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 Superseded by #15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 (Nov 2016, Dec 2016) (Superseded by #15 since 11 February 2017)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 Superseded by #35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 (Sep 2016, February 2017, wording shortened per April 2017, upheld with July 2018) (superseded by #35 since 18 February 2019)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 Superseded by #17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 (Jan 2017, Jan 2017, Jan 2017, Jan 2017, Jan 2017, Feb 2017) (superseded by #17 since 2 April 2017)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

Preventing Animal Cruelty And Torture Act

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

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

I'm not sure how biographically significant this is to put it in this article. It might better belong in Presidency of Donald Trump. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 19:38, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

I agree with you. Can we add it? 2600:1002:B157:B56:4AD:FE6D:1629:32F7 (talk) 20:35, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

@OuroborosCobra there are plenty of other pieces of legislation mentioned in this article, i don't see how this particular act is any less "biographically significant" 2604:3D09:6A7F:82C0:3C2F:CFAE:2217:63CB (talk) 18:58, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

This is an argument for reducing what we have to only mile stone acts, those of great significance. Slatersteven (talk) 19:05, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

I just think it’s a cool fact about the presidency also a lot of people agree it has value and should be added. Especially animal activists, not only that but he signed it into law and this is supposed to be a summary of his presidency so it does at least belong in the presidency section. 2601:14E:80:46D0:1D1F:BF57:3C27:533C (talk) 02:08, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

@2600:1002:B157:B56:4AD:FE6D:1629:32F7

It certainly is relevant to the article on the Trump presidency, but it has very little to do with Donald Trump himself, since he has never owned any pets, either growing up or in adulthood, and reputedly hates personal pets, in particular dogs and cats. Since it's legislation signed into law, anything on this topic should be moved to the Trump presidency and removed from his personal article since it has very little to do with him personally. The inclusion of this topic here in this article makes a mockery of Wikipedia and what it is supposed to be. Stevenmitchell (talk) 19:29, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

Whether someone “thinks” this is “cool” is entirely irrelevant as a criterion for inclusion. This is already a very long article, which makes it difficult enough to find important information. Padding the article further with trivial matters like this will only make things worse. TheScotch (talk) 13:24, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

Rapist?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Six business bankruptcies

I tried to find the word “bankrupt” at this talk page but couldn’t find it, so this edit summary by User:SPECIFICO doesn’t seem correct. Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:13, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

There was a discussion about this months ago that’s been archived. I suggested among other things: “keep bankruptcy figure but clarify it was business bankruptcies not personal bankruptcies”. The only response AFAIK was from User:SPECIFICO: “Also he didn't grow 4 arms. 4 personal bankruptcies, even for someone as old as Trump, would be difficult.” I still don’t understand this comment, I agree Trump does not have four arms, but I didn’t understand that comment as pertaining to inserting the word “business” before “bankruptcies” in the lead. Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:29, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

SPECIFICO, what's your grievance with saying "business bankruptcy"? Iamreallygoodatcheckers ^talk 07:17, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

I think User:SPECIFICO may have meant that it’s obvious from the present version of the lead that Trump didn’t have personal bankruptcies six times, since that would be an extremely unusual feat. But it’s not obvious from the present version of the lead that Trump didn’t have one or two personal bankruptcies, with the rest being business bankruptcies. Anythingyouwant (talk) 08:48, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

So much attention is making this old gal blush! Please follow ONUS and see whether you can gain support for your preferred word. SPECIFICO is not going in the article, so discussing her is barking up the wrong tree. SPECIFICO talk 11:50, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

WP:LEAD: the lead section is an introduction to an article and a summary of its most important contents. We mention the Chapter 11 bankruptcies, with link to Chapter 11, Title 11, United States Code, in Donald_Trump#Real_estate, Donald_Trump#Manhattan_developments, and Donald_Trump#Atlantic_City_casinos which are already summary-level per consensus #37. It's the editor adding content who should have explained their reason in their edit summary. (The edit also added the Chapter 11 Wikilink that would need to be discussed per consensus #60, IMO.) So, why does the summary of the summary need the extra word and link? I actually looked at that Kudzu-esque archive and know that you wrote "clarify it was business bankruptcies not personal bankruptcies" but not why we should. "I bankrupted six of my businesses but managed to skirt personal bankruptcy" isn't really something to brag about. Space4Time3Continuum2x ^(cowabunga) 11:35, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

Well, it's not to the level of "I didn't rape her, I just sexually assaulted her."--User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 14:07, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

Except for I didn't shoot the deputy, not much is. Space4Time3Continuum2x ^(cowabunga) 15:36, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

It’s well-known that there is stigma associated with bankruptcy, more so for personal bankruptcy than business bankruptcy:

• THORNE, Deborah and ANDERSON, Leon. “MANAGING THE STIGMA OF PERSONAL BANKRUPTCY”, Sociological Focus (May 2006).
• Athreya, Kartik. “Shame As It Ever Was: Stigma and Personal Bankruptcy”, FRB Richmond Economic Quarterly (2004).

Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:52, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

Cherrypickin' courtesy of Google. SPECIFICO talk 19:30, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

If there’s no stigma attached to personal bankruptcy, then you should be able to find a reliable source that says so. I didn’t see any such sources. Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:06, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

One of your sources was published in 2004, the other one in 2006. The data both papers are based on is 20 years old or older. I haven't been able to find any newer sources, pro or contra — don't know what that indicates, general indifference to the subject? Space4Time3Continuum2x ^(cowabunga) 13:36, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

• The "business bankruptcy" revision is more precise and it only adds one more word and a wiki link to the lead. I support it. Iamreallygoodatcheckers ^talk 20:48, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
• Clarification isn't a bad thing. By all means add "business bankruptcy", to the sentence. GoodDay (talk) 20:50, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

  That is not the qadduestion we are disussing. And it's false. Adding excessive detail interrupts and dilutes the narrative. Consider all the adjectives that you could add before his name in the lead? If you care to support your view with relevant reasoning that addresses the stated objections, that would be helpful. SPECIFICO talk 21:08, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

  As the person who started this thread and who raised the question we’re discussing, I agree that clarification isn't a bad thing, and adding the word "business” before “bankruptcies” in the lead would be wise. Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:32, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

• I'm actually good with adding "business". Six business bankruptcies are quite the "discrediting predicament" such as poor financial performance, times six, per "Stigma of Bankruptcy: Spoiled Organizational Image and Its Management", another blast from the past (1987, four years before Trump's first bankruptcy). competent leaders are expected to exercise control over their organizations and that such control is expected to lead to organizational success, not to more than $1 billion in debt that the business can't pay interest on or repay. I'm opposed to add the link, per consensus #60 and MOS:OVERLINK. IMO business and bankrupty are "everyday words understood by most readers in context (e.g., education, violence, aircraft, river)". Space4Time3Continuum2x ^(cowabunga) 13:36, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

  If it's to be added, it should be stated it in proper English. "Business" is not an adjective. Six Trump businesses went bankrupt, six of his businesses filed for bankruptcy, or something. Were they all petitions filed by Trump? What were the circumstances? Were some forced by creditors? SPECIFICO talk 13:46, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

  Of course it’s an adjective. Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:43, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

  There's a lot of improper English going around — business hours, business environment, business jet, business class. Don't creditors and their pesky requests for payment of interest and principal usually "force" debtors to go to bankruptcy court? It's a summary, thousands of legal actions, including six trips to bankruptcy court. I'm good with "bankruptcy" and "business bankruptcy", prefer the shorter version but meh. Space4Time3Continuum2x ^(cowabunga) 14:53, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

  I still oppose "business bankruptcies" and prefer the status quo "bankruptcies". One cannot have 6 personal bankruptcies. It would be like having six appendectomies. I think the insertion of "business" is an awkard, unnecessary, and misleading dilution of the narrative. SPECIFICO talk 15:33, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

  One can have two personal bankruptcies and four business bankruptcies. Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:43, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Four editors have said they’re okay with inserting “business”, and have explained why, with one of them saying they’re also okay with leaving that word out. A fifth editor has opposed, but has not substantiated that the word “business” is unusable as an adjective (nor has explained why the current language already implies all six were business bankruptcies). So I plan to insert it later today without wikilink. Anythingyouwant (talk) 11:48, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

How about six of his businesses went bankrupt. Is that what you want want to be sure that our readers know? SPECIFICO talk 13:10, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

If we talk about Bankruptcies in the lead, then we should insert the word business to clarify that they are business bankruptcies. The word business is obviously an adjective, I gave you a link to the dictionary, as in business deals business arrangements business trips etc. etc. etc. etc. Anythingyouwant (talk) 14:47, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

That is not the issue I raised immediately above. I proposed a compromise that includes your "business" but makes it clear that it was Trump's businsesses that were forced into bankruptcy, not that he pursued others as plaintiff/creditor. I thought you would respond before you made the article edit. It will be evident to future generations of editors that "He and his businesses"..."Business bankruptcies" is redundant. Ciao. SPECIFICO talk 19:55, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

It is not redundant, because the word "business" excludes personal bankruptcy. We could add lots more modifers besides "business" but I think one is enough. Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:40, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

It is both settled and nonsense. Gratuitous detail that clutters the summary lead content and, contrary to your apparent belief, does not fully specify the meaning of the sentence. SPECIFICO talk 12:29, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

Birthplace City

So I saw earlier on Wikipedia that for people born in NYC the consensus is to say “New York City, New York, U.S.” in the infobox. As such Donald Trump’s box should be changed as well. Banan14kab (talk) 00:47, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

Except that dude is from Queens -- it's important to his life story. Queens boy moves to Manhattan, makes it big. SPECIFICO talk 02:25, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

Queens is New York City. 67.82.74.5 (talk) 12:30, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

It's a borough of New York City but, as far as snooty Manhattanites were concerned (and in Trump's mind, it seems), he was a bridge-and-tunnel guy from Queens. Our current consensus, #2, is based on four discussions. Many people associate "New York City" with Manhattan. Space4Time3Continuum2x ^(cowabunga) 13:36, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

Which the infobox doesn't tell us and isn't fit to do so. All of that belongs in prose in the article. As a matter of simple vital statistics, all that belongs is "New York, New York, United States".--User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 21:29, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

See current consensus, item 2. Space4Time3Continuum2x ^(cowabunga) 10:37, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

How was that consensus reached? Banan14kab (talk) 05:26, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

Those links there next to the item will take you to the archived discussions. Linking NYC is a MOS:OVERLINK. Including Queens provides a lot more context than saying NYC alone. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:44, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

No objection to changing to "New York City, New York, U.S", for birthplace. Naming the entire city, would seem appropriate. GoodDay (talk) 21:47, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

GoodDay, you need to give reasons for your recommendations. We already know that is an option, but why? Have you ever seen that long string used to describe all or any part of NYC? Where? SPECIFICO talk 18:28, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

Having boroughs in place of city names, isn't something I support. If/when a discussion, in the proper place, concerning that topic should arise? I hope I'll be notified. On the question of why? It's personal choice. GoodDay (talk) 19:16, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

I live in NYC and have never heard it put: "New York City, New York, U.S". Besides, I heard he was born in Africa.O3000, Ret. (talk) 21:08, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

What about Richard Nixon, BORN: Yorba Linda, Orange County, California, USA, North America?

They left off Earth. O3000, Ret. (talk) 21:.49, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

He claimed to have grown up in Whittier, but many presidents were wittier than Nixon. SPECIFICO talk 22:45, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

Support keeping "Queens"; no reason to make it less precise and less concise. DFlhb (talk) 21:56, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

He is from Queens. Cant' you tell? SPECIFICO talk 22:52, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

Why are the charges against Trump buried in this article?

The charges against Trump are probably the most significant thing about him at this point. They should be given more prominence in the lede and article and not buried, like they are now. This is a disgrace. Sad! 67.82.74.5 (talk) 12:33, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

If you have specific suggestions as to improvement of the article, please present them. Otherwise, "disgrace. Sad!" is pointless. SPECIFICO talk 12:37, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

Why, he has not been found guilty yet. Slatersteven (talk) 12:38, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

They're not buried. Per our consensus #37 they're limited to summary-level in the body and in the last paragraph of the lead. Space4Time3Continuum2x ^(cowabunga) 13:40, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

You and at least 2 other people who have brought this concern to the talk page seem to not realize that Wikipedia is not news and thus that the lead of a Wikipedia article is not meant to follow the inverted pyramid structure of a news article. The lead is meant to summarize the body, and the body is meant to tell the story of the man's life, and chronological order is important to that endeavor. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 14:08, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

I mean, Trump tried to illegally overthrow the duly elected US Government and install himself as unelected dictator after losing the election. It's a pretty big deal. 67.82.74.5 (talk) 14:34, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

See wp:blp until he is found guilty of any of these, he is innocent of all of them. Slatersteven (talk) 14:44, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

Hmm, when did that happen? He tried to state the election was his, and he'd be PRESIDENT again. Not "dictator." If you want to be take seriously, stay within the realms of reality. HammerFilmFan (talk) 03:02, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

• Because it's a huge article about a topic where we have a ton of stuff to discuss, so it's hard to avoid things getting "buried." If you have a proposal for how it could be restructured, go ahead and offer it, but the charges do get nearly an entire paragraph at the end of the lead (and the two paragraphs above it, while not about them directly, discuss events that lead to them.) Currently the lead is mostly chronological because... imagine someone who knows little to nothing about Trump reading it. There's a lot of other biographical details we have to introduce before the charges even make sense - we have to talk about him being president and about the 2020 election before we can talk about his attempts to overturn the 2020 election, and we have to talk about his attempts to overturn the 2020 election before we can talk about charges stemming from that in particular. --Aquillion (talk) 14:42, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

Why is there nothing about the cult of Trump in the article?

Since the cult of Donald Trump has been an important, if not critical aspect of Donald Trump since the 1980s, why is there not a single mention of this in the article? Donald Trump was famous for having an ardent cult following in the 1980s. It's how he promoted his books and got people to go visit his properties in Atlantic City and Las Vegas. It's how he got his fan base to buy Trump University products after his nationally famous business bankruptcies. There are many mentions and even books on this topic, so it's exclusion from the article leaves it being very suspect and even intentional. By the way, how much of this article was written by people from outside the United States, where most information on Donald Trump and the U.S. is largely unavailable? Stevenmitchell (talk) 19:48, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

Do you have links to reliable sources that describe this "cult of Trump" going back to the 1980s? As for the contributions of editors outside the United States, Wikipedia is a worldwide project, and anybody anywhere in the world can contribute to any article on any topic, as long as they comply with our policies and guidelines. We don't do nationality tests. As for information about Trump being "largely unavailable" in other countries, that assertion is without merit. Media outlets worldwide cover Trump heavily, and anybody with a working uncensored internet connection in any country has easy access to vastly more Trump content than any human being can possibly read. Cullen328 (talk) 02:27, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

This is partly covered by Public image of Donald Trump.--Jack Upland (talk) 02:51, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

WP had a page called MAGA cult which was moved to Trumpism. I'm fairly certain that Trump didn't have an "ardent cult following" in the 1980s — can't prove a negative, 'though. In the 80s, he did seek and get a lot of publicity, including a lot of ridicule. When "The Apprentice" became a success on reality TV, Trump used that success to advertise products offered/made by others, such as real estate training courses and the ACN videophone. The only property he's ever owned in Las Vegas, afaik, is the Trump International Hotel Las Vegas, the No. 10 ugliest building in the world and the sixth ugliest building in the U.S., which he co-owns with Phil Ruffin (it's a condo-hotel, unknown how many units were sold. It doesn't have a casino and didn't open until 2008. Space4Time3Continuum2x ^(cowabunga) 12:20, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

Sixth ugliest building in the U.S. is a wild description but I second this. If you find reliable sources (and in this case more scholarly sources would be warranted in my opinion) that discuss this "cult of Trump" extensively then we can probably include a short paragraph somewhere in the article. Cessaune [talk] 01:53, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

The only mention of Trump in the 1980s that I am familiar with is the Marvel Comics supervillain of that name, a stage magician and illusionist. His big ego, a tendency to abuse or kill his employees, and a lust for beautiful women were the character's only personality traits. Dimadick (talk) 23:13, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

14th Amendment

Space4Time3Continuum2x removed a section about Trump's possible ineligibility for office under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment. This is not just two lawyers saying this; this issue has been repeatedly raised in WP:RS before (as an Internet search for "Trump 14th amendment" on any of the major search engines will show), and is a matter of active controversy. I propose to reinstate this material. Comments welcome. — The Anome (talk) 07:51, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

NYT: "[T]he scope and depth of the article may encourage and undergird lawsuits from other candidates and ordinary voters arguing that the Constitution makes him ineligible for office." If any states take Trump off the ballot, we’ll mention it but until then it’s an opinion and a hypothetical scenario. The sources you provided, as well as most others I found online, were about the legal paper published by law professors Baude and Paulsen. They’re members of the Federalist Society, so, of course, they received more publicity than, e.g., Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, who argued in July that "Donald Trump was the central cause of and a participant in the January 6th insurrection. Because of that, Trump is disqualified from holding any public office, including the Office of the President, under Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment." They’re not conservative, though, so very few RS took notice. Space4Time3Continuum2x ^(cowabunga) 09:44, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

E Jean Carroll civil case finding sexual abuse

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Demoted from RfC per discussion. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:02, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

Should we include the following text?

Proposed text:

In November 2022, columnist E. Jean Carroll sued Trump for battery, alleging that he "forcibly raped and groped her" in a Manhattan department store in 1995 or 1996, and also sued him for defamation for his October 2022 statement, which included Trump's claim that Carroll "completely made up" the allegation. The jury's verdict, delivered in May 2023, stated that Carroll had proven that Trump sexually abused her and defamed her; thus the jury ordered Trump to pay $5 million to Carroll for damages. Federal judge Lewis Kaplan dismissed Trump's counter-claim that Carroll had defamed him by alleging rape. In his ruling, Kaplan stated that jury's verdict found that Trump did rape Carroll in the common understanding of the word, which includes digital rape. Trump has appealed the jury verdict against him.

After some widely-participated discussions months earlier on the topic, the discussions were unfortunately not closed, archived, and closure was rejected recently on the basis that since new developments occurred, the discussion may be out of date, and that it would be better to have a new discussion with new arguments. The above text is similar to Part 1 of the old discussion, but the second-last sentence ("digitally raped") is entirely new, due to new developments. starship.paint (exalt) 14:35, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

References

Survey (Carroll)

• Support as proposer - the content is relevant, important, reliably cited, WP:DUE, and updated. Sources will be provided in green boxes in the Discussion section. starship.paint (exalt) 14:38, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
• Support - It's well sourced, neutral, certainly due. What's the problem? EDIT: Withdraw !vote until I look at Muboshgu's point. O3000, Ret. (talk) 14:55, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
• Support - This is brief and to the point, and unlike the other allegations, this one has been adjudicated. Frankly, 18:09, 14 August 2023 (UTC)I'm not sure an RfC is needed. I think a bold edit would not have been challenged. OP, please consider that instead of jumping to yet another time-consuming RfC. SPECIFICO talk 15:16, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose The recent text that had already been added after Judge Kaplan's dismissal of Trump's cross complaint is a better summary and more clearly articulates his court's point that Trump did rape her. -> Visitors, please see the post by Muboshgu in the comment section below. SPECIFICO talk 18:09, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
• Support, per above, but see also in the discussion section below, there is extant text than needs to be merged with this or replaced by it.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  16:29, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
• Not seeing a reason to add this - Forgive me if I am missing something, but Muboshgu has a good point that this content is already in the article. The only difference would be talking about "digital rape", and I'm not sure why this article needs that specific language. I would not protest such an addition, but it does not seem necessary. Ender and Peter 17:10, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose and maintain the status quo - The existing text is superior to the one proposed here. It's better at summarizing Trump's argument for defamation. The proposed text could be confusing to readers as it doesn't establish clearly why Trump thought he had any merit to accuse Carroll of defamation. Iamreallygoodatcheckers ^talk 17:22, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

  Surely you do not think that there are RS to establish that Trump believes any of his lifelong courtroom tactics have had "any merit". Strawperson, red herring, etc. SPECIFICO talk 17:31, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose. Starship.paint, I may be prejudiced but I also prefer the material I added yesterday and Muboshgu cited below. Notifying editor Objective3000 who !voted before Muboshgu's comment. Space4Time3Continuum2x ^(cowabunga) 17:42, 14 August 2023 (UTC) I amended the material a few times, the current version is the one cited by Muboshgu below. Space4Time3Continuum2x ^(cowabunga) 18:03, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose Text noted by Mobushgu which appears to already be in the article is better phrased and does a better job of representing the source text. --Jayron32 17:58, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose The status quo provides more up-to-date sources. Also, where is Muboshgu's comment? I can't seem to find it. Scorpions13256 (talk) 19:06, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

A question rather than a comment, in the "Discussion" section below. Space4Time3Continuum2x ^(cowabunga) 19:13, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. Scorpions13256 (talk) 19:17, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

• Support this wording (or merge with the version that was added yesterday.) This proposal is overall more detailed in terms of the accusation and Trump's response. Some parts and sources could be merged from the two versions, but overall nobody has really given a good reason to omit anything present in either; even with both of them combined it'll still be one relatively small paragraph. --Aquillion (talk) 20:04, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

  I think merging the text could work. We should see this as a working text open to helpful revisions. Iamreallygoodatcheckers ^talk 20:25, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

  Now that we're all aware that this proposal ignored the current article text, I see no basis to start from this as a "working text". As is always the case, the status quo is the working text, and having read the RS reporting and commentary on the matter, while this version might have been OK as a first try, it is in no respect better than the revision that SpaceX volunteered the time and effort to create. The past several days' discussion of this matter has been a waste of the time and attention we need for other improvements. SPECIFICO talk 22:07, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

  "the status quo is the working text" - I agree. But, I don't want people to see the current revision as written in stone through talk page consensus. If somebody want's to alter it (including merging aspects of Starship's proposal), it's something I'm open to. That's all I'm saying. Iamreallygoodatcheckers ^talk 22:14, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

  Well, fine but that's the opposite of what you wrote above. Nothing is ever in stone on this site. No worries there. SPECIFICO talk 22:33, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

Discussion (Carroll)

From previous discussion: @Shibbolethink, SPECIFICO, Lights and freedom, The Capitalist forever, Jerome Frank Disciple, DFlhb, Jayron32, Space4Time3Continuum2x, Iamreallygoodatcheckers, Bob K31416, and Objective3000: starship.paint (exalt) 14:44, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

Mainstream sources on the jury's verdict - starship

Associated Press (link) Reuters (link) Agence France Presse (link) CNN (link) NBC News (link) ABC News, American version (link) CNBC (link) CBS News (link) Bloomberg (link) USA Today (link) The New York Times (link) The Washington Post (link) The Wall Street Journal (link) NPR (link) PBS (link) UPI (link) Telemundo, national Spanish-language outlet in America - (link) (link) Australian Broadcasting Corporation (link) British Broadcasting Corporation (link) Al Jazeera (link) Der Speigel (link) The Guardian (link) Forbes staff (link) The Hill (link) Politico (link)

• Regarding WP:DUE, see above. starship.paint (exalt) 14:45, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

@Starship.paint: I think you may have misunderstood the concern about your close request. I don't think we need this RfC. Just make the edit and see whether there's any objection. SPECIFICO talk 15:19, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

SPECIFICO, did you see the text I added yesterday? See Muboshgo's comment below, I amended the text a few times. Space4Time3Continuum2x ^(cowabunga) 17:59, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

SpaceX -- No, sorry I missed that. Yours is better and it accomplishes what I tried to suggest Starship do with a bold edit rather than an RfC. Starship -- did you see SpaceX's edit? If so, I would have expected your RfC to give the two alternatives. It feels like a bit too much insistence on the needless close request that SpaceX remedied with their new post-trial text. I will withdraw my !vote, thank you for bringing this to our attention, Muboshgu & Space. SPECIFICO talk 18:06, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

• I'm a bit confused. Donald Trump#Civil lawsuits against Trump already includes the following:

In May 2023, a New York jury in a federal lawsuit brought by journalist E. Jean Carroll found Trump liable for sexual abuse and defamation and ordered him to pay her $5 million. Trump asked the court for a new trial or a reduction of the damage award, arguing that the jury had not found him liable for rape. In July, the judge denied the request, saying that Trump had misinterpreted the verdict. The appeal Trump filed separately with the federal appeals court is still pending. In August, the judge dismissed Trump's countersuit for defamation, saying that the details of the jury’s findings showed that Carroll "having maintained that Trump raped her is 'substantially true'". Trump appealed the dismissal.

• Is this new text a proposal to overwrite what is already in the article? – Muboshgu (talk) 15:44, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

{{ping|Starship.paint} Please consider withdrawing this RfC and let's see whether anyone challenges Space-etc's summary of the matter. SPECIFICO talk 18:13, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

Agreed. This appears to be unnecessary. Iamreallygoodatcheckers ^talk 18:20, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

@Starship.paint: (doesn't look like SPECIFICO's ping to you went through) Iamreallygoodatcheckers ^talk 18:21, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

References

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

UNDUE rape detail added to article

Since the withdrawal of this poll, there's been what I consider UNDUE, unnecessary, detail about Trump's assault added to the article. While it's possible that such content may be noteworthy and significant for various other article pages, it is not needed on this page, and it comes off merely as salacious and incommensurate with the summary level with which we treat dozens of other events.I'm mentioning this here because after I removed this content, it was reinserted (violating 24-BRD) and I am going to remove it again if it is not self-reverted by the editor who reinserted it. SPECIFICO talk 17:31, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

E Jean Carroll lawsuits

When/Where/Carroll II defamation claim

The article states that Trump was found liable for sexual abuse and defamation, but does not elaborate on the basic facts. Can we agree to include that it occurred in the mid-1990s in a department store, and that he defamed her by accusing her of making up the allegation? starship.paint (exalt) 06:24, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

Mainstream sources (where/when/defame) - starship

Reuters (link) - sexually abusing magazine writer E. Jean Carroll in the 1990s and then defaming her by branding her a liar ... in a Bergdorf Goodman department store dressing room in Manhattan in either 1995 or 1996, then harmed her reputation by writing in an October 2022 post on his Truth Social platform that her claims were a "complete con job," "a hoax" and "a lie." NBC News (link) - sexually abusing Carroll during an encounter in the dressing room of a New York City department store in the mid-1990s BBC (link) - sexually abused a magazine columnist in a New York department store in the 1990s ... liable for defamation for calling the writer's accusations "a hoax and a lie" ... claims that Mr Trump had assaulted her in the lingerie department of the luxury store in 1995 or 1996. The New York Times (link) - Mr. Trump sexually abused her nearly 30 years ago in a dressing room of the Bergdorf Goodman department store in Manhattan ... defamed Ms. Carroll in October when he posted a statement on his Truth Social platform calling her case “a complete con job” and “a Hoax and a lie.” Financial Times (link) - sexual abuse of a journalist in a Manhattan department store in the 1990s ... sometime in 1995 or 1996 ... Le Monde (link) - accused Trump of raping her more than 25 years ago in the dressing room of a Manhattan store ... dated to late 1995 or early 1996 ... Politico (link) - sexually assaulted her in the dressing room of a luxury Manhattan department store in the mid-1990s ... The Washington Post (link) - she was sexually abused in a dressing room at Bergdorf Goodman in the mid-1990s after a chance encounter with Trump ... Trump, who was president at the time, called her a liar, claimed she was a complete stranger to him The Guardian (link) - in a Manhattan department store dressing room in the mid-1990s, and then branding the incident a hoax in an October 2022 post on his Truth Social platform. Voice of America (link) - her claim that he sexually assaulted her in the mid-1990s and then defamed her by calling the encounter a hoax ... at the upscale Bergdorf Goodman department store ... defamed her over several years by saying her claim was a “scam,”

Conflating Carroll I and Carroll II

• I renamed the section to keep the discussion of E. Jean Carroll v. Donald Trump in one place. I just noticed that our current text conflates the two cases. Trump countersued Carroll in the 2019 case that hasn't gone to trial yet because it was hampered by Trump being president and the DOJ mulling over whether he made the remarks in his official capacity. The trial is scheduled for January 2024. We have two separate cases, and Trump has filed appeals in both cases. Here's an overview of both cases:

Carroll v. Trump (1:20-cv-07311) (Carroll I) (docket). November 2019: Carroll sues Trump for defaming her while he was president (by saying she made it all up). June 27, 2023: Trump sues Carroll for defaming him by saying in an interview after the jury verdict in Carroll II that he raped her. August 7: Judge dismisses Trump’s countersuit. August 10: Trump appeals dismissal.

Carroll v. Trump (1:22-cv-10016) (Carroll II) (docket). November 2022: Carroll sues Trump for Bergdorf attack in mid-90s and defamation after New York passed the Adult Survivors Act. May 10, 2023: Jury verdict. May 11, 2023: Trump appeals to Court of Appeals, Second Circuit. June 8: Trump motion for new trial. June 15: appeal was stayed. July 19: Judge denies request for new trial, stay on appeal is lifted.

Ran out of time to draft something for main space. Summary-level! Space4Time3Continuum2x ^(cowabunga) 15:11, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

Unless you want to explain everything, I simply noted that the counter-suit is in a different lawsuit: starship.paint (exalt) 23:09, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

Details of physical attack

Wish to get input on whether there is support for adding that the jury's verdict concluded that Trump forcibly penetrated Carroll with his fingers. This is relevant in the light of the other claim that Carroll's rape allegations against Trump were "substantially true" in the ordinary understanding of the word "rape". It is the key reason behind the second claim. It also avoid misleading readers into thinking penile rape occurred, and we must be cautious on WP:BLP. Forced penetration with fingers, also known as digital rape, was widely covered in top mainstream sources below, satisfying WP:V and WP:DUE. starship.paint (exalt) 23:15, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

Mainstream sources on the judge's ruling on penetration with fingers / digital rape - starship

Associated Press (link) the ‘truth’ — that Mr. Trump forcibly digitally penetrated Ms. Carroll Reuters (link) - Kaplan said the May 9 verdict reflected a finding that Trump "deliberately and forcibly" penetrated Carroll's vagina with his fingers. Bloomberg (link) “It accordingly is the ‘truth,’ as relevant here, that Mr. Trump digitally raped Ms. Carroll.” CBS News ([1]) - the jurors' conclusion that he was liable for sexually abusing her by forcefully inserting his fingers was an "implicit determination that Mr. Trump digitally raped her." The New York Times (link) Kaplan wrote that the jury’s finding implicitly determined that Mr. Trump had forcibly penetrated Ms. Carroll with his fingers, which he said amounts to rape as the term is commonly used NBC News (link) - the jury believed Trump forcibly penetrated Carroll with his fingers. The verdict "establishes, as against Mr. Trump, the fact that Mr. Trump 'raped' her, albeit digitally rather than with his penis Al Jazeera (link) - The verdict reflected that “Mr Trump ‘raped’ her, albeit digitally rather than with his penis” The Washington Post (link) - that the conduct the jury effectively found Trump liable for — forced digital penetration — meets a more common definition of rape Politico (link) - the proof convincingly established, and the jury implicitly found, that Mr. Trump deliberately and forcibly penetrated Ms. Carroll’s vagina with his fingers NPR (link) - the jury in May established that "Mr. Trump 'raped her,' albeit digitally rather than with his penis." ABC News (link) - Judge Lewis Kaplan said the jury's finding "implicitly determined that he forcibly penetrated her" with his fingers. CNN (link) - Mr Trump ‘raped her’, albeit digitally rather than with his penis. Courthouse News (link) - the jury implicitly found, that Mr. Trump deliberately and forcibly penetrated Ms. Carroll’s vagina with his fingers Sydney Morning Herald (link) - the ‘truth’ — that Mr Trump forcibly digitally penetrated Ms Carroll UPI (link) he did, in fact, rape Carroll "digitally -- rather than with his penis."

As I stated above, this detail is UNDUE for this article and reads as salacious -- and frankly, pointless and disgusting -- content that adds nothing to the brief mention of the judge's finding. This is not the detailed article about the assault or of the trial. Such content could arguably be significant to the NPOV narrative of some other topcic, but not to the summary of Trump's life story on this page. The suit was about defamation and his ongoing defamation after the verdict in the lawsuit. SPECIFICO talk 01:11, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

This is a widely covered point in sources I provided above, ranging from news agencies, American newspapers, American news broadcasters and non-American media. Puzzling how you can claim that it is UNDUE in light of the evidence of 15 sources above. Carroll II lawsuit is clearly about sexual abuse, and the July ruling for Carroll II cited digital rape with fingers. starship.paint (exalt) 01:29, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

As I have said numerous times, and as experienced editors know, not all facts that are widely covered in news sources or that are verified by multiple sources, are DUE NPOV weight for every Wikipedia article. Just as we would not include that content in our page about rape, defamation, NY Courts, the judge, etc. etc. we do not need to include it in the life story of Potus 45. SPECIFICO talk 02:05, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

Bottom line is that editor SpaceX crafted good and sufficient, clear and concise, significant and complete text to add the new information about the court's finding of "rape". SPECIFICO talk 02:10, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

It seems that nothing would specific would satisfy you, since you reject the evidence. Good, sufficient, concise, complete, DUE is whatever you deem it. Again, the court finding on the verdict is that "Mr. Trump digitally raped Ms. Carroll." (Bloomberg). starship.paint (exalt) 02:37, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

We can word it differently: The judge rejected this in July and August, citing that the jury's verdict concluded that Trump digitally raped Carroll, so her rape allegations against him were "substantially true". starship.paint (exalt) 11:14, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

"It also avoids misleading readers into thinking penile rape occurred", "Trump digitally raped Carroll" — why is this distinction a BLP concern? The previous version is also WP:V and WP:DUE, IMO: Trump asked the court for a new trial or a reduction of the damage award, arguing that the jury had not found him liable for rape. In July, the judge denied the request, saying that Trump had misinterpreted the verdict. The appeal Trump filed separately with the federal appeals court is still pending. In August, the judge dismissed Trump's countersuit for defamation, saying that the details of the jury’s findings showed that Carroll "having maintained that Trump raped her is 'substantially true'". Trump appealed the dismissal. Space4Time3Continuum2x ^(cowabunga) 12:45, 16 August 2023 (UTC) Space4Time3Continuum2x ^(cowabunga) 14:10, 16 August 2023 (UTC) I'm OK with the current version, without any details. Space4Time3Continuum2x ^(cowabunga) 14:22, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

BLP concern is that simply stating rape is substantially true may mislead readers into thinking that penile rape / sexual intercourse was found to have happened. Britannica [2] rape … most often involving sexual intercourse, Merriam Webster [3] rape … usually sexual intercourse carried out forcibly, Law.com dictionary [4] Rape … the crime of sexual intercourse, From the case itself, New York law considers penile rape a more severe offence than digital rape (sexual abuse), so by avoiding the misunderstanding that he committed penile rape, we avoid WP:BLP issues. starship.paint (exalt) 15:07, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

this obsessive repetition of the details of a sexual assault is running afoul of multiple site-wide Contentious Topics, Now it appears to be second-guessing the judge whose opinion constitutes the only relevant fact and article content. These points have been answered many times. This is not about body parts. It's about a violent assault. That's what the jury and now the recent court ruling have found. If you do not accept editors' responses to your preferred narrative, you could take your views to a site-wide noticeboard where the larger issues can be fully addressed. SPECIFICO talk 15:18, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

How am I second guessing the judge when “digital rape” is literally the judge opinion of the jury verdict, a direct quote of the judge? It seems that you’re very happy if we label Trump as having committed rape, but once we state it is digital rape, it’s somehow so unacceptable! starship.paint (exalt) 23:18, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

Can we compromise on the current "bland" version until the Carroll I trial has taken place and/or the rulings on the appeals have been announced, whichever comes first? The only mention of rape is Trump denying it. Space4Time3Continuum2x ^(cowabunga) 15:27, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

• Are you saying that if, Trump is ruled against in these instances, that you would accept mention of digital rape? starship.paint (exalt) 23:20, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

Depends on what RS report at the time. It's not a common term, IMO (WP:IMPARTIAL), also judging by the results of a Google search. Why is it so important to make the distinction between "penile rape" and "digital rape"? You cited Britannica's article which goes on to say, In 2012 the U.S. Department of Justice adopted a new definition of rape, to be used in the FBI's Uniform Crime Reporting program, that better reflected state criminal codes and the experiences of rape victims. By that definition, rape is "the penetration, no matter how slight, of the vagina or anus with any body part or object, or oral penetration by a sex organ of another person, without the consent of the victim." Space4Time3Continuum2x ^(cowabunga) 11:08, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

Well, if digital rape is not a common term, we can use "forcible penetration with fingers". It's important to make the distinction between penile rape and digital rape because that literally affected the verdict in Carroll II, as New York law classified penile rape as "rape" and digital rape as "sexual abuse". The new definition of rape by the DOJ literally does not reflect the state criminal code, whereby the judge says: New York Penal Law definition of rape is limited to penile penetration. starship.paint (exalt) 02:00, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

References

Trump Indicted in Georgia Prosecutors Accuse Trump of ‘Criminal Enterprise’ to Overturn Election

trump indicted

https://www.nytimes.com/live/2023/08/14/us/trump-indictment-georgia-election 2603:6080:3C09:EABE:BE0:B05F:3FF0:865 (talk) 11:22, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. The indictment is mentioned in the last paragraph of Federal and state criminal cases against Trump. Space4Time3Continuum2x ^(cowabunga) 14:47, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

Overlinking in the lead

I removed the second WP link in this sentence: In June, a Miami federal grand jury indicted him on 37 felonies related to his handling of classified documents (with three charges added in July). Reason: there are at least four WP pages on the documents case (my edit summary says "3" but I've since found another one), there are plenty of links to those pages in the body and on the page the remaining link points to, and more than one link for each one of the court cases is going to be confusing rather than helpful. (There will be more court cases, it seems.) The link promptly reinserted with the edit summary saying that it was a "correction of the link". Keep or remove? Space4Time3Continuum2x ^(cowabunga) 14:44, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

Perhaps we could make a list or category and link to that instead? - AquilaFasciata (talk | contribs) 15:04, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

Split suggested

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

Please use the proposed subsections for improved thread efficiency

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

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

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

Survey

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

• Trim the "Covid-19" & "Investigations" sub-sections. They could be their own articles. GoodDay (talk) 19:08, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
• Trim practically everything, especially the Investigations sections. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 21:13, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
• do not trim solely for length reasons. it is no longer 2004, the majority of users aren't loading a Wikipedia article on dial-up. WP:SIZE should be deprecated. ValarianB (talk) 04:57, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
• IMO, neither the tag you added to the Presidency section nor this general discussion is helpful. Consensus #37 says that Content related to Trump's presidency should be limited to summary-level about things that are likely to have a lasting impact on his life and/or long-term presidential legacy. If something is borderline or debatable, the resolution does not apply. (I interpret the second sentence to mean that content WITHOUT lasting impact on his life and/or long-term presidential legacy should be deleted.) If you or other editors have specific content in mind, go BOLD with an edit summary explaining your reasons or bring it to the Talk page. As always, be prepared to be reverted and defend your edit — this article, like its subject, is not for the faint of heart [[File:|20px]]. Space4Time3Continuum2x ^(cowabunga) 12:29, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Elaborate discussion

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Daily news

The article seems to have new incidents added daily.....is he in the news in the US daily? Moxy- 02:41, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

• I would think so. He’s also in the news internationally due to four criminal cases and some lawsuits. starship.paint (exalt) 02:43, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

no offense but was this facetious? this is a news leader both home and abroad for days. weeks. ValarianB (talk) 04:55, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

ok i see.....the article is just made up of news sources as to why I ask. Moxy- 11:52, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

News sources are widely available. starship.paint (exalt) 11:57, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

Got to be academic sources for older stuff by now. The article has very little research value.Moxy- 12:03, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

You are welcome to start adding them. Thanks! starship.paint (exalt) 12:06, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

Actually, WP:NOTNEWS applies to this article, too. We also have a local consensus, #37, above, that "[c]ontent 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." It's just that editors disagree on what's WP:NOTNEWS, and some, especially those who are not regulars on this page, get overly enthusiastic about adding the latest headlines. Space4Time3Continuum2x ^(cowabunga) 12:37, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

Opening paragraph should not have the criminal indictments

Though the indictments have happened, according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, we should refrain from referencing it from the opening paragraph. This can be shown in one of the quiz questions/examples including Michael Phelps criminal history in the opening paragraph. The Financial Scribe (talk) 20:05, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

I have removed the content. I see in the edit history that it was a WP:BOLD addition by an editor yesterday, so it did not have a consensus to include. Per BLP, I've removed it for now, at least. (On another note, I don't know what Michael Phelps has to do with anything here.) – Muboshgu (talk) 20:21, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

Michael Phelps has a history of legal issues and it was included in his opening paragraph as per Wikipedia's example of not being neutral, hence why I referenced it. It is not in the introduction anymore as it is inappropriate to include, as he is more known for his many achievements in Olympic swimming. The Financial Scribe (talk) 20:25, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

what policies and guidelines? why is the content "op-ed?" why is it "random stats?" just askin' is all. soibangla (talk) 20:35, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

On the left tab, there is a hyperlink that says "Learn to Edit". I am pretty sure you are supposed to go through the guidelines and policies before editing... As for why it is in op-ed, I am not sure. But his indictments are mentioned in the 5th paragraph and I think they are where it should be, if we are considering the chronological structure from the second paragraph onwards. The Financial Scribe (talk) 20:42, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

what PAGs did the edit contravene? does I think they are where it should be mean you just don't like the edit? soibangla (talk) 20:46, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

It seems like you obviously do not care for what reasoning I have as I have stated it in the comment you replied to. "considering the chronological structure from the second paragraph onwards". If you have anymore remarks, I will reply to them tomorrow at 9. I am done for the day :) The Financial Scribe (talk) 20:58, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

Soibangla, I believe you are referring to this edit. "Op-ed" referred to the sentence you added to the opening paragraph; the other stuff mentioned in the edit summary referred to other content in the lead that I reverted/corrected in the same edit. It showed up again when Sleyece reverted the lead to the version preceding my removal, saying that my next edit made Random Huge Changes to Lede Without Discussion. I said "op-ed" because within three years after leaving office and the sum total weren't supported by the body and the sources at the time, and I agree with the Scribe that we shouldn't be mentioning indictments in the first paragraph. MOS:OPEN: if Trump is convicted of a crime, we should mention it in the first paragraph, IMO, but until then he's innocent until proven guilty. The indictments are good where they are, in chronological order in the last paragraph.

• Sentence added to first paragraph: UTC 04:19 Aug 16
• My edit prior to removal of sentence: UTC 14:18 Aug 16
• Removal: UTC 14:37 Aug 16
• Sleyece's revert: UTC 19:49 Aug 16. Space4Time3Continuum2x ^(cowabunga) 10:29, 17 August 2023 (UTC) Space4Time3Continuum2x ^(cowabunga) 11:56, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

it was not op-ed or random stats. as you note, your citation of OPEN is your opinion, but I see no mention of conviction there. I saw the edit as notable as no previous former president had ever been criminally indicted, let alone 91 times. that's all I got here. soibangla (talk) 13:06, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, tbh, I'm calling this one as nonsense and WP:IDONTLIKEIT; you can't just say "Wikipedia's policies and guidelines" and have literally nothing to back that up. -- Sleyece (talk) 20:54, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

As I replied to the comment above, read my whole comment. You have ironically committed the very thing you accuse me of in a way by ignoring my reasoning so you can push your "I dont like it" edit. I specifically stated where in the Policies and Guidelines tab my reasoning is coming from. I will respond to any remarks at 9 tomorrow as I am done for the day. The Financial Scribe (talk) 21:00, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

I mean, you're correct in saying the indictment count has no business in the lede, but the "Wikipedia's policies and guidelines" shtick has been used to justify far more underhanded edits in the past. If you're going to reference policy it takes 2 seconds to call the template. -- Sleyece (talk) 21:04, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

Ok, perhaps you are correct in mentioning of how the PAG has been abused in making edits, but at least we agree on the fact that the original edit did not belong where it was placed. I know I am not as well versed with how edits are done in Wikipedia as most of my edits are on the topic of numbers and not words, which are much easier to do with no issues. I also started editing a few weeks ago at work as my workload is extremely light at the moment, which is why I only respond between 9-5 (LOL). The Financial Scribe (talk) 16:20, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

Which specific PAGs are you referring to? I've read the entire thread and have no idea. Cessaune [talk] 16:12, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

Click the Learn to Edit tab on the left and go though the prompts, then take the quiz. It is one of the examples in the questions. The Financial Scribe (talk) 16:16, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

Oh my! Started to go through the questions and found this "neutral" example: According to Simon Wiesenthal, the Holocaust was a program of extermination of the Jewish people in Germany, but David Irving disputes this analysis. Irving sure does but he's a discredited historian and Holocaust denier, so WP:UNDUE applies, probably also WP:FALSEBALANCE. Space4Time3Continuum2x ^(cowabunga) 17:06, 17 August 2023 (UTC) Looked at the answer above the question. The answer correctly says that Not neutral and that Irving's position of Holocaust denial is a fringe viewpoint that should not be given equal standing with the consensus among respected historians". Trouting myself. Space4Time3Continuum2x ^(cowabunga) 19:32, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

::::Oh my - please make sure to get rid of that from the questions, and find who added it Andre🚐 19:07, 17 August 2023 (UTC)Andre🚐 21:02, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

I believe an inflection point has been reached

such that everything about Trump's life is subordinate to the unprecedented reality that, due to his actions as president of the United States, the pinnacle of his life and the most powerful position in the world, he has been twice impeached for corruption and criminally indicted on dozens of counts in multiple federal and state jurisdictions. Again, this is without precedent in American history. It is the single unique and defining characteristic of the man.

This should be succinctly stated in the second paragraph of the lead, rather than buried in the lead, with details relegated to the body. soibangla (talk) 03:09, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

I thought we were trying to trim this page down. GoodDay (talk) 03:19, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

The lead section is hardly an area for size concern. ––FormalDude (talk) 03:26, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

sure, trim the bloated and buried lead, replace it with one succinct sentence: Trump was the only president to be twice impeached and later indicted on multiple criminal charges. Many have spent years dodging and dancing around this. No more. This defines him. Countless reliable sources support it. soibangla (talk) 04:04, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

I have no opinion on the underlying question but 1) the lead is the last place I would trim as it is the most visible and 2) condensing his impeachements and indictments into a single sentence is too much for me. Cessaune [talk] 12:22, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

Could you show what exactly you have in mind, maybe in a userspace draft with this new lead? DFlhb (talk) 13:23, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

• It may be another inflection point but that remains to be seen. Is Trump, a former president, getting indicted on 4, 15, or 90 charges more remarkable/noteworthy/defining than Trump, the reality-TV actor and "Access Hollywood" video star, becoming president? WP:BLPCRIME applies to BLPs. Trump hasn’t been convicted of a crime. I support keeping the current order. Space4Time3Continuum2x ^(cowabunga) 16:50, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

  I think fine to give it some time, no rush. but I'm willing to bet that this time in his life will figure prominently by the time the book is written. Andre🚐 21:03, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

  The felony indictments are mentioned at the end of the lead, which is organized in chronological order, to the benefit of the reader. In my view, the indictments belong at the end of the chronological lead at this time. If Trump is convicted of any felony, I would favor a restructuring of the lead, but we can cross that bridge if and when one or more criminal convictions take place. At that time, we can re-evaluate. I do believe that the lead could be edited to retain all the main points but trimming and explaining the points more succinctly, summarizing more briefly the secondary points. I think that the lead content about the criminal charges can be condensed, emphasizing the main point that Trump has been crimininally indicted four times and that he has been charged with 91 felonies, with a far briefer summary of the charges. Those are the salient points, and the body of the article and the various spinoff articles can appropriately go into much greater detail about all of these very important things. Cullen328 (talk) 03:51, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

Discussion to change consensus #18 (alma mater in infobox)

I stand by my view that the RFC above is perfectly valid and that discussion has already happened multiple times on this issue, but on the chance that agreement is made that the RFC is premature and shut down, I strongly stand by my central argument which I will incorporate here:

″It's never too late to fix a perpetual error. The time has come to once against challenge the outlier that is this page. This page stands alone among presidential pages and other graduates of this school. For years, this page has erroneously stuck out by hyper-focusing on the specific department Trump went to and explaining what his degree was without any real reason to justify say WP:IGNORE. To wit, prominent billionaires like Elon Musk and Brian L. Roberts went to the exact same school. Yet, their pages follow the correct protocol and say "University of Pennsylvania (BA, BS)" or "University of Pennsylvania (BS)". It's not just other graduates of this very school that this page sticks out for no reason whatsoever. In comparison to other presidents, it sticks out as well. We don't mention Obama went to Columbia College or Biden went to Syracuse Law. We simply include the university in full (so we simply say Columbia University or Syracuse University) in full recognition that we hyperfocus on the exact department in the early life section. Yes, this page has been this way for years and it's been embarrassing non-stop. The prior consensus is shockingly pretty minimal and the arguments are borderline nonsensical, falsely claiming all or most of the sources say Wharton when plenty simply says UPenn. Because it fails to meet WP:IGNORE, there is no reason it should differ from the presidents before or after. We don't focus on the department of the university nor do we elucidate the major of a particular degree in the infobox for any page, but this one. That was error when it was first implemented and it's still error today.″

So can we establish new consensus to fix the alma box? GreenFrogsGoRibbit (talk) 07:19, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

• Support "University of Pennsylvania (BS)" or "University of Pennsylvania (BS Econ.)" (BS Econ is the current consensus) in the infobox and "University of Pennsylvania" in the lead. The infobox said "University of Pennsylvania" until this edit on Jan 3, 2016, added Fordham University. This edit without edit summary on Jan 8 replaced Fordham and UPenn with Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania. The info then changed several times in 2016, with and without Fordham, Wharton, U of Penn, and (BS), followed by the discussions mentioned in consensus #18.

We had the same back-and-forth in the lead. A month ago this edit changed Wharton School to UPenn with this edit summary: Corrected "Wharton School" to "University of Pennsylvania", which is the institution from which Donald Trump was graduated and received a BS degree. A business school at a university is not a degree-granting institution graduates of most other undergrad programs refer to the university, not school, as their alma mater. ("Wharton grad" e.g. as a metonym is widely understood as referring to an MBA graduate, not a Penn undergrad with a business major.) Amen. It was Trump who, for decades, claimed genius status for having attended a school that only admitted geniuses, without mentioning that he attended the undergraduate school and not the MBA program. Space4Time3Continuum2x ^(cowabunga) 14:17, 19 August 2023 (UTC) Changed format from indent to bullet point. GoodDay, maybe you want to consider changing the format of your post, as well? Space4Time3Continuum2x ^(cowabunga) 10:16, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

Procedural note: This would not change #18, as suggested in the section heading, but rather create a new consensus item superseding #18. This creates a clearer record. Follow existing examples. Existing items are occasionally "changed", but not in cases of complete reversal such as this would be. ―Mandruss ☎ 15:09, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

What is the basis for this? SPECIFICO talk 15:21, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

That may be my fault — supporting changing the infobox entry AND suggesting to add the language in the lead. (Or maybe not, see "complete reversal". Space4Time3Continuum2x ^(cowabunga) 15:38, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

Basis? Clearer record, and precedent. What other kind of basis did you have in mind? ―Mandruss ☎ 15:47, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

No objection from me, for changing "Wharton School" to "University of Pennsylvania", if that means maintaining consistency & precedent. GoodDay (talk) 15:43, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

• Support "University of Pennsylvania (BS)". This would make the article consistent with the universal standard of presenting degrees and institutions. The department generally should not be included. Iamreallygoodatcheckers ^talk 04:15, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

Support. All the points made are valid. The arguments against this fall flat in comparison. Cessaune [talk] 02:01, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

We now have four Supports and one "no objection", which I read as a Tepid Support. No Opposes. Even at 100% support, I don't think we have nearly enough participation to supersede #18. At the same time, the challenge is well articulated and I don't think it should be allowed to die a natural death in these circumstances. So, unless we have a substantial influx of participation in the next week or so, while remaining at a high support percentage, I'd suggest we declare RFCBEFORE satisfied and take this back to RfC. (Note, I'd be arguing "settled issue" if #18 weren't 3-6 years old. I've no objection to revisiting a consensus after that amount of time, particularly when new arguments are raised.) ―Mandruss ☎ 03:17, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

If nobody comes to oppose just change it. A RfC would be overly bureaucratic. Iamreallygoodatcheckers ^talk 03:39, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

Agreed. Especially considering the number of talk page watchers that could chime in at any moment. Cessaune [talk] 03:46, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

I disagree (obviously). An existing consensus can only be changed by a stronger consensus, and amount of participation is one of the factors in the strength of a consensus. Otherwise, two editors in agreement could change any existing consensus. 90% of 12 editors is a stronger consensus than 100% of three editors, in my view. ―Mandruss ☎ 03:50, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

In my humble opinion, I think that the "stronger consensus" argument applies only to cases of extreme controversy or recent consensus. And 2017 is, frankly speaking, a long time ago when you think about it in a Trump context. However, I honestly don't even think consensus 18 applies here.

The argument in the August 2020 discussion wasn't between The Wharton School and The University of Pennsylvania, it was between The Wharton School and the Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania. Consensus 18 seems to me to be a consensus against The Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania and not a consensus for The Wharton School.

So, in my opinion, the arguments brought up above by GreenFrogs are new arguments that do not have to take into account consensus 18. Cessaune [talk] 04:25, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

Change or supersede — meh, I'm good either way. "Not applicable" does not apply — we can change the wording or supersede with a new consensus or revert to the general free-for-all that preceded the consensus. A long time ago in a Trump context is 1968, the year he graduated. Space4Time3Continuum2x ^(cowabunga) 17:15, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

The four discussions forming consensus #18

• Universities in infobox, April 2017. Three separate !votes:

• Add Fordham University to Wharton and/or UPenn. Three yes, two no.
• University of Pennsylvania — 0 yes, The Wharton School — 4 yes, University of Pennsylvania (The Wharton School) — 1 yes, Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania — 1 yes
• Show BS in parentheses as (BS): 4 yes, one no

• Reopening discussion, April 2017: Change BS to "B.S. in Econ"
• University name in the Infobox, August 2020. Two proposals:

• Use "Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania" in the Infobox. 1 yes, 7 no.
• Use "University of Pennsylvania". 1 yes, 1 no

• University degree in infobox, December 2020. Proposal to revert to "BS Econ“. 4 yes, 0 no. Space4Time3Continuum2x ^(cowabunga) 17:15, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

Protests

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mug shot

Inmate No. P01135809 12.186.19.242 (talk) 00:46, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 25 August 2023

Popperaddict16iag (talk) 00:52, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

UPLOAD TRUMP'S MUGSHOT

 Not done: The image is not in the public domain, so we cannot use it. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:55, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

What about fair use? ImYourTurboLover (talk) 01:02, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

It would fail WP:NFCCP 1 and 8, as it is an image of a person who we already have free images of and the image doesn't show anything new, other than a watermark. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 01:10, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

Meh. The image has been the subject of significant discussion and could likely be included on those grounds. Probably more relevant for the article on his prosecution in Georgia though. Elli (talk | contribs) 01:11, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

I disagree: it actually could be used under fair use grounds. ~ HAL333 01:20, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

Apparently Donald Trump mug shot exists, so there might be rationale to use it there. There should be a consensus on the applicability before it is used. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 01:27, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

The mug shot is very relevant and needs to appear on this article. Afterall, he is the first and only ex-president to be twice impeached and four times indicted. The photo is public domain from the Fulton County jail. It belongs to the people. You can bet that it will be heavily marketed by all, including Mr. Trump. Flight Risk (talk) 02:03, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 25 August 2023

Replace Trump's current infobox image with the more recent once taken today by Fulton County Jail. 2600:100F:B1A0:8AAD:C4EA:F0CA:CF4E:E0C2 (talk) 01:21, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

 Not done. See above rationales. And, even if we did include it, it would not replace the image in the infobox. Cessaune [talk] 01:26, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

Donald Trump booking photo Fulton County Georgia

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

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

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