly focused on current events. Quoting Gremlins 2: "All they have to do is to eat three or four children and there'd be the most appalling publicity!" Wikipedia is not news. Space4Time3Continuum2x ^(cowabunga) 17:16, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

The mainstream view of Trump is today overwhelmingly focused on events and his actions of the past 3 years. This sounds like WP:RECENTISM. His past three years are important, but so are the previous four, when he was president. And we need to give proper, due weight to everything that came before. Remember, we native New Yorkers have known all about this guy since he was getting himself plastered on the backpages of the New York Post in the 1980s. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:40, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

@Muboshgu: OK, let's say the past 8 years then. Most recent 3 was not what I intended to emphasize, although I'd personally be surprised if 2020ff is not ultimately considered the most significant part of his life. So I may have been too quick writing my post, rushing as I am nowadays to get goats' winter rumen cut and baled in between downpours here. Anyway, details of what's now understood (and affirmed by you I think) to be his dubious and fictionalized business history are given undue prominence in the lead and article detail. But as you suggest, mainstream coverage considered him an imposter with shady associations from the day he de-tunneled in Manhattan to gild the Commodore Hotel. But there's now a growing body of tertiary sourcing that can be used to discuss his public persona without deadpan repeating silly stuff as if it were significant on its face to the mainstream view. It's not easy to narrate how and why about half of the US holds non-mainstream views of him. But recent sources do deal with the reactions of his TV, WWE, and Republican fan base in a way that contextualizes their views without validating them as fact. When I have more time I can suggest and explain specific edits, but I think a lot of the Personal, Business, and Media sections is UNDUE and portrays him in a misleading light. SPECIFICO talk 23:00, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

Your concerns about recentism are legit, and, as @SPECIFICO has said, the task of shifting this article to NPOV is challenging. The parts of WP:RECENTISM that seem most pertinent in this case are:

• Articles overburdened with documenting breaking news reports and controversy as it happens.
• Articles created on flimsy, transient merits.

The first indicates that articles should not be overburdened by recent events and controversies. But it does not stipulate that they shouldn't be mentioned.

The second offers criteria to help editors sift through recent events. Are the implications "flimsy" -- e.g., poorly grounded, speculative, based on scant evidence, etc. -- or are they transient -- e.g., likely not to have abiding significance or importance?

To my mind, and I'm just spit balling, the facts that the subject, a former US president, has been a) found civilly liable for fraud and sexual assault, b) twice-impeached, c) criminally indicated in four federal and state indictments on 91 felony charges are neither flimsy nor transient. The challenge, then, will be to state some or all of these realities without overburdening the article. Catuskoti (talk) 02:24, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

The fundamental issue is that there has been "recent" evidence in the form of his increasingly erratic behavior, in judicial rulings, and other events, that has invalidated swaths of his narrative of his pre-political career that was widely believed and accepted by the American population ex-NYC. That's not what WP means by RECENTISM or NOTNEWS. It would be as if there were a WP article on physics that stated "nuclear fission cannot be achieved" and then in 1946 we kept that content because RECENTISM.

What's recent is that there's now much more mainstream meta-discussion of the phenomenon of the unraveling of the life story of Mr. Trump, much of which is presented deadpan in this article. SPECIFICO talk 12:06, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

Concur with Muboshgu Iamreallygoodatcheckers ^talk 17:48, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

The article seems balanced enough to me with the exception of the more depraved aspects regarding his personal life which have been consistently suppressed..facts are facts Anonymous8206 (talk) 19:51, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

Can you be more specific? I'm assuming with the moniker of "depraved", you're thinking of the adultery, the rape, the sexual assault allegations, and/or the allegations regarding underage girls and Jane Doe? Which of these do you think needs more emphasis, and why that/those issues specifically? Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk)

Pretty much all of it particularly the underaged girls and his relationship with Epstein..I agree that his pre presidential life should be expanded on I just don`t think it`s going to happen particularly any deeper relationship he had with construction in New York..there`s obviously no point to me pursuing it Anonymous8206 (talk) 22:33, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

I haven't read anything in reliable sources about underaged girls. And the only relationship with Epstein is that Epstein was a member of Mara Lago before being banned and once gave Trump a lift to NYC. It's not as if Trump visited his properties. TFD (talk) 22:41, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

I agree with Specifico that the article will need to continue to evolve to reflect the historical consensus and that Trump is still only recently in the rearview - actually, he's still right in the middle of the road soaking up coverage and airtime as per usual, just mostly about his various legal matters and how that might affect his campaign. In general though, I agree that the coverage of Trump's presidency is near universal in how historically negatively he was viewed by everyone except for his die-hard devotees. The story continues to be that of defiance, but the story is still going on, so we need to be very cautious about anything until it becomes clear either that Trump is indeed into a different act of his story, or if he will again be the Republican nominee as many believe now (don't forget, many believed in Jeb!) Andre🚐 22:37, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

"or if he will again be the Republican nominee as many believe now" Whether he gets nominated or not is largely irrelevant. We still have to cover several decades of his frauds, his other criminal activities, and his short-lived political career. We can not focus only on the latest news coverage of the professional con-man. Dimadick (talk) 02:15, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

We go by what RS say, and what RS considers noteworthy. Slatersteven (talk) 12:11, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

May we please leave the opening paragraph as is, per consistency with other US presidents? GoodDay (talk) 22:23, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

If we re-write Trump's earlier life, we should use academic sources rather than news media. Most probably Trump will be remembered as a showman who electrified various segments of the population, while enraging the elites, but otherwise accomplished very little in office, good or bad. TFD (talk) 22:46, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

Well that's part of the ending of his life story, and I don't know what "elites" means as he always claimed to be one before claiming he wasn't and still is. As this is his main article, his history is important as it lends an understanding of who and why he is what he is. What drives him. At this point, this is well covered in news media and in various books -- which may not be considered "academic sources" in the way Wikipedia defines the term. And, in my mind, we should still avoid the armchair psychologists no matter their pedigree.O3000, Ret. (talk) O3000, Ret. (talk) 00:16, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

Academic sources will ultimately hold the most weight..that should be self evident Anonymous8206 (talk) 00:40, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

While I respect this desire, to my mind, the aim should be neutral biography, not consistency of format. Catuskoti (talk) 10:28, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

Isn't - 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 - neutral enough? GoodDay (talk) 16:04, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

Sure, so long as it's followed by something like: He was the first President of the United States to be impeached twice, and has been found civilly liable for sexual assault and fraud. He currently faces 91 felony indictments in four separate federal and state jurisdictions." Catuskoti (talk) 19:15, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

@Catuskoti: Take a look at this short discussion. Cessaune [talk] 03:13, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

Divestitures of distressed properties

There are seveal instances of content that say Trump sold this or that asset. Well, yes he sold them but these sales were almost always under duress and arranged with the approval of bank lenders as part of forced arrangements to avoid or resolve foreclosures. The current wording doesn't fully convey the circumstances of these sales. SPECIFICO talk 15:17, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

The current wording isn't sufficient?

• "Real estate". Between 1991 and 2009, he filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection for six of his businesses, the Plaza Hotel in Manhattan, the casinos in Atlantic City, New Jersey, and the Trump Hotels & Casino Resorts company.
• "Manhattan developments" section. The hotel filed for bankruptcy protection in 1992, and a reorganization plan was approved a month later.[60] In 1995, Trump sold the Plaza Hotel along with most of his properties to pay down his debts, including personally guaranteed loans, allowing him to avoid personal bankruptcy. and Struggling with debt from other ventures in 1994, Trump sold most of his interest in the project to Asian investors, who were able to finance the project's completion, Riverside South.
• "Atlantic City casinos“. Both casinos filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection in 1992. and Trump filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection in 1991. Under the provisions of the restructuring agreement, Trump gave up half his initial stake and personally guaranteed future performance.[72] To reduce his $900 million of personal debt, he sold the Trump Shuttle airline; his megayacht, the Trump Princess, which had been leased to his casinos and kept docked; and other businesses. and THCR purchased the Taj Mahal and the Trump Castle in 1996 and went bankrupt in 2004 and 2009, leaving Trump with 10 percent ownership.

What kind of improvements do you suggest? Space4Time3Continuum2x ^(cowabunga) 16:20, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

Readers less sophisticated than you may miss the point that the agreements and restructurings and avoidance of bankruptcies were only to protect the banks from lender liability claims. This needs to be made more clear as an overview. If I had specific language, I would already have inserted it. SPECIFICO talk 16:58, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

I’m obviously less sophisticated than you think because I missed that point, too. Which ones of our cited sources make that point? Space4Time3Continuum2x ^(cowabunga) 17:35, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

I don't know - it may take a search of the literature, which I will try to do. From Trump's point of view, this may all have been the art of the smart. However from the point of view of his American heartland base, maybe not. He seems to be touching on this in his defense in NY denying his Fraud because the banks are sophisticated and it's their problem. That might very likely be an effective ploy in negotiating the terms of settlement for his defaults, but there were broader issues in his fraud trial. SPECIFICO talk 18:54, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

OK Done - it was all in the cited NYT source. SPECIFICO talk 19:43, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

Rough consensus characterization of consensus item #60

Mandruss: Once again, I'm challenging this revert.

Consensus item #60 reads:

Insert the links described in the RfC January 2023. (Rough consensus)

None of the other consensus item statements contain a characterization of the degree of consensus. Especially considering the fact that the "(rough consensus)" characterization was added by an editor (Space4T) that has opposed adding links to the lead at every major turn (November 2022 discussion, December 2022 discussion, January RfC, to name the most recent), IMO it comes off as a biased and unnecessary addition that should be removed.

Either we state the degree of consensus for every consensus item, or we avoid stating the degree of consensus for this specific consensus item. I don't see why this specific consensus item deserves to be treated any differently from the other ones. Cessaune [talk] 18:11, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

Yes, all consensus is rough. Andre🚐 18:17, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

May discussion. Once again, this needs consensus. Once again, it currently lacks it. Once again, my revert was about process, not content. I am surprised to see you try that again without consensus. Good luck this time. ―Mandruss ☎ 18:22, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

That`s the problem..you can "prove" anything via rhetoric..that`s what lawyers do..the content is what`s important not the process Anonymous8206 (talk) 19:54, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, I shoudn't have done that, but that's why we're here now. Cessaune [talk] 20:07, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

WP consensus usually isn't unanimous but this is the only closing that mentions "rough consensus" twice in a three-sentence statement. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 20:14, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

I am genuinely failing to understand the point you're making. Can you please explain to me what you mean by this? Thanks. Cessaune [talk] 20:21, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

There is no point..he`s trying to confuse the issue with language Anonymous8206 (talk) 22:23, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

The closer made the point, i.e., that it was a rough consensus. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 13:54, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

What`s a closer ? Anonymous8206 (talk) 15:28, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

um, the person who closes a discussion and enacts the result thereof. was this a a serious question? ValarianB (talk) 17:57, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

This isn't the only RfC on this page that uses similar language (clear consensus, rough consensus/strong consensus, clear consensus against, etc). What I don't get is why this item gets to be treated differently. Cessaune [talk] 01:03, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

It seems to me that we're stating "rough" when the closer says "rough"; otherwise we're making a default assumption of clear or strong. It further seems to me that the process will never be perfect and we should avoid overthinking such things. ―Mandruss ☎ 03:58, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

What you're saying would make sense if this was the only RfC on this page that ended in rough consensus. It's not. So I don't understand what you mean, because we aren't stating "rough" when the closer says "rough". Cessaune [talk] 11:31, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

If you say so. I don't think there would be much objection if you added "rough" or "weak" for all items where the closer said "rough" or "weak", respectively. Please don't infer "rough" or "weak" from the closer's words, as that would improperly introduce an assessment of the assessment. stat[ing] the degree of consensus for every consensus item would be a step too far – and it would be impossible, anyway, because closers often don't say anything about degree, and we're certainly not going to require them to start doing so. ―Mandruss ☎ 12:55, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

Alternatively, we could just delete the single "rough". Simpler and equally neutral. Cessaune [talk] 14:29, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

YES!!! -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 15:52, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

Appreciate your enthusiasm, Valjean, but no. Apples and oranges. Rough consensus/strong consensus had two options to change the current wording, with a rough consensus against option 1 and a strong consensus against option 2, i.e., both declined with different degrees of rejection. Clear consensus had two options, can't get much clearer than 16 "no" to 2 "yes" and one "lean yes". I'm still trying to figure out the "something about" in the clear consensus, with the closer suggesting that editors focus on making a concerted effort to understand and mitigate the objections of their fellow editors. Here we have 2>1, 1>2, option 3 for now, 1 or 2, 2 or 1, 1 definitely 2 maybe, etc., i.e., confusion. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 18:15, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

Correct me if I'm wrong but it sounds like you're applying your own personal opinion to the matter, and not simply going along with the closing statement. Cessaune [talk] 01:43, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

Your argument from the beginning has been that we aren't treating items consistently. I offered a solution to that argument and you didn't like it. It seems you have a particular interest in #60 and the consistency argument is a red herring. No? ―Mandruss ☎ 14:54, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

No.

Your solution is a solution, but I feel that it will create formatting inconsistencies, specifically this sentence: Please don't infer "rough" or "weak" from the closer's words, as that would improperly introduce an assessment of the assessment. Valid statement, but watch this:

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) (no clear consensus; leaning towards "do not use")

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) (clear consensus)

30. Supersedes #24. The lead includes: "Many of his comments and actions have been characterized as racially charged or racist." (RfC Sep 2018 [weak consensus], Oct 2018, RfC May 2019 [{t}he result was characterized])

Unless there is a better way to do this (there likely isn't anything better to any substantial degree), such a method would be clunky.

A second way to do it would be to only do it for closing statements with more 'typical' closing statements (rough, weak, strong, clear, etc). That is also a subpar option.

A third way to do it would be to simply delete the singular "rough consensus". If people what to know how strong or weak the consensus is, they can simply click on the discussion and read the closing statement. If there is no closing statement, the outcome of the discussion was likely obvious enough, and the reader will realize that. Cessaune [talk] 15:18, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

I'm not entirely clear what you're saying, but is it fair to say that the issue is expanding?

In the end, none of this has any bearing on actual practice on the article side. We treat all consensuses the same regardless of strength. The only possible need for such improvements would be on this page; i.e. to help editors decide whether to challenge a particular consensus. I'm not convinced it's worth it. We seem to be doing okay without that help. ―Mandruss ☎ 15:40, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

From the beginning, I've been saying that the strength of the consensus has nothing to do with its implementation article-side, which you just agreed to. You also just said that help[ing]] editors decide whether to challenge a particular consensus isn't worth it, which is the only other major argument that leans towards inclusion of consensus strength. That is exactly why we should do away with the rough consensus characterization—after all, we treat all consensuses the same regardless of strength, and, as I was saying above, there is no practical way to implement such a statement for all the consensus discussions smoothly without inference of "rough" and "weak", something that you explicitly said we shouldn't do. Cessaune [talk] 15:49, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

It should go without saying that any items that add assessment or interpretation to the closer's comments should be fixed. Feel free to do so, subject to challenge of course. It's a team effort. The system rests on trust that the items fairly and accurately reflect the close statements. ―Mandruss ☎ 15:54, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

As I said above, it will create formatting inconsistencies. I gave some examples.

As I said above, there is no practical way to implement such a statement for all the consensus discussions smoothly without inference of "rough" and "weak". Something you explicitly said we shouldn't do.

So, I ask kindly: how am I meant to do this? You haven't suggested a practical path forward. I think that I've suggested a practical path forward (delete the single "rough consensus"), but maybe it isn't as practical as I think it is. If it isn't, please explain to me why, because I don't understand why simply deleting the single "rough consensus" isn't a valid option. Cessaune [talk] 16:04, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

Obviously I'm missing your point; perhaps I'm not smart enough, or just getting old and feeble-minded. Let's start with your definition of "formatting", which appears to differ from mine. ―Mandruss ☎ 16:14, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

"Formatting inconsistencies" refers to the fact that not all closers use the same type of language, and that we wouldn't simply be able to say 'weak consensus, strong consensus' because that would improperly introduce an assessment of the assessment. I define formatting in this case as everything pertaining to the user interface that us Wikipedia editors have control over (talk page banners, prosesize, word choice consistency, etc). If we tried to add consensus strength characterizations for everything, it would introduce word choice inconsistency.

If we tried to use direct quotes: consensus item A would say something like (weak consensus), consensus item B would say something like (no consensus to include option 1, slight consensus to include option 2), consensus item C would say something like (the result was to retain the information in the article), consensus item D would say something like (strong consensus against), and consens item E would say something like (the consensus is unclear; there is a consensus that something needs to be said about the topic).

I illustrated this above by simply clicking on the first few RfCs, going down the consensus list in order: #22 (no clear consensus; leaning towards "do not use"), #26 (clear consensus), #30 (weak consensus) ([t]he result was characterized). Everything said there was a direct quote from the closer's words, and I thought that perfectly illustrated the formatting inconsistencies that would become present if we tried to pull quotes directly from the closer's words. Apparently that wasn't clear enough.

If we tried to paraphrase: that would go against your own statement: Please don't infer "rough" or "weak" from the closer's words. Right?

I have a question: what is wrong with simply deleting the single "rough consensus"? Cessaune [talk] 16:38, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

As far as I'm concerned, nothing, particularly if it would put this issue to bed. (I don't understand the content issues or care to, so the preceding sentence can't be taken as support that would break the impasse.) I've been showing deference to an editor who has not shown a tendency toward spurious arguments or a need to WP:WIN (no reflection on you). Regardless, due to a lack of other interest, you still lack consensus for that change, and that means no change as you know (as frustrating as that no doubt is). My suggestion is for me to back away and you can still try to persuade Space4. If unsuccessful, my suggestion is to move on. ―Mandruss ☎ 17:00, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

I think you're making this too abstract a question. The items on the list can be enforced with immediate exempt reverts. They still get discussed, for better or for worse, on the talk page, and they still can either be replaced or not pending demonstrated talk page consensus. On this actively watched and edited page, most text that's been in place for a long time has a presumption of consensus. Revisions to content or wording that merely survived without notice is rarely controversial. SPECIFICO talk 19:15, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

Well, I'm one barnstar closer to changing my mind about the two words. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 20:08, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

Lead and article are too long

The lead for this article is the longest I've seen. I tried adding a {{leadtoolong}} tag but it was reverted without being addressed. The MOS:LEADLENGTH guideline addresses this issue: "a lead that is too long is intimidating, difficult to read, and may cause the reader to lose interest halfway." Even the article on Jesus Christ manages to be compliant. The article itself is WP:TOOBIG: I count over 20,000 words, which is well over the maximum recommended length. Praemonitus (talk) 17:45, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

We don't need tags to point out that the lead is long, ditto the article itself. We've had both of these discussions numerous times, most recently here and here. LEADLENGTH and TOOBIG are only suggestions/rules of thumb. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 18:27, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

So noted. In that case we can certainly include them on the header of the talk page to avoid additional discussions. I'll Just note that the lead of the Joe Biden article is three paragraphs long, despite the article being of comparable length to this one. Praemonitus (talk) 18:40, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

The tags are not helpful. If you have specific suggestions as to how the text can be shortened (or lengthened 🙈) that would be the most constructive approach. SPECIFICO talk 18:45, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

The lead is written at too fine a level of detail. For example:

Since leaving office, Trump has remained heavily involved in the Republican Party. In November 2022, he announced his candidacy for the Republican nomination in the 2024 presidential election. In March 2023, a Manhattan grand jury indicted him on 34 felony counts of falsifying business records. In June, a Miami federal grand jury indicted him on 40 felonies related to his handling of classified documents. In August, a Washington, D.C., federal grand jury indicted him on four felony counts of conspiracy and obstruction related to efforts to overturn the 2020 election. Later in August, a Fulton County, Georgia, grand jury indicted him on 19 charges for racketeering and other felonies committed in an effort to overturn the state's 2020 election results. Trump pleaded not guilty to all charges.

could be converted into:

Since leaving office, Trump has remained involved with the Republican Party, announcing his candidacy for the party nomination in the 2024 presidential election. He has been indicted on multiple felonies, including falsifying business records, mishandling classified documents, and charges related to efforts to overturn the 2020 election.

I suggest building an outline of what we want it to say, split into four sections. That can then be converted into text. Praemonitus (talk) 22:10, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

Something like this:

1. Career
   • Education
   • Business career
   • Media career
   • Family
2. Presidency
   • Election victory
   • Top domestic accomplishments
   • Foreign policy
   • Pandemic
3. Controversies and election loss
   • Controversial behavior
   • Impeachment
   • Election loss
   • Claims of election fraud & Jan. 6
4. After office
   • Republican party influence
   • Felony charges
   • Whatever happens next

Editorially, about half the current content needs to be trimmed back. It can just stick to the key points; everything else is still covered by the article. Praemonitus (talk) 19:03, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

I have written an essay about this: How to create and manage a good lead section. Rule of thumb: "If a topic deserves a heading, then it deserves short mention in the lead according to its real due weight." -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 19:31, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

Oppose trim - now is not the time to trim. Let's wait a few months or a few years and see what is important and what fades. Andre🚐 17:20, 6 October 2023 (UTC)