Talk:Donald Trump/Archive 162

Archive 155

←

Archive 160

Archive 161

Archive 162

Archive 163

Archive 164

Archive 165

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)

Yes it should be metioned..the above comment referring to digital rape is a diversion Anonymous8206 (talk) 14:03, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

Hit Piece

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.

---

What anyone thinks of Trump notwithstanding, this Wikipedia entry is one of the first completely biased I’ve ever read. Specific economic performance indicators that were favorable during his presidency are omitted and the entry borders on opinion. The opinion of scholars or him as worst president is just that - opinion and not fact which should be the primary basis for an entry. A poll number indicating / supporting this would be fact, there is no supporting facts for many opinions in this article. I am not a Trump advocate but I do value Wikipedia as a reliable source of information. 2601:49:80:2F30:E5C5:D06F:497C:A032 (talk) 08:18, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

Please see Talk:Donald Trump/Response to claims of bias. ––FormalDude (talk) 10:10, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

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.

Durham Report

On May 15, 2023, Durham released the "Report on matters related to intelligence activities and Investigations arising out of the 2016 Presidential Campaigns" (aka The Durham Report).[37] The report was highly critical of the FBI and concluded that "the FBI should never have launched a full investigation into connections between Donald Trump’s campaign and Russia during the 2016 election."[38] The report also stated, " the FBI used raw, unanalyzed, and uncorroborated intelligence," to launch the "Crossfire Hurricane" investigation into Trump and Russia but used a different standard when weighing concerns about alleged election interference regarding Hillary Clinton’s campaign."[38] 192.119.33.181 (talk) 13:27, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

Which has been criticised. Slatersteven (talk) 13:40, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

What is the specific edit you are seeking? The edit request process is for proposing changes in the form of "change X to Y". 331dot (talk) 13:42, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

The Durham report information needs to be included in the following paragraph, quoted from the article, so readers are fully informed on the topic:

The 2017–2019 special counsel investigation established that Russia interfered in the 2016 election to favor his campaign. 192.119.33.181 (talk) 14:26, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

Why? it does not seem to say anything about the SCI, as such. So what does it tell us? Slatersteven (talk) 14:28, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

"So what does it tell us?" Nothing of any importance. Seems to be irrelevant. Dimadick (talk) 14:32, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

The 2017-2019 special counsel report quoted in this article have been heavily criticized, resulting in censure of Adam Schiff 208.72.40.174 (talk) 15:24, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

The "2017-2019 special counsel report" is not the FBI, what does this tell us about the "2017-2019 special counsel report"? Slatersteven (talk) 15:26, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

You're conflating the "2017-2019 special counsel report", AKA Mueller special counsel investigation (any sources for have been heavily criticized?), with the House Intelligence Committee investigations, chaired by Schiff, into the Trump campaign. Space4Time3Continuum2x ^(cowabunga) 16:06, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

Misuse of the edit request facility. Converted to discussion. ―Mandruss ☎ 14:42, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

You copied the last paragraph of John_Durham#Special_counsel_to_review_origins_of_Trump-Russia_investigation which mostly consists of three quotes from Durham's final report. The section also says that Durham indicted three men, one of whom was sentenced to probation for fudging a FISA request to wiretap Carter Page, i.e., not Trump or the Trump campaign. The other two were acquitted. Reliable sources say that Durham's investigation "failed to produce the kinds of blockbuster revelations accusing the bureau of politically motivated misconduct" and that in his final report he repeated insinuations that he hadn't been able to prove. It's misinformation or even disinformation. Space4Time3Continuum2x ^(cowabunga) 17:59, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

Lead length

Currently, the lead length is too long. There are six paragraphs and goes against the standard set in the ⁣Manual of Style which states maximum of four. 1keyhole (talk) 17:52, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

Well, what specific fix would you propose? Cessaune [talk] 18:48, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

A rule of thumb is not a firm directive. The subject of this article is perhaps the most covered and documented individual of the last decade, it is naturally going to take a bit of time and prose to capture the entirety of that coverage. Zaathras (talk) 00:32, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

I do think that it is a bit long. See if we could merge paragraphs together, or omit some unnecessary elaboration about him. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 22:41, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

Requested edit: Trump + Kushner donations for "development case" college admissions

Disregarding his own admissions and academic scandals:

• Donald Trump, who is well-known to not be generous or philanthropic to third parties per bankruptcies and tax issues, donated $100,000 to the University of Pennsylvania (for the Penn Club of New York) in 1996 (the same year Don Jr. '00 gained Penn admission),
• Son-in-law Jared Kushner gained Harvard '03 admission after his father made a 1998 $2.5 million donation to the school

Cheezesatzu (talk) 08:54, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

Why is this relevant? Slatersteven (talk) 11:56, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

Kushner's $2.5 million admission fee is mentioned in the second paragraph of Jared_Kushner#Early_life_and_education and in Development case (by you:), a page I didn't know existed, and now I'm one of the four to nine people who in all likelihood will view that page today. The Penn Club of New York is a social club for University of Pennsylvania alumni but it's not affiliated with the university, AFAIK, so donating $100,000 to the club (a bit cheap for the purported billionaire but the 90s were a bit rough on Trump's fortune) might have been more for his own sake ("I still got cash to throw around"). The Daily Pennsylvanian is a student newspaper. The article on the donation to the club looks well researched, but the other article merely says that "Trump may have cumulatively donated". They don't know, and other news outlets don't know either because the University of Pennsylvania doesn't disclose the information. Space4Time3Continuum2x ^(cowabunga) 19:04, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

References

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)

1. Trim the "Covid-19" & "Investigations" sub-sections. They could be their own articles. GoodDay (talk) 19:08, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
2. Trim practically everything, especially the Investigations sections. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 21:13, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
3. 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)
4. 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)
5. Trim Covid-19 and Investigations subsections. This article is too long to navigate easily. Cessaune [talk] 12:13, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
6. Trim per the very last comment by WAID in the thread I linked above.
7. 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)
8. Trim any information which is already elaborated on elsewhere on Wikipedia, per WP:SUMMARY. --Jayron32 16:56, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
9. 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)
10. Oppose Do not trim Anonymous8206 (talk) 14:42, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
11. Do not trim This thread is moot and should be closed. We craft NPOV, well sourced article content and gauge inclusion by its substance. Arguments against page length don't get us anywhere, especially when they're repetitive. SPECIFICO talk 15:36, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
12. No Decide on relevance based on the substance, not article size concerns. Zaathras (talk) 22:22, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
13. Trim - It would be good to purge less important info or kick it into the appropriate subs. PackMecEng (talk) 01:57, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
14. Oppose trim. Wiki is not paper. Andre🚐 04:07, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
15. Trim - Suggestion what about trimming out the business career stuff since that's covered in Business career of Donald Trump. 1keyhole (talk) 17:35, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
16. Trim - The fact that just about every section of this page has been heavily litigated in isolation has led to some weird formulations/inclusions. Riposte97 (talk) 02:23, 18 September 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)

• With all do respect to those participating, this is a waste of time. Declaring a consensus to trim does not mean this article will be trimmed. Just like the consensus to have citations in the lead paragraph... Iamreallygoodatcheckers ^talk 07:57, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

Specifico, there seems to be more support for a trim than not, at least from the editors who participated in this discussion. Although I would say that other offshoots of this article are in much more urgent need for a trim, like "First 100 days of Donald Trump's presidency" at 332kb. Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 20:18, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

As Mr. Checkers has said, there is not any specific actionable proposal on the table. Going to a poll about nothing in particular is not going to lead to any improvements. To get things on track, I'd suggest closing this thread and making a specific compact proposal about one section of the article, or several such proposals in separate threads. SPECIFICO talk 20:54, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

I agree that the best course of actions is simply discuss specific proposals of trimming (what text to trim piecemeal) or boldly trim and discuss if concerns arise. Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 01:07, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

Considering the magnitude of this proposal, I discourage a BOLD trim with discussion after the fact. I agree with Zaathras and ValarianB that SIZE should not be our primary concern. soibangla (talk) 01:17, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

While I am all for trimming, SPECIFICO has made some really good points above. This discussion should be closed and a willing editor should propose something specific. A consensus to trim is a consensus I could do without. The long-term implications of such a consensus will, in my mind, inevitably lead to new, article-worthy content that only marginally adds to the prosesize being shut down per 'consensus to trim'. (Prosesize is the issue, not byte size; I'm tired of do not trim !votes above using some form of this isn't 2002, we ain't using dial-up no more, mobile data is much faster than it was, etc. That's not the point of splitting the article.) Cessaune [talk] 04:38, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 20 September 2023

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

NY liability for Fraud Judgment

The subject has been judged guilty of fraud. C.f., [1] The subject also faces, what, 94(?), felony criminal indictments in four separate federal and state trials? Realities such as these should appear toward the top of the summary. Catuskoti (talk) 23:40, 26 September 2023 (UTC) Such information seems more relevant to readers than, e.g., his alma mater or his major in college.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Rough consensus characterization of consensus item #60

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.

---

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

Consensus item #60 reads:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

No.

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

22. Do not call Trump a "liar" in Wikipedia's voice. Falsehoods he uttered can be mentioned, while being mindful of calling them "lies", which implies malicious intent. (RfC Aug 2017) (no clear consensus; leaning towards "do not use")

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

You found the soft underbelly of the gruff guardian of the Donald Trump process.🐐 Hats off!👒👩🏻‍🌾 SPECIFICO talk 20:22, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

There's a goat emoji? Other people go to the dogs, you chose another route? Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 20:56, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

Yes sir. I got it as a doorprize at ANI. And it is roughly an Alpine like my small flock. SPECIFICO talk 21:07, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

What the flock? Get the flock outta here. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:50, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

Alright. I've talked myself into support for the #60 change. The sole function of the list should be as arbiter of the article content (in a few cases like #13 and #61, arbiter of talk page procedures). It saves editors from having to remember consensuses (if they were around to witness them) and hunt them down in the archive, sorting out supersessions and other complexities; nothing else. As I said previously, that function ignores strength of consensus; so strength of consensus isn't needed in the list. And it has more cost than benefit when you look past #60 at the big picture. This makes consensus for the change, two to one (a weak consensus!); can we move on now? ―Mandruss ☎ 03:34, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

Yes, we can. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 14:51, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. And I may have given myself too much credit with "I've talked myself into...". In hindsight, some of my above argument is what Cessaune was trying to say, if very verbosely, and I was too thick to see it. Blame my ADD.

So, do we need a new consensus item for this consensus? Oy, I hope not. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:12, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

Many of the complexities are now under TBAN. Maybe update to all digital, DDD. SPECIFICO talk 19:19, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

Elaborate on both sentences? ―Mandruss ☎ 19:44, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

DDD ADD. Naming our legacy Trump colleagues is frowned upon, I believe. Some of them are still in good standing on articles that are less tempting for them. SPECIFICO talk 19:54, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

Hmmm. Alrighty then! ―Mandruss ☎ 20:21, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

I think we have a consensus to remove, so I removed the two words and added a link to this discussion. Space4Time3Continuum2x (cowabunga) 13:39, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

Everything settled, on the topic-in-question? GoodDay (talk) 14:40, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

I don't know. There might be some objection to adding a link to this discussion, which is about a different issue than the issue addressed by #60. The link effectively says, "This used to say 'rough consensus'", which isn't all that different from saying "rough consensus". If you're asking whether this is ripe for closure and early archival, I'd say not. ―Mandruss ☎ 17:20, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

Aaand it's gone. Space4Time3Continuum2x (cowabunga) 14:43, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

Damn, you're easy these days. Buckin' for another barnstar, I reckon. ―Mandruss ☎ 06:03, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

You guys are on a roll. What next? Andre🚐 06:06, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

Ending world hunger? I'm down. ―Mandruss ☎ 06:10, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

Ending world hunger — hmm. Specifico, how’s the milk production coming along? Space4Time3Continuum2x (cowabunga) 15:28, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

Unsuccessfully, it seems. Too oblique? Mellowed with age; changed my meds; breathing the musty fumes from the pile of used books I mail-ordered to verify the sources in an article that is less shepherded by editors than this one, getting wiki-lawyered and not edit-warring with the second coming of the LordDisciple over proper sourcing, citing, and tagging; bourbon — one or more of the aforementioned. Space4Time3Continuum2x (cowabunga) 15:28, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

Re: [2]. Just when you think this can be finally put to bed.

• Re the third link, we have an agreement between me and Space4 not to link to this discussion. See above. That constitutes a consensus with the little participation that we have in this discussion. So it's improper to add it back without swaying one of us or convincing two others.
• Re the second link, does that discussion represent part of the #60 consensus? Without a close, it's extremely hard to tell without reading the entire discussion (and different editors could easily draw different conclusions). That's why we have closes. Merely being related to the issue is not enough reason to link it there. To get maximum benefit from the list, we need to tightly control such things. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:37, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

I didn't add the third link, as evident by the diff you provided. The link was already there.

Your logic pertaining to the second link is sound. Cessaune [talk] 01:52, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

My bad. I didn't check Space4's work. I'll remove links 2 and 3. ―Mandruss ☎ 01:59, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

??? Mea culpa. I don't understand why the link sans pipe didn't show on the Talk page 'cause that's what I checked. Space4Time3Continuum2x (cowabunga) 10:37, 11 October 2023 (UTC) I just added the link with pipe, then removed the pipe, couldn't replicate. Don't know what I was seeing or not seeing after I removed the pipe instead of the entire link. Space4Time3Continuum2x (cowabunga) 16:27, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

A glitch in the Simulation, I'm guessing. ―Mandruss ☎ 17:18, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

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.

Divestitures of distressed properties

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

The current wording isn't sufficient?

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

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

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

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

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

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

Fundamental NPOV issue with this article

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Isn't - Donald John Trump (born June 14, 1946) is an American politician, media personality, and businessman who served as the 45th president of the United States from 2017 to 2021 - neutral enough? GoodDay (talk) 16:04, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

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

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

Lead and article are too long

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

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

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

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

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

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

could be converted into:

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

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

Something like this:

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

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

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

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

Ineligible for public office

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

Alright. Time for some late night analyzation.

Fourteenth Amendment, Section Three:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

They go on to state, quote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Any other candidate for political office with an active lawsuit challenging their eligibility would have that included in the article as significant, would they not? [5][6]https://www.palestineherald.com/news/lawsuit-seeks-to-keep-trump-off-the-new-hampshire-ballot/article_d33d0c62-495b-11ee-86b4-17747e8b2353.html#:~:text=CONCORD%2C%20NH%20%E2%80%94%20New%20Hampshire%20is,27%20in%20Merrimack%20Superior%20Court. Lynn Ami (talk) 21:00, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I agree with this. It is already mentioned in the Donald Trump 2024 presidential campaign as well for those looking to add it somewhere in Wikipedia. - AquilaFasciata (talk | contribs) 13:08, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Reflist format

This edit (by a phone user, I presume Tim O'Doherty?) changed the format from standard to reflist/20em, saying "goes way too far down". I don't know how to measure "far down" on my screen. On a wide screen, scrolling appears to take just as long with the new setting as with the standard one, and IMO the four to six columns with those narrow lines are harder to read. Opinions? Space4Time3Continuum2x (cowabunga) 14:07, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

It takes 19 PageDowns for me, old way and new way. Not an improvement, and arguably worse as it makes cited titles run to 4 lines sometimes. Boldly removed. Zaathras (talk) 14:44, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

Stop confusing us with logical reasoning. ―Mandruss ☎ 06:00, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

No, I'm not a mobile user. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 15:20, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 23 October 2023

Simple grammatical change: removal of an unnecessary comma.

Change "At age 13, he was enrolled at the New York Military Academy, a private boarding school,[7] and, in 1964, he enrolled at Fordham University." to "At age 13, he was enrolled at the New York Military Academy, a private boarding school,[7] and in 1964, he enrolled at Fordham University." Evanf32 (talk) 20:28, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

 Not done Unless I'm mistaken, there is not wide agreement on that grammatical structure. I'm among those who disagree with it. Look what happens when you remove the dependent clause, in 1964: "At age 13, he was enrolled at the New York Military Academy, a private boarding school,[7] and he enrolled at Fordham University." When you add a dependent clause, you do so by enclosing it within commas, as ", in 1964,". and in 1964 is not a correctly formed dependent clause. The "and" was already in the sentence, and it doesn't become part of a dependent clause when you add words after it.

Try speaking your version with a short pause at each comma. It doesn't even sound right, and I've never heard anyone speak like that. Not that that's the main argument against your version, but it's worth noting. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:44, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Trump’s comment about Israel-Palestinian terror Group war October 2023

I would write about this but I feel a large COi of wanting to call him some very bad words while writing it. Source: https://www.nytimes.com/2023/10/08/world/middleeast/hamas-attacks-trump-us-taxpayer-iran.html?smid=url-share

Megabits000 (talk) 00:50, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

Considering WP:NOTNEWS and that we don't have to document every verbal WP:FART that he utters, what about this should be added, if anything? – Muboshgu (talk) 01:00, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

Not here. This article has too much of that already. Perhaps not anywhere, but that's not a topic for this page. ―Mandruss ☎ 01:05, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

A scripted Republican talking point.e.g. Maybe try that page. SPECIFICO talk 02:33, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

True true. Thanks for the reminder on policies regarding that relate to a (certain) former president.

Megabits000 (talk) 04:42, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

The Republicans seem to love this, so it's looking DUE for other WP pages. SPECIFICO talk 18:08, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

Not everything he says is worthy of inclusion, analysis of it maybe. Slatersteven (talk) 18:22, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

How is it possible to analyze it without including it ? Sounds relevant to me..I say include it Anonymous8206 (talk) 22:41, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

I think Slatersteven meant that if you found a reliable source that analyzed Trump's statement, then that source would be a possible inclusion. Wikipedia editors should not be engaging in original analysis. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 14:54, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

If you include an analysis why would you not include the source ? Anonymous8206 (talk) 15:03, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

"Donakd Trump" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Donakd Trump has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 November 2 § Donakd Trump until a consensus is reached. Steel1943 (talk) 19:11, 2 November 2023 (UTC)