Talk:Donald Trump/Archive 156

Archive 150

←

Archive 154

Archive 155

Archive 156

Archive 157

Archive 158

→

Archive 160

Intro to 2016 presidential campaign

Jerome Frank Disciple, I don't think that we need to say that but meh. The bigger problem in this long article was the additional cite. BTW, except for Obama, the articles on other presidents also don't mention the announcement. The first African-American candidate was historic, golden escalator — not so much. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 13:23, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

Hey fair enough! If you feel strongly on it, feel free to revert—I won't suggest another intro. For me, I thought it was a little jarring that we heard about Trump deciding to run or speculating about a run in 2000 and 2011/12, but then for 2016 it felt like it just jumped straight into "anyway so trump was in the primary, and ...". And absolutely agree re: Obama/Trump. (Though if he sees this, I expect Trump will commission the world's first gold-plated sculpture of a man riding a golden escalator in order to add to the historicalness.)--Jerome Frank Disciple 13:29, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

Agreed with @Space4Time3Continuum2x. I think if we find in a few years that the "golden escalator" has staying power and is still mentioned in RSes despite time passing, then we could revisit this and consider inclusion. But I don't see a lot of evidence that this particular factoid is still relevant/DUE. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 16:34, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

Stating that the jury found him not liable for rape

Collapsing as redundant and superseded by the multi-part proposal below. Please participate there! And read this only if you need more background on the discussion/dispute.— Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 16:36, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

When I originally added the sentence about the civil trial between Carroll and Trump today, it included that the jury found Trump not liable for rape, which is true and identified by reliable sources. NPR: The nine jurors... did not find that Trump raped Carroll. But they agreed that he "sexually abused" her.. and The Hill: The nine-member jury found Trump did not commit rape, but jurors found him liable for sexual abuse, another form of sexual battery. (these are both of sources cited in the current prose). Anyway, the clause mentioning Trump was found not liable for rape was removed by SPECIFICO with the rationale in the edit summary being: NPOV. Just the facts, ma'am. To respond to the two claims made here. (1) Trump being found not liable for rape is a verifiable fact that is covered by reliable sources (as demonstrated with the sources above). This was part of the verdict in the same way as him being found liable for sexual abuse and defamation. A jury finding someone not liable for something doesn't make something less mentionable in an article. (2) It absolutely is not a NPOV violation to include this clause; in fact, quite the contrary, it is a NPOV and BLP violation to not mention this along side the rest of the verdict by the jury. How could it be considered neutral for us to willfully ignore one part of the verdict and include another? This comes across as POV cherry-picking of facts to make this appear worse for Trump. A neutral article should include both what he was found liable for and what he wasn't found liable for. In the same way, it would violate the NPOV to say Trump was not found liable for rape, but exclude that he was found liable for sexual abuse and defamation. Iamreallygoodatcheckers talk 05:00, 10 May 2023 (UTC) Absolutely this BLP should say what he was found liable for, and also what he was found not liable for. Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:05, 10 May 2023 (UTC) Totally agree. CNBC, Politico, CNN, the Washington Post and NBC News in their news stories on this trial all state that the jury did not find that Trump had raped Carroll. Certainly this is reliable information. The Capitalist forever (talk) 05:40, 10 May 2023 (UTC) It is UNDUE for that brief mention and the full story is at the wiki-linked page on the matter. SPECIFICO talk 06:31, 10 May 2023 (UTC) Seems that news outlets are mentioning both in the same breath, either in the same sentence, or at least in the same paragraph. I also think there's merit to the NPOV/BLP arguments, so we should include both — DFlhb (talk) 07:51, 10 May 2023 (UTC) WP is not a news outlet. SPECIFICO talk 08:00, 10 May 2023 (UTC) We rely on them to determine dueness — DFlhb (talk) 08:20, 10 May 2023 (UTC) Breaking news coverage?? No. That is incorrect. Of course on Fox the lead was "Trump exonerated of rape." SPECIFICO talk 08:48, 10 May 2023 (UTC) Further, to be clear, this page does not say that Carroll alleged rape. Adding that would necessitate a lot more detail on the trial that is not DUE for this page. SPECIFICO talk 09:30, 10 May 2023 (UTC) Honestly, it wasn't just Fox News that said that the jury didn't convict Trump of rape, it was also all the "democratic" news outlets as well. For one, the media actually all stated the same fact, even if it was exaggerated alittle.The Capitalist forever (talk) 09:01, 10 May 2023 (UTC) The jury didn't conclude that Trump didn't rape her, they concluded that there wasn't sufficient evidence to hold Trump liable for rape. There's a significant difference between these two statements. As per Politico: "The jury found that Carroll did not prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that Trump raped her." Alcibiades979 (talk) 10:00, 10 May 2023 (UTC) It does give undue weight to not put that Trump was not found guilty of rape by the jury. Also, Specifico, to be honest, I highly doubt people read the references these days, so the other part of the story should be mentioned. Though wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not a news outlet, it should cover the other side of the story. Not wanting to offend. The Capitalist forever (talk) 08:04, 10 May 2023 (UTC) I haven't all the evidence or the jury instructions. But, had I been on the jury, I likely would have voted against a finding of rape due to the difficulty in proving it, even though I am quite certain it was rape. I think it should be included that the jury did not find the evidence adequate for a finding of rape, with wording such that it is clear that this does not mean there was proof it didn't occur. I do think the term battery should be added and linked. O3000, Ret. (talk) 10:19, 10 May 2023 (UTC) That's how the legal system works in all common law jurisdictions. Do you think we should mention this in every article where a lawsuit or prosecution fails? TFD (talk) 15:20, 11 May 2023 (UTC) Yes we mention it all. Slatersteven (talk) 12:10, 10 May 2023 (UTC) Fellows, the word "rape" does not appear in this long article. We can't bring it up and say he was not found to have raped her. That's like saying he doesn't have broccoli growing in his ear or he's not on dialysis. As a matter of fact, to do so would be like the famous Trump disinformation tactic of insinuating an idea by denying it, attributing it to gossip, or attributing it to "lots of experts say...". Further, the more significant points discussed in RS accounts are, among others, 1) his doubling down on the Access Hollywood credo that he is a star and stars are entitled to commit sexual assault 2) his not testifying or attending the trial after the devastating deposition video was introduced, and 3) his mistaking Carroll for his wife Marla, and 4) his agitated and incoherent statement post-trial in which, btw he calls the whole thing corrupt and illegitimate (including presumably the failure to find "rape"). The central narratives by Carroll and by media reports have not been about "rape" but about assault. Today, "rape" and its sexual connotations are widely rejected and deprecated in the mainstream discussion of such assaults. Only Trump, in his deposition that discussed which women were attractive enough for him to rape, has promoted this misogynistic view. All the details and context about the events are presented in our wiki-linked article about the case and at Donald Trump sexual misconduct allegations. SPECIFICO talk 13:12, 10 May 2023 (UTC) I'm sympathetic to your general argument, SPECIFICO, but I lose you on two points: "We can't bring it up and say he was not found to have raped her. That's like saying he doesn't have broccoli growing in his ear or he's not on dialysis." and "The central narratives by Carroll and by media reports have not been about 'rape' but about assault." The jury didn't sua sponte find Trump not liable for rape, and Trump certainly didn't bring the claim against himself. The reason the jury made a finding as to the rape charge is because Carroll brought a claim for battery which she premised on several theories, including rape. As Carroll said in paragraph 135 of her complaint: Trump’s actions constitute sexual offenses as defined in Article 130 of the New York Penal Law, including but not limited to rape in the first degree (§ 130.35), rape in the third degree (§ 130.25), sexual abuse in the first degree (§ 130.65), sexual abuse in the third degree (§ 130.55), sexual misconduct (§ 130.20), and forcible touching (§ 130.52). Primary source. Secondary source. You seem to be suggesting that Carroll never formally alleged rape, but she did. The jury did not make a finding as to "broccoli growing in [Trump's] ear" because Carroll didn't bring a claim based on that.--Jerome Frank Disciple 15:04, 10 May 2023 (UTC) The jury in question also did not find him liable for the Kennedy assassination. We don't mention everything he didn't get found liable for. Simply saying "he was found civilly liable for sexual assault against Carroll" is sufficient and complete as it is. No extra information is needed. --Jayron32 14:24, 10 May 2023 (UTC) I just want to point out my above argument applies to this point, too. Carroll brought certain claims. One of those claims was for rape. The jury made a finding on the rape allegation because Carroll brought that claim. Carroll did not bring a claim related to the Kennedy assassination. The jury didn't make any finding—liable or not—on Trump's involvement in the Kennedy assassination because Carroll didn't bring that claim.--Jerome Frank Disciple 15:08, 10 May 2023 (UTC) Also we say he had been accused of rape, so we need to say that in the one instance the accusation was taken to court it was found to not be proven. Slatersteven (talk) 15:11, 10 May 2023 (UTC) We're not saying he was accused of rape, we're saying he was found liable for sexual battery and defamation. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 15:53, 10 May 2023 (UTC) "At least 26 women have publicly accused Trump of rape", if we include that we have to also point out how in then only one was brought to trial he was found innocent of the accusation. Slatersteven (talk) 15:58, 10 May 2023 (UTC) This is what our "public profile" section says: At least 26 women have publicly accused Trump of rape, kissing and groping without consent, looking under women's skirts, or walking in on naked teenage pageant contestants.[812][813][814] In 2016, he denied all accusations, calling them "false smears" and alleging a conspiracy against him and the American people.[815] It was a civil lawsuit brought by one of the women. The jury found Trump liable for sexual assault and defamation, and not liable for rape which is the term Carroll for the sexual attack. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 16:23, 10 May 2023 (UTC) So he did not rape at least one of those accusers, which means we have to say that. We can't accuse someone of a crime they have been found not to have committed. Slatersteven (talk) 16:26, 10 May 2023 (UTC) What does this lawsuit have to to with the dozens of accusations other women made over the years? Also, we're not even mentioning that Carroll sued him for rape. The jury found Trump liable for sexual battery and defamation, and not liable for rape which is the term Carroll used for the sexual attack. "Judge Lewis A. Kaplan offered jurors three forms of battery under which Trump could be liable: rape, sexual abuse and forcible touching." Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 16:32, 10 May 2023 (UTC) I'm not sure about the connection to the other accusations, but we should absolutely say Carroll was suing him for rape and sexual assault, particularly given that the jury's findings as to those two claims were the most widely reported. Also—I just want to be clear again, Carroll argued rape, sexual assault, and forcible touching in her complaint.--Jerome Frank Disciple 16:34, 10 May 2023 (UTC) Same WaPo source: For the jury to find it was rape, the judge said it would have to find that there was sexual intercourse by force, including penetration. For sexual abuse, the requirement was touching sexual or intimate parts by force. It found that the latter was likely. (Kaplan said forcible touching “includes squeezing, grabbing, pinching, rubbing or other bodily contact that involves the application of some level of pressure to the victim’s sexual or intimate parts.”) The verdict will at least allow Trump to say that he wasn’t found liable for an offense as serious as the one Carroll alleged. But the size of the damages and the speed with which the jurors reached their verdict (just a few hours) suggests they were easily convinced Trump engaged in the kind of conduct he spoke about on the 'Access Hollywood' tape, in which he said that if you were a star, women would let you get away with what you want. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 16:47, 10 May 2023 (UTC) Yeah that seems like a great source! ... But wait I'm not sure what that has to do with mentioning the not liable finding re: rape.--Jerome Frank Disciple 16:54, 10 May 2023 (UTC) It was a civil lawsuit, not an indictment. The jury found Trump liable for sexual battery to the tune of $5 million, i.e., squeezing, grabbing, pinching, rubbing or other bodily contact that involves the application of some level of pressure to the victim’s sexual or intimate parts. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 17:04, 10 May 2023 (UTC) ... You're losing me further. Nothing that I said suggested it was an indictment?--Jerome Frank Disciple 17:19, 10 May 2023 (UTC) I concur with both JFD and Slatersteven. The jury considered whether or not he was liable for rape, not all these other absurd examples that have nothing to do with Trump. Iamreallygoodatcheckers talk 15:21, 10 May 2023 (UTC) This blog citing an interview Trump gave Fox News Digital appears to be the only source for Trump saying that he'll appeal. WP:NOTNEWS — the sentence is undue until he actually files an appeal. Also, I moved the text into the post-presidency section, Donald_Trump#Civil_lawsuit_for_sexual_battery_and_defamation. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 15:45, 10 May 2023 (UTC) Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 17:16, 10 May 2023 (UTC) Correcting myself: The NPR source says that In an email to NPR, a lawyer representing Trump said the former president would appeal the decision. We don't need to and shouldn't quote Trump. IMO, WP:NOTNEWS also applies to the lawyer saying that he would appeal but meh, after looking at the comments in this thread. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 16:08, 10 May 2023 (UTC) E. Jean Carroll accused Trump of rape, and sued him for it. The jury considered the accusation of rape and did not find that Trump raped her. This has been excluded from the article. Bob K31416 (talk) 17:20, 10 May 2023 (UTC) In light of the BLP concerns raised above, I've re-added the explanation to the article [1] (relevant subsection, which, I should point out, is only four sentences). I believe our WP:NOCON policy suggests that when a BLP concern is raised, the article text should be modified to the "safe" version until the BLP discussion is resolved. (In the event of content that arguably violates BLP, that means exclusion pending discussion, and I think it follows that omission arguably violating BLP yields inclusion pending discussion.)--Jerome Frank Disciple 17:42, 10 May 2023 (UTC) There is no BLP problem. In fact, there's arguably a BLP problem to add that content, given how the page has framed the narrative of that section. Please do not add content that is under discussion. SPECIFICO talk 18:13, 10 May 2023 (UTC) You're unilaterally deciding that there's no BLP problem, but there's a dispute—other editors, including @Iamreallygoodatcheckers, Anythingyouwant, and DFlhb:, have said it is. And, I'm sorry, what's the argument that including the full verdict creates a BLP problem? Here's the text of what was there—I'm actually a bit fascinated to know how it presents a BLP issue. [Moved below]. The way this is headed, I imagine an RFC is on the horizon, and we should probably notify BLP noticeboard, too, particularly as to the question of what the article should say in the interim. Per WP:NOCON, given that the inclusion of just part of the jury verdict has been called a BLP issue, and you're (apparently?) saying the inclusion of the full verdict is a BLP issue, then we should remove any mention of the jury verdict while the discussion is resolved.--Jerome Frank Disciple 18:25, 10 May 2023 (UTC) I posted this to the BLP noticeboard since four editors have raised BLP concerns.--Jerome Frank Disciple 18:47, 10 May 2023 (UTC) Here is the jury's verdict. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 19:35, 10 May 2023 (UTC) FYI, The article currently uses the source [2], which begins with the following two paragraphs. A federal jury has found former President Donald Trump liable for battery and defamation in the lawsuit brought by writer E. Jean Carroll, who says he raped her in a Manhattan department store in the mid-1990s. The nine jurors, who deliberated for barely three hours before reaching their unanimous conclusion, did not find that Trump raped Carroll. But they agreed that he "sexually abused" her and that he defamed her when he denied her story. The Wikipedia article currently says, In 2022, E. Jean Carroll sued Trump for sexually abusing her in a Manhattan department in the mid-1990s and for defamation when he denied her story during his presidency. In May 2023, a federal jury in Manhattan found him liable for sexual abuse and defamation and awarded her $5 million. Trump's lawyer told NPR that Trump would appeal the finding.[706] Note that there is no mention of rape in the Wikipedia article but it is prominently in the source. The story for almost a year was the accusation of rape. Now that the jury considered the accusation of rape and unanimously did not find that it occurred, this Wikipedia article ignores that. Bob K31416 (talk) 19:01, 10 May 2023 (UTC) and unanimously did not find that it occurred is a lie, again. not enough evidence to secure a conviction is not a finding that "it did not occur". ValarianB (talk) 19:39, 10 May 2023 (UTC) ValarianB, The source said, "The nine jurors, who deliberated for barely three hours before reaching their unanimous conclusion, did not find that Trump raped Carroll." I wrote, "...the jury considered the accusation of rape and unanimously did not find that it occurred." They look consistent to me. Regarding your use of the word "lie", in the beginning of the policy Wikipedia:Civility there is, "Stated simply, editors should always treat each other with consideration and respect. They should focus on improving the encyclopedia while maintaining a pleasant editing environment by behaving politely, calmly and reasonably, even during heated debates." Bob K31416 (talk) 21:07, 10 May 2023 (UTC) Bob, nobody's ignoring anything. Deciding not to include excessive and fraught detail in the bio of Trump's many years -- when we link to two other articles full of the details you crave -- is not "ignoring" anything. That is not a substantive argument, nor is it responsive to the many concerns raised by numerous editors here. SPECIFICO talk 19:44, 10 May 2023 (UTC) @ValarianB: I'll be honest ... I work in law, and I love distinguishing cases ... but that distinction is ... really thin. Just to put it in its proper context, it would be just as valid to say, "The jury didn't find that the sexual abuse occurred. They found that the evidence presented indicated that sexual abuse most likely occurred."--Jerome Frank Disciple 19:51, 10 May 2023 (UTC) This is the top bio on Trump. The jury said that Carroll proved, by a preponderance of the evidence, that Trump sexually abused and defamed her. That's the important part, and that's what our text said. Further details belong in the main article. How is not saying that the jury said that Carroll did not prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that Trump raped her a BLP problem when we don't say that Carroll accused him of rape? Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 19:55, 10 May 2023 (UTC) So, to start, why do we not say that Carroll accused him of rape? Surely that accusation is significant, no? Is it just to avoid mentioning the jury's finding?--Jerome Frank Disciple 20:02, 10 May 2023 (UTC) That is close to a WP:PA. "So to start with" - if you want to contribute here - it's up to you to check your facts, the article context, and other factors raised by editors who are volunteering their time on this issue. SPECIFICO talk 20:06, 10 May 2023 (UTC* It's 100% not a personal attack. If you disagree, feel free to head to any noticeboard.--Jerome Frank Disciple 20:15, 10 May 2023 (UTC) I was about to respond WP:AGF. O3000, Ret. (talk) 20:18, 10 May 2023 (UTC) ... This is sort of the absurdity of the situation. Both of the above editors are saying there are valid reasons to exclude the jury's rape finding—chiefly, they say, it will require paragraphs of explanation. But if I say "are we not mentioning the claim in order to avoid mentioning the finding" ... you say "WP:AGF"?--Jerome Frank Disciple 20:36, 10 May 2023 (UTC) It would be significant in most people's bios. Trump's — not so much. Sooo many accusations, indictments, lawsuits, so many related articles. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 20:10, 10 May 2023 (UTC) Good point. This is two years back; but it's the stories of 18 women with related allegations. Doesn't include non-sexual legal problems. [3] O3000, Ret. (talk) 20:16, 10 May 2023 (UTC) I think we'll have to agree to disagree here, and given how far apart we are, I think maybe it's time to call for an RFC. It seems to me is that your logic is "only a finding adverse to Trump is worthy of inclusion". But that's pretty obviously not how any reliable source covering the findings has reported them. See CNN, NBC News, New York Times, CBS News. Even the article that we currently (exclusively) cite, NPR, leads with the rape claim: The nine jurors, who deliberated for barely three hours before reaching their unanimous conclusion, did not find that Trump raped Carroll. But they agreed that he "sexually abused" her and that he defamed her when he denied her story. If it's of no objection to you, I'll go ahead and set up the RFC now. --Jerome Frank Disciple 20:20, 10 May 2023 (UTC) No, I object. You should not be setting up an RfC, certainly not within a couple of hours of posting at BLPN for additional discussion and moreover with your relative inexperience as an editor on this page and on this site. An immediate RfC first off will delay any resolution for a month and second will lock in whatever alternatives you pose in a fast developing RS narrative as to events. Please do not do that. Let your BLPN posting work its magic. SPECIFICO talk 20:30, 10 May 2023 (UTC) Proposed text (long version) In 2022, E. Jean Carroll sued Trump for sexually battering her in a Manhattan department in the mid-1990s and for defamation when he denied her story during his presidency. As to the battery claim, Carroll's complaint alleged Trump's conduct met the standard of several crimes under New York's penal code, include rape, sexual abuse, and forcible touching.[1][2][3] In May 2023, a federal jury in Manhattan found that Trump was liable for the sexual-abuse and defamation claims but that Carroll had not proven the rape claim.[4][5] The jury awarded Carroll $5 million. Trump's lawyer told NPR that Trump would appeal the finding.[5] References [1] Klasfeld, Adam (November 24, 2022). "E. Jean Carroll Files Long-Anticipated Lawsuit Accusing Trump of Rape, as New York's Adult Survivors Act Goes into Effect". Law & Crime. [2] de Valle, Lauren (May 10, 2023). "Jury finds Donald Trump sexually abused E. Jean Carroll in civil case, awards her $5 million". CNN. [3] Fadulu, Lola (May 9, 2023). "New York law gave jurors three types of battery to consider in the Trump case". New York Times. [4] Choma, Russ (May 9, 2023). "Donald Trump Sexually Abused and Defamed E. Jean Carroll, Jury Finds". Mother Jones. [5] a, b Sullivan, Becky; Bernstein, Andrea; Marritz, Ilya; Lawrence, Quil (May 9, 2023). "A jury finds Trump liable for battery and defamation in E. Jean Carroll trial". NPR. Retrieved May 10, 2023. Original version 1 Diff In May 2023, a federal jury in Manhattan found Trump civilly liable for sexually abusing and defaming E. Jean Carroll, awarding her $5 million; though, the jury also found Trump not liable for raping Carroll.[1][2] References [1] Sullivan, Becky. "A jury finds Trump liable for battery and defamation in E. Jean Carroll trial". NPR. Retrieved 9 May 2023. [2] Schonfeld, Zach (9 May 2023). "Trump found liable for sexual battery, defamation in E. Jean Carroll trial". The Hill. Retrieved 9 May 2023. Original short version In May 2023, a federal jury in Manhattan found Trump civilly liable for sexually abusing and defaming E. Jean Carroll, awarding her $5 million.[1][2] References [1] Sullivan, Becky. "A jury finds Trump liable for battery and defamation in E. Jean Carroll trial". NPR. Retrieved 9 May 2023. [2] Schonfeld, Zach (9 May 2023). "Trump found liable for sexual battery, defamation in E. Jean Carroll trial". The Hill. Retrieved 9 May 2023. Version before the above "proposed text" In 2022, E. Jean Carroll sued Trump for sexually abusing her in a Manhattan department in the mid-1990s and for defamation when he denied her story during his presidency. In May 2023, a federal jury in Manhattan found him liable for sexual abuse and defamation and awarded her $5 million. Trump's lawyer told NPR that Trump would appeal the finding. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 15:52, 11 May 2023 (UTC) References Quote from jury finding For editors who advocate "adding the full jury decision". Please consider whether the article text should add the following jury finding about Trump's action, that he acted "maliciously, out of hatred, ill will, spite or wanton, reckless, or willful disregard of the rights of another"[1] Reference [1] Sullivan, Becky; Bernstein, Andrea; Marritz, Ilya; Lawrence, Quil (May 9, 2023). "A jury finds Trump liable for battery and defamation in E. Jean Carroll trial". NPR. Retrieved May 10, 2023. Opinions Include all findings (updated from [4]). Every reliable covering the findings has reported the rape finding and the sexual abuse/defamation finding. NPR, the source currently cited, leads with the rape finding. See also CNN, NBC News, New York Times, CBS News. There's no valid reason to restrict the article to the adverse findings and censor the non-adverse findings. Some editors have said the rape finding would require paragraphs because others have made rape allegations against Trump. But do we need to explain that the sexual abuse and defamation findings as to Carroll don't mean that other sexual abuse and defamation findings are true? Of course not. Some editors have alluded to length, but, particularly given that this is given its own subsection, I'm skeptical—the proposed text is four sentences. And, as Iamreallygoodatcheckers's version shows ... we can also say it in just one sentence. One editor said that non-adverse findings would not be sufficiently notable to include. But, given the rarity of civil lawsuits against former presidents, I'd actually contend that any finding is notable, and, notably, no one has pointed to a reliable source covering verdict that considered the rape finding to be so insignificant as to merit omission—again, some outlets led with the rape finding. Finally, there was a hint by one editor that including all the findings would be a BLP or OR issue. ... When asked to elaborate, that user never did. Ultimately, I think including only adverse findings presents an NPOV issue. I'm not sure what the actual argument against including the rape finding is—but let's be clear about the effect: what's being advocated for is an article that only mentions the findings of the jury that were adverse to Trump. That's transparently a WP:NPOV problem. And the notion that readers can scour this other page if they want to know about the existence of the non-adverse finding is just ridiculous.--Jerome Frank Disciple 20:29, 10 May 2023 (UTC) Discussion of the propriety of an RFC Improper RfC opened hours after discussion began on event that just hit the papers today. Should be closed by someone not involved. O3000, Ret. (talk) 20:37, 10 May 2023 (UTC) Your statement is not in compliance with WP:RFCNEUTRAL. Keep the RfC statement (and heading) neutrally worded, short and simple. Statements are often phrased as questions, for example: "Should this article say in the lead that John Smith was a contender for the Pulitzer Prize?". Yours is neither simple nor neutral. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 20:39, 10 May 2023 (UTC) Which part of the question isn't neutral? Should this article's subsection on Carroll v. Trump include the full jury findings (which include findings as to rape, sexual abuse, and defamation) or just the findings that were adverse to Trump (i.e. sexual abuse and defamation)? Are you objecting to "full"? "Adverse"? ... I can rewrite the question without those terms no problem, but I'm not sure I see the neutrality issue. Either way, done!--Jerome Frank Disciple 20:42, 10 May 2023 (UTC) Given that @MelanieN: reverted (I'm not sure how this wasn't a "proper RFC"? In fact it was quite similar to a recent RFC on Reagan's page), then I suppose we can keep going in circles here without additional input. Fortunately, Wikipedia has no deadline, so we don't need to mention any of the jury's findings until we've straightened it all out :)--Jerome Frank Disciple 20:52, 10 May 2023 (UTC) Jerome Frank Disciple, Please read WP:RFCBEFORE. -- MelanieN (talk) 20:57, 10 May 2023 (UTC) I have! Not my first RFC :) But thanks for the tip.--Jerome Frank Disciple 21:01, 10 May 2023 (UTC) Obviously an encyclopedia can not be perfectly neutral when thousands of people edit it and hash out their opinions/views on talk pages like these.The Capitalist forever (talk) 20:49, 10 May 2023 (UTC) I have removed the "RFC" aspects of this question; this is merely discussion and by no means ready for RFC treatment. My own opinion: we should use the shorter of the proposed texts. The first sentence is already in the article, with a reference; we should leave it as it is. We should add the second and third proposed sentences, i.e. In May 2023, a federal jury in Manhattan found him liable for sexual abuse and defamation and awarded her $5 million. Trump's lawyer told NPR that Trump would appeal the finding.[1] [1]Sullivan, Becky; Bernstein, Andrea; Marritz, Ilya; Lawrence, Quil (May 9, 2023). "A jury finds Trump liable for battery and defamation in E. Jean Carroll trial". NPR. Retrieved May 10, 2023.}} -- MelanieN (talk) 20:53, 10 May 2023 (UTC) Oh, and by the way: I think we should add the second and third sentences as soon as we have some kind of consensus here. If we drag out this discussion for more than a day or two, some third party will come along and add their version, which may not be nearly as good as the current suggestions. -- MelanieN (talk) 21:05, 10 May 2023 (UTC) Request to elaborate With respect, you've said "we should use the shorter ... text" ... and then just proceed to explain ... what that shorter text says. Can you elaborate?--Jerome Frank Disciple 21:03, 10 May 2023 (UTC) I think my comment is clear. Keep the sentence and reference that are already in the article. Add the proposed second and third sentences from the proposed shorter version above. Do it soon. -- MelanieN (talk) 21:08, 10 May 2023 (UTC) I'm sorry, I meant could you elaborate on why. Not faulting your opinion ... if someone said "I think the longer version. The first sentence should be [longer version's first sentence]. The second through fourth sentences should be [longer version's second-fourth sentences]" ... I'd also ask! Given that BLP concerns have been raised on both sides, we will have to wait for a consensus to be reached. As it stands, I don't see one. But hey, maybe soon! --Jerome Frank Disciple 21:09, 10 May 2023 (UTC) Extremely obvious we should include all the content that is typically included in the most reliable sources (NPR, NYT, WaPo). That's WP:RSUW. These sources all mention that Trump was found liable for sexual abuse and defamation, Carroll was awarded $5 million, and Trump was not found liable for rape per a preponderance of the evidence. Trump has promised to appeal. That's all we need to say. It's not a BLP issue if we report the DUE facts most common in our RSes. That's what we're supposed to do in an ever-evolving encyclopedia. See also: WP:NOTFINISHED. Eventually it will change. The best version for right now is the ideal version to have right now. The only reason this is even an argument is that it's DJT's wikipedia page. This would be obvious to basically everyone involved anywhere else on this site. And that's also why the multiple other pages in this topic (the court case, Carroll, etc) all have the content already. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 21:11, 10 May 2023 (UTC) Wikipedia is not a newspaper. We have policies and guidelines as to what verified content we include in our articles and on which pages relating to a broad subject such as Trump's history with this issue. Its use in other pages is more a reason not to repeat the detail in this summary top level page.— Preceding unsigned comment added by SPECIFICO (talk • contribs) RE:Appeal Why is an appeal significant? But at any rate, until we have a source that verifies an appeal has been filed, or at the least Trump himself saying it's imminent, this content is not significant. Further, Tacopena could have reasons of his own for pushing an appeal via an unauthorized statement to the press. SPECIFICO talk 00:06, 11 May 2023 (UTC) What to put here? - There is no NPOV case against including the Trump-favorable alongside the Trump-unfavorable — quite the opposite — provided we don't say the jury found that he did not commit rape. The Trump-favorable is all over our RS alongside the Trump-unfavorable. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:32, 11 May 2023 (UTC) I'll be honest I'm a little confused here. Are you saying we should include that the jury found that Carroll did not prove her rape claim or that we shouldn't?--Jerome Frank Disciple 00:34, 11 May 2023 (UTC) We should say that the jury didn't find that he committed rape, not that they did find that he didn't. The difference is subtle but important. It's equivalent to the Mueller Report's failure to find a certain kind of wrongdoing, which was not to exonerate Trump of it. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. (Frankly, I don't see why the jury just took her word for the "sexual abuse" but not for the rape, but let's not go any further down that WP:FORUM road.) ―Mandruss ☎ 00:56, 11 May 2023 (UTC) I think the jury simply followed NY law as instructed. The top charge requires penile penetration, which was not convincing to the jury. The other charges do not. But, you're right. This is a path Frost would have preferred not taken here. O3000, Ret. (talk) 01:09, 11 May 2023 (UTC) It does make me wonder in hindsight, should the verdict form have just said rape or sexual abuse is one question, instead of separate ones. That may have invited this sort of distinction to be drawn in a way that creates confusion. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 16:01, 11 May 2023 (UTC) "Original Short Version" is sufficient. --Jayron32 11:12, 11 May 2023 (UTC) Include all findings. This is a BLP, and thus we have to include the result of all accusations and charges. We can't say he has been accused of rape without also posting out a court has said he did not commit at least one alleged rape. Slatersteven (talk) 11:45, 11 May 2023 (UTC) Steven, there was no such court finding, and this page does not associate Carroll with such allegation. SPECIFICO talk 12:44, 11 May 2023 (UTC) SPECIFICO made good arguments; I'd go for the original short version; the salient parts are what he was found liable for, and the dollar amount. I'll temper what I said earlier: I looked at more media coverage, and most outlets don't bring up rape "in the same breath", while some just say Caroll accused him of battery/assault, and don't mention the rape accusation at all except to say he's not been found liable for it. "original version 1" is also acceptable, but I don't think it's necessary. DFlhb (talk) 17:54, 11 May 2023 (UTC) We should say the jury found him liable for X and not liable for Y. It’s that simple, per the preponderance of reliable sources. If people need an additional reason to include both X and Y, consider this: zillions of reliable sources discussed the rape accusation before the verdict, so we have to include the accusation by any reasonable standard of Wikipedia editing, and it would be a venal disgrace for us to mention the accusation without also saying he was found not liable. And if another reason is needed, there is the fact that rape is often described using a euphemism such as “sexual assault” and many readers may think the actual thing he was held liable for is such a euphemism. Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:27, 11 May 2023 (UTC) zillions of reliable sources discussed the rape accusation before the verdict -- Yes indeed, but exercising our powers of NPOV and ONUS, the longstanding consensus here was not to discuss Carroll's rape allegation on this page. So what's changed? Nothing. So, Anythingyouwant has just proved why this article should not do so now. SPECIFICO talk 23:37, 11 May 2023 (UTC) E. Jean Carroll's name along with all her allegations against Trump, whether it be rape, defamation, or sexual abuse, was not mentioned on this page until two days when I added the first sentence about the verdict. So if you think the rape verdict shouldn't be mentioned because of the absence of discussion of the rape allegations then why doesn't the same argument apply to the defamation and sexual abuse findings by the jury? They aren't discussed in the article either. Iamreallygoodatcheckers talk 00:00, 12 May 2023 (UTC) Good point. Feel free to remove. I removed part of your addition, but it would have been better if you'd removed the rest of it as premature. SPECIFICO talk 00:07, 12 May 2023 (UTC) I think it would be better to remove all mention of the verdict, rather than just a part of it, because of the inherent NPOV concerns I and other editors have presented in this discussion. This should be the status quo until a consensus (if any) arises from this discussion. Iamreallygoodatcheckers talk 00:17, 12 May 2023 (UTC) Not surprising as he has been involved in over 4,000 lawsuits since elected. See: Legal affairs of Donald Trump. The judge gave the jury instructions on sexual battery with four possible verdicts including not libel. They were allowed to select and found for one of the four. We are reporting on the selection. O3000, Ret. (talk) 00:14, 12 May 2023 (UTC) Euphemism? "I’m a sexual abuser, not a rapist." "Yeah, not inviting you to my party, either." Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 08:46, 12 May 2023 (UTC) Additional discussion User:Jerome Frank Disciple, User:Mandruss, User:Slatersteven, User:Shibbolethink, User:Anythingyouwant, User:Iamreallygoodatcheckers, User:Objective3000, User:The Capitalist forever, User:DFlhb, It appears that you are in favor of including that the jury did not find that Trump raped Carroll. There was a short statement of that in the article and it was removed [5]. Would it be acceptable to you to restore it? Here's the item to restore, "though the jury did not find that he raped her." Here's what was in the source there [6], "The nine jurors, who deliberated for barely three hours before reaching their unanimous conclusion, did not find that Trump raped Carroll." Bob K31416 (talk) 14:24, 11 May 2023 (UTC) Don’t include me in the list as I am of two minds on this. If we are to state that the jury voted yes on sexual assault and no on rape; do we not have the obligation to explain the difference ‘twixt the two in NY statute? That is, forced, penile, vaginal penetration versus forced, digital, vaginal penetration. I’m fine with this in the article on the trial. But, do we want details in the main article on DJT? O3000, Ret. (talk) 14:50, 11 May 2023 (UTC) No, I think, as almost every reliable source covering this did, we just say what the jury found (that there the preponderance evidence supported the sexual abuse and defamation charges but not the rape charge), and in terms of the distinctions between the laws, there we can rely on Carroll v. Trump.--Jerome Frank Disciple 15:40, 11 May 2023 (UTC) Are you saying that RS never explained what these terms mean? I just looked at the NYT: "It was not clear why jurors chose the lesser offense of abuse over rape. Sexual abuse is defined in New York as subjecting a person to sexual contact without consent. Rape is defined under state law as sexual intercourse without consent that involves any penetration of the penis in the vaginal opening." This was in a post-verdict article. That is, they didn't separate the facts into two separate articles. O3000, Ret. (talk) 16:20, 11 May 2023 (UTC) Sorry my "as" clause was referring to "what the jury found". Some sources touched on the difference in the charges (NYT, very briefly, NPR, not so much), though NYT went into far more detail the day before the verdict when covering the jury instructions. CNN covered it a fair bit towards the end of its article; NBC didn't. If you really think we need to—and to be clear I don't—we can say that rape in New York, unlike sexual abuse, requires penile penetration.--Jerome Frank Disciple 16:26, 11 May 2023 (UTC) I think we have to let the discussion go on a bit longer, since there are a few editors who only want to mention the adverse findings for "narrative" reasons, or something.--Jerome Frank Disciple 15:43, 11 May 2023 (UTC) I would appreciate it if you would stop the snide comments about other editors. O3000, Ret. (talk) 16:23, 11 May 2023 (UTC) Disciple, please do not WP:CANVASS. Further to what @Objective3000: says, I have seen no source that suggests that the rape/assault terminology (which is from criminal statutes) would have or did affect the amount of the damages for which Trump was found liable. To me, this looks in part like a sexual fetishization of the such an attack -- the very sort of narrative that Trump repeated in his deposition and defamation, that Carroll rejected, and that she dedicated herself to oppose. SPECIFICO talk 17:19, 11 May 2023 (UTC) ... Are you confusing me for someone else? I haven't canvassed. Are you referring to the pings that User:Bob K31416 added? (That's also not canvassing—he was pining people already in this discussion.)--Jerome Frank Disciple 17:27, 11 May 2023 (UTC) @SPECIFICO: I appreciate the update!--Jerome Frank Disciple 17:52, 11 May 2023 (UTC) Actually it is as they posted that they believed all were on the same side of an issue. O3000, Ret. (talk) 17:44, 11 May 2023 (UTC) Extended content I've repeatedly expressed my confusion and desire for an explanation as to why only adverse findings should be included. You've now tried to tone police me twice ... the first time for asking if the reason that we didn't mention the rape allegation was so that we didn't have to mention the rape finding ... you said that was a violation of AGF, even though the editors I was talking to ... were straight up arguing that there were objective reasons to exclude the rape finding. Notably, that effort at tone policing came one comment after an editor you agree with said, "if you want to contribute here - it's up to you to check your facts, the article context, and other factors raised by editors who are volunteering their time on this issue". To that editor, you said nothing.--Jerome Frank Disciple 16:28, 11 May 2023 (UTC) I already said I'm of two minds. Stop trying to pigeonhole editors. And, seems to me there has been a great deal of explanation of positions. O3000, Ret. (talk) 16:33, 11 May 2023 (UTC) Okay, your concerns are noted.--Jerome Frank Disciple 16:35, 11 May 2023 (UTC) I am in favor of including the detail about the rape verdict, but not in the form presented above by @Bob K31416. I would be more in favor of this wording, as it is more supported by the NYT source and more adherent to NPOV: On the issue of rape, the jury found that Carroll had not proved, by a preponderance of the evidence, that Trump had raped her. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 16:19, 13 May 2023 (UTC) I'm ... mostly okay with that? I do think it's potentially a bit misleading, though. The standard was preponderance of the evidence for all the claims. Why single out the rape claim? Maybe "Applying the preponderance of the evidence standard, the jury found that Carroll had established that Trump had sexually abused and defamed her but not that he had raped her." Jerome Frank Disciple 21:45, 13 May 2023 (UTC) Following the actual verdict The actual verdict states, as CBS News describes: In the jury's verdict form, in response to the first question, "Did Ms. Carroll prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that Mr. Trump raped Ms. Carroll," the jury said, "no," but it answered "yes" to the next question posed, about whether he had sexually abused her. The jury found that Carroll had been harmed as a result of Trump's actions, and that $2 million would "fairly and adequately" compensate her for those injuries. It also answered "yes" to the question about whether Trump had defamed Carroll and said nearly $3 million should be given to Carroll for damages. starship.paint (exalt) 14:39, 11 May 2023 (UTC) Text, just regarding the verdict, that would follow the verdict - The jury's verdict was delivered in May 2023; it first stated Carroll had not proven that Trump raped her, and then stated that Carroll had proven that Trump sexually abused her and defamed her; thus the jury ordered Trump to pay $5 million to Carroll for damages. starship.paint (exalt) 14:39, 11 May 2023 (UTC) @Starship.paint: What leads you to determine this is a significant event in the biography of Trump? It's a highly significant fact in the life of Carroll. It's highly significant for women's rights. But it is UNDUE to highlight this incident with detail beyond the longstanding determination of editors as to the narrative concering his misogyny and sexual misconduct. He already told us in the 2016 Access Hollywood Tape that he sexually assaults women. The significance of this case is not about whether he is an abuser. It is about his having been held accountable for lying and defamation. The short text covers that and ties this event into the longstanding consensus narrative of this top-level bio article. Content for which detail is DUE and significant on one particular WP article page is not necessarily due weight for all other related pages. If any more detail is added beyond the damages, we would need also to add lots of context that would unduly expand our section on such misconduct and allegations. We are still in the fog of WP:NOTNEWS on this matter. SPECIFICO talk 15:20, 11 May 2023 (UTC) What I'm understanding from your comment is that the actual verdict about Trump is not signficant, but you view the narrative concering his misogyny and sexual misconduct as far more important? The thing is, Trump has been accused of rape in a lawsuit that actually reached a decision (very significant, and WP:BLP comes into play) and that decision was that rape was not proven (equally significant). Narrative > Facts? starship.paint (exalt) 15:27, 11 May 2023 (UTC) NBC: A New York jury found Trump liable of sexual abusing Carroll in a Manhattan department store nearly three decades ago. The jury awarded Carroll $5 million in damages for her battery and defamation claims but said Trump wasn't liable for Carroll's alleged rape. NY Times: A Manhattan jury on Tuesday found former President Donald J. Trump liable for sexually abusing and defaming E. Jean Carroll and awarded her $5 million in damages. More than a dozen women have accused Mr. Trump of sexual misconduct over the years, but this is the only allegation to be affirmed by a jury. In the civil case, the federal jury of six men and three women found that Ms. Carroll, 79, a former magazine writer, had sufficiently proved that Mr. Trump sexually abused her nearly 30 years ago in a dressing room of the Bergdorf Goodman department store in Manhattan. The jury did not, however, find he had raped her, as she had long claimed. Why the lengthy Trump quote in your proposed text, and why start off with the battery charge the jury didn't think had been proven instead of the one they thought had been proven and for which they awarded Carroll a compensation of $2,020,000? Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 16:27, 11 May 2023 (UTC) The Reuters article you added in this edit: Jurors were tasked with deciding whether Trump raped, sexually abused or forcibly touched Carroll, and were separately asked if Trump defamed Carroll. The jurors found Trump sexually abused her but not that he raped her. Before the jurors began deliberating, Judge Lewis Kaplan defined rape for them as non-consensual "sexual intercourse" through "forcible compulsion." He described sexual abuse as non-consensual "sexual contact" through forcible compulsion. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 17:09, 11 May 2023 (UTC) To be fair, that order (i.e. mentioning the rape finding first) reflects the jury form and the NPR article we currently rely on (which, as I said, leads with the rape finding—see pull quote above). I think the overall finding of liability indicates that the findings of liability should be placed first, even though I obviously don't think we should censor the non-adverse findings from this article. Overall, though, I think @Starship.paint: is right—though for the reasons I just stated I would suggest either the longer proposed version or the single-sentence version proposed by Iamreallygoodatcheckers. First, WP:DUE chiefly concerns viewpoints. Second, it's absurd to argue that this is undue, regardless, given that every media organization covering the jury's findings has mentioned each of the findings (and not just CBS, but also NBC, NYT, CNN, NPR, etc., all of which I've linked). Specifico, you have to keep WP:NPOV in mind.--Jerome Frank Disciple 16:44, 11 May 2023 (UTC) No more snide remarks please Disciple. Longtime editors in contentious topics are quite aware of NPOV. In fact, I'll ask you please to read that policy page very carefully, if you don't mind the suggestion. It is not clear to me that you understand what NPOV requires. My argument from the beginning has been that mention of rape in this context violates NPOV. I'd ask you not to comment again in this thread until you review that argument, which has been made by several longtime editors here, and then reply directly stating why you disagree. SPECIFICO talk 17:05, 11 May 2023 (UTC) Asking me not to make snide comments before accusing me of not reading your comments and innovating "longstanding" twice? A little on the nose there, no? Fortunately, I'm sure you're the kind of person capable of taking their own advice. I've reviewed all of your comments—you've invoked more than just NPOV—you actually invoked BLP at one point. I've asked you to elaborate on those invocations—I've asked how the proposed text above would violate BLP ... and broadly I've asked how including the full jury verdict would be promoting a "non-neutral point of view" ... while only including adverse rulings, which is what you're advocating for, would not. But let's take NPOV seriously—WP:BALANCE (part of NPOV) says, "Neutrality assigns weight to viewpoints in proportion to their prominence in reliable sources." Now, every source that I've cited—NPR, NYT, CNN, CBS, NBC—has given prominence to every aspect of the jury's findings, including the rape finding. Have you found sources that only briefly touch on the rape finding or don't mention it at all?--Jerome Frank Disciple 17:11, 11 May 2023 (UTC) I'll just remind you that we are at RFCBEFORE here, and your concerns will best be served by proposing an edit or edits that satisfy all of the views here that are well founded. In that process, it is unlikely that legalistic-sounding OR by we the editors is going to be a convincing rationale for any such text. SPECIFICO talk 17:26, 11 May 2023 (UTC) Ah, yes, you've also sometimes invoked OR. Could I ask what I've proposed that you think is OR?--Jerome Frank Disciple 17:31, 11 May 2023 (UTC) Carroll is now considering suing DJT again as he has continued to make the same statements after they have been declared defamatory.[7] Hard to add this as it's all been removed. O3000, Ret. (talk) 00:41, 12 May 2023 (UTC) Melania, hubby's birthday is coming up next month. Maybe buy him a diamond-studded muzzle? Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 09:24, 12 May 2023 (UTC) We can also expect similar complaints from some number of the other women. That's another reason not to start inserting UNDUE detail regarding individual civil cases here. SPECIFICO talk 01:17, 12 May 2023 (UTC) @Space4Time3Continuum2x: - you asked me why start with unproven rape instead of proven abuse, (1) that was the order in the verdict, (2) it would be weird in my opinion to go: "abuse, rape, defame, damages" or "abuse, defame, rape, damages". But, I am OK if the order is "abuse, defame, damages, rape." Would you accept such an order? The jury's verdict was delivered in May 2023; it stated that Carroll had proven that Trump sexually abused her and defamed her; thus the jury ordered Trump to pay $5 million to Carroll for damages. The jury also stated Carroll had not proven that Trump raped her. starship.paint (exalt) 08:32, 12 May 2023 (UTC) In the meantime, someone has removed the entire subsection from the main space. I’m good with waiting for the verdict to become final, per WP:NOTNEWS. Trump filed the notice of appeal yesterday. Now he has 14 days to file the pre-argument statement with "a brief, but not perfunctory, description of the nature of the action" and a "list of the issues proposed to be raised on appeal, as well as the applicable appellate standard of review for each proposed issue." My opinion if he loses the appeal: there are several criminal investigations ongoing, so let’s keep the eventual text as short as possible. Heading "Civil case for sexual battery and defamation", text: the jury awarded Carroll $2 million for sexual abuse and $ 3 million for defamation, or s.th. along those lines. RS differed on the order of mentioning the battery accusations on the verdict form. The three I quoted above lead off with the proven accusations. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 09:08, 12 May 2023 (UTC) It was a "Civil case for rape, sexual battery and defamation". Rape and defamation were the accusations for most of the time. Sexual battery was only added later by the plaintiff, probably in case the rape accusation didn't hold up, which turned out to be the correct strategy by the plaintiff's lawyer. Also, starship.paint's version is acceptable for me. Bob K31416 (talk) 12:52, 12 May 2023 (UTC) ... That's not quite correct. It was a civil case for battery and defamation. Here's the complaint. In relevant part, the Complaint laid out theories of battery partially based on different NY penal law. Count 1 Battery .... 122. Trump committed battery against Carroll when he forcibly raped and groped her. 123. Trump intentionally, and without her consent, attacked Carroll to satisfy his own sexual desires. Trump’s physical contact with Carroll was offensive and wrongful under all the circumstances. Trump continued to attack and rape Carroll despite her attempts to fight against him. .... 125. Trump’s actions constitute sexual offenses as defined in Article 130 of the New York Penal Law, including but not limited to rape in the first degree (§ 130.35), rape in the third degree (§ 130.25), sexual abuse in the first degree (§ 130.65), sexual abuse in the third degree (§ 130.55), sexual misconduct (§ 130.20), and forcible touching (§ 130.52). Note this is document "1" in the docket, which means it was the first filed thing in the civil case.--Jerome Frank Disciple 13:07, 12 May 2023 (UTC) Please, it is not helpful for editors to offer their personal opinions on matters of law. SPECIFICO talk 13:21, 12 May 2023 (UTC) What did I say above that you think is a personal opinion? I'm genuinely baffled. I even posted the complaint, do you think I'm misquoting? I also included a secondary source, above, but here it is again. Do you not agree the claims were for battery and defamation? You've already made one personal attack against me that you've conceded was false. You've now repeatedly accused me of OR (and once of a BLP violation?). When I've asked you to elaborate, which I've done multiple times (see my posts at 17:31, 11 May 2023 and 18:25, 10 May 2023), you've fled. (Also, "no personal opinions" coming from the guy who compared a rape claim to a claim that Trump had broccoli growing in his ear is pretty rich.) Be specific, or, if you can't, maybe stop repeatedly suggesting that I'm violating OR.--Jerome Frank Disciple 13:26, 12 May 2023 (UTC) Jerome Frank Disciple, Thanks for that correction regarding the lawsuit. I think I recalled incorrectly something I read in a source that may have been something like this from E. Jean Carroll vs. Donald J. Trump, "In November 2022 Carroll filed a second suit against Trump, renewing her claim of defamation due to more recent statements by him and expanding her claim to battery under the Adult Survivors Act, a New York law allowing sexual-assault victims to file civil suits beyond expired statutes of limitations." BTW, is starship.paint's version acceptable to you? Bob K31416 (talk) 13:49, 12 May 2023 (UTC) That completely makes sense! (It's also, admittedly, confusing.) I'm fine with starship's version, but I would suggest that, if we want to only briefly discuss the case, the version drafted by Iamreallygoodatcheckers is probably going to be a better compromise, for some of the reasons I said above (as to letting the overall finding of liability dictate what gets stated first).--Jerome Frank Disciple 14:02, 12 May 2023 (UTC) Re "letting the overall finding of liability dictate what gets stated first", both versions do this. Here they are for comparison. A. starship.paint's version, The jury's verdict was delivered in May 2023; it stated that Carroll had proven that Trump sexually abused her and defamed her; thus the jury ordered Trump to pay $5 million to Carroll for damages. The jury also stated Carroll had not proven that Trump raped her. B. Iamreallygoodatcheckers original version 1, In May 2023, a federal jury in Manhattan found Trump civilly liable for sexually abusing and defaming E. Jean Carroll, awarding her $5 million; though, the jury also found Trump not liable for raping Carroll.[1][2] I have a problem with the last part of B because it sounds to me like Trump raped her but wasn't liable for it. Bob K31416 (talk) 14:57, 12 May 2023 (UTC) Oh you're referring to the updated version—sorry I was reading the tq2 text at the top. I'm not sure I take the same meaning from B that you do, but yes I'd be fine with starship's version there. (If we're going to give this its own section, I still don't know why we don't just bother to detail everything in #Proposed text (long version), but no worries. I don't think we're close to having a consensus on this yet, regardless.)--Jerome Frank Disciple 15:02, 12 May 2023 (UTC) One reason for not being close to having a consensus is that there are various versions considered in various places here and it's not that easy to follow. We might consider starting a new Talk section that proposes starship.paint's version to overcome that difficulty and have something tangible and specific that editors can decide whether they want it or not. For me, when considering a version, I'm not seeking exactly what I want but rather something that is acceptable, so that this task can be completed and we can move on. Maybe User:starship.paint might start a Talk section (not subsection) with their proposal. Bob K31416 (talk) 15:30, 12 May 2023 (UTC) Perhaps!--Jerome Frank Disciple 19:56, 12 May 2023 (UTC) If Trump was found not liable on all claims, then none of this would have been worth mentioning in the lead. The significance of the event stems from the finding of liability on the sexual abuse and defamation claim, which is unprecedented, and not the lack of liability on the rape claim, which is comparable to the dozens of lawsuits filed against him alleging egregious acts and leading nowhere. Therefore, the latter part is not worth mentioning, and while it may be contentious now it will certainly lack in relevance in the years to come. NeverEndingForever (talk) 14:35, 12 May 2023 (UTC) I made this edit [8] adding the E. Jean Carroll content to the currently existing Donald Trump#Misogyny and allegations of sexual misconduct section. I don't believe much more detail is needed than that, since there are links to E. Jean Carroll vs. Donald J. Trump and already to the Main article: Donald Trump sexual misconduct allegations if readers want information beyond what that paragraph provides. Some1 (talk) 23:07, 12 May 2023 (UTC) This is insufficient, though it is in the right direction as it actually mentions the lawsuit. It does not even mention the verdict, though. This is a hugely substantial event in Trump's life, as the first instance where a Jury has found Trump, beyond a preponderance of the evidence, committed sexual misconduct against a woman. That's huge news. It's $5 million worth of news. I have restored the following version to Donald Trump § Misogyny and allegations of sexual misconduct, which appears to my eyes to have a loose consensus (as it does not touch on the rape verdict and has agreement from the plurality of users in this thread by my reading of the discussion): Several women have filed lawsuits against Trump. In 2022, E. Jean Carroll sued Trump for sexually abusing her in the mid-1990s and for defamation when he denied her story during his presidency, in the case titled E. Jean Carroll vs. Donald J. Trump. On May 9, 2023, a jury found Trump liable for defamation and sexual abuse against Carroll and awarded her $5 million in damages. The attorney representing Trump stated the verdict would be appealed. Sources — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 16:22, 13 May 2023 (UTC) Shibbolethink, gee, well thank you for reinserting my wording — in the wrong section, with a second source that is unnecessary because the NPR cite has all the facts and they're the ones who heard from Trump's lawyer, with an added first sentence that is unsourced. Also, Trump filed his notice of appeal two days ago, and there is no consensus to add anything at this point. Please, self-revert. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 16:54, 13 May 2023 (UTC) Will adapt to these changes thanks for the heads up. Have no intention to self-revert. You may, as always, feel free to revert. The first sentence was actually in the version of this text on this page I copied from, not my wording, and happy to remove it. Many of the things you have suggested were consequences of using the old version and no need to get snappy about it! Our work is never done etc. etc. One question: how is this the wrong section? What is the correct section, in your eyes? Using two high quality sources is preferred to using one, per WP:NPOV WP:V and WP:BLP. Edit: done. Happy to edit further if requested. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 17:10, 13 May 2023 (UTC) Edit-warring and then challenging another editor to escalate is not good. This is a hugely substantial event in Trump's life I see no sign of that in RS. Access Hollywood was a substantial event. This page mentions other substantial events. What tertiary sources conclude that this is considered and will continue to be viewed as a hugely etc.? SPECIFICO talk 19:29, 13 May 2023 (UTC) Why would we have to rely on tertiary sources to evaluate that? That's not what WP:DUE or WP:TERTIARY tells us to do. Those policies tell us to use secondary sources first to evaluate due and undue weight, and only when those sources are contradictory to rely on tertiary ones. That isn't the case here. Secondary sources nearly unanimously cover this event as significant. It's only been 5 days and there are already (in some search engines) more hits about this topic than the access hollywood tape, and in others, about the same number of hits. That's an event 5 days ago versus 7 years ago: "Trump verdict E Jean Carroll" "Trump Access Hollywood Tape" Google News: 111,000 4,460 Google Scholar: 7,910 10,900 Gale OneFile: 797 3,990 EBSCO: 117 383 — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 17:12, 14 May 2023 (UTC) I would say the general structure of this section is flawed as the paragraphs descend in increasing significance (i.e. from "insulting and belittling women", to "publicly accused of rape", to "liable for defamation and sexual abuse"). As to this edit specifically, if the verdict is going to be in the last paragraph it should at least be displayed at the beginning rather than hidden in the middle. While your order might make sense chronologically, this article is after all focused around important events related to Trump, and starting with "In 2022, E. Jean Carroll..." undermines that. NeverEndingForever (talk) 18:14, 13 May 2023 (UTC) I agree. —Lights and freedom (talk ~ contribs) 18:25, 13 May 2023 (UTC) Could either of you write a draft of how you would structure it? This paragraph specifically. Thanks. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 19:24, 13 May 2023 (UTC) The below is a digression given that no one is arguing this info is DUE here.— Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 17:14, 14 May 2023 (UTC) FYI: The trial took place in federal court, not in the New York Supreme Court, as you wrote, unsourced, here. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 11:39, 14 May 2023 (UTC) I object to you hatting my edit. You added incorrect info that was not supported by the sources, including the two you added. Since the entire text was removed because of the ongoing talk page discussion, I pointed out your unsourced addition here. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 10:42, 15 May 2023 (UTC) This page has really been whitewashed to remove this civil lawsuit which determined that Trump sexually abused her from this page. A single user has removed this entirely, which nobody else on this talk page is suggesting. —Lights and freedom (talk ~ contribs) 19:06, 13 May 2023 (UTC) The various iterations of the text were removed several times before. This was the second-to-last time. Nothing to do with whitewashing, quite the opposite, actually. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 19:16, 13 May 2023 (UTC) Why include something like "In 2016, he denied all accusations" and not the fact that a court found him culpable? —Lights and freedom (talk ~ contribs) 19:21, 13 May 2023 (UTC) Why include something like "In 2016, he denied all accusations" and not the fact that a court found him culpable? 100% agreed. It's a major NPOV issue to not include any of this content at all. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 19:29, 13 May 2023 (UTC) You're quoting from the "Public profile" section, "Misogyny and allegations of sexual misconduct" subsection where we mention at least 26 women who publicly accused Trump and—per WP:BLP—that he denied all accusations. I wrote earlier that Shibbolet added their text to the wrong section. The lawsuit doesn't belong there but in the "Post-presidency" section, along with the other—currently pending—cases, and we don't have a consensus on how to word it. The verdict in this case hasn't become final, Trump has filed a notice of appeal. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 19:31, 13 May 2023 (UTC) And she is considering another suit for his post-suit comments. Which we won't add now. O3000, Ret. (talk) 19:34, 13 May 2023 (UTC) Consider me confused. You want to add it? Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 20:14, 13 May 2023 (UTC) The lawsuit doesn't belong there but in the "Post-presidency" section, along with the other—currently pending—cases, and we don't have a consensus on how to word it. This appears to be your opinion, and I completely disagree with it. It's part of his sexual misconduct. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 20:00, 13 May 2023 (UTC) I also disagree with the quoted statement; the Carroll lawsuit belongs in the Donald Trump#Misogyny and allegations of sexual misconduct subsection. Some1 (talk) 23:32, 13 May 2023 (UTC) This is quite an intriguing approach. We could get this article down to about 3 sentences, after his birth in Queens etc. "Trump denies all allegations". This covers all bases. No need to get into court decisions, since he routinely denies such judgments as well. SPECIFICO talk 19:35, 13 May 2023 (UTC) I think it should be in the "Misogyny and allegations of sexual misconduct" section, not the "post-presidency" section. However, it being in the article at all is more important than what section it is in. —Lights and freedom (talk ~ contribs) 19:38, 13 May 2023 (UTC) Because a few editors mentioned BLP concerns above and the notion that only including adverse verdicts would be a NPOV issue, the content is, at this point, challenged, and should remain out pending the discussion (see also Iamreallygoodatcheckers's comment). Fortunately, there is no deadline on Wikipedia! We'll get it right when we get it right.--Jerome Frank Disciple 21:37, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

Admin state line

Hello! I wanted to bring this up on the talk page before editing, because I assume it'll be controversial.

I'm a little skeptical of this line, in the Dergulation subsection:

Defenders of the administrative state said it exists "to protect those who would otherwise be at the mercy of better-organized, better-funded interests".

The line is cited to a Time magazine op ed, which I have no problem with.

Full disclosure, I'm ... generally ... a fan of a strong executive/admin state (very context dependent), so I'm arguing against my own pov here, but I'm not sure this line should be here unchecked—I think there's an WP:NPOV issue. For full context, here's the full subsection (citations omitted):

In January 2017, Trump signed Executive Order 13771, which directed that, for every new regulation, federal agencies "identify" two existing regulations for elimination, though it did not require elimination. He dismantled many federal regulations on health, labor, and the environment, among other topics. Trump signed 14 Congressional Review Act resolutions repealing federal regulations, including a bill that made it easier for severely mentally ill persons to buy guns. During his first six weeks in office, he delayed, suspended, or reversed ninety federal regulations, often "after requests by the regulated industries". The Institute for Policy Integrity found that 78 percent of Trump's proposals were blocked by courts or did not prevail over litigation.

Defenders of the administrative state said it exists "to protect those who would otherwise be at the mercy of better-organized, better-funded interests".

Here's the problem: everything before that line is just a description of what Trump did. There's not effort at providing the underlying theory behind those actions. So, the subsection is, in effect, "Trump did X. Here's a theoretical critique of X." But there many theoretical critiques of the administrative state—arguments that the administrative state is bloated and unaccountable, etc. (In case anyone needs a source—they're easy to find: Here's one defense of Trump's plan to deconstruct the administrative state by David French.)

I'm not sure if a theoretical discussion is really worth including in the article at all—as a first choice, I'd support just deleting that ultimate sentence, but if we're going to include the theoretical critique, we should probably also include the theoretical justification.--Jerome Frank Disciple 17:05, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

Go ahead and remove it. It is SYNTH, among other things. You don't need permission to remove SYNTH. SPECIFICO talk 18:09, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

Huh, I would've said a bad weasel word rather than synth, but fair enough! removing now.--Jerome Frank Disciple 18:10, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

Trump claimed that a vaccine was less than a year away

"Trump claimed that a vaccine was less than a year awaya vaccine was less than a year away, although HHS and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) officials had repeatedly told him that vaccine development would take 12–18 months."

If this is true, Trump was correct. These are using old sources than may wrongly depict the reality. If it's not true, it also wrongly depicts the reality. Lights and freedom (talk ~ contribs) 02:52, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

Do you have a specific proposal, backed up by some new sources? Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 10:36, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

"Trump was correct", in addition to being false in this case, is also an example of his having claimed he would accomplish dozens of feats on which he took no meaningful action. He continues that rhetorical approach to this day. In fact, the proportion of such predicitions that have "come true" is far less than the statistical expectation of successful outcomes for a random variable of relevant distribution. SPECIFICO talk 12:42, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

Here's a source for you, Trump scores a long-awaited coronavirus win with vaccines on the way. Bob K31416 (talk) 14:32, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

Published 6:50 PM EST, Tue November 17, 2020. Be better, Bob. Zaathras (talk) 14:45, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand your point, but here's another source, December 21, 2020 — Biden receives Covid-19 vaccine, praises Trump's 'Operation Warp Speed'. Bob K31416 (talk) 15:25, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

To be fair, your first source also contains the quote "Donald Trump probably doesn't know the difference between a white cell and a prison cell, but the administration got this right" which makes it pretty clear that any praise and/or credit is not aimed at Trump, but the administration, and Biden does the same - "I think the administration deserves some credit getting this off the ground with Operation Warp Speed" - neither credit Trump personally with anything: Trump held out the promise of a vaccine as part of his reelection strategy, but his very public bluster appears to have done very little to influence the actual process and so on. Chaheel Riens (talk) 15:42, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

Trump pushed the effort personally. NYT April 29, 2020 [9], "President Trump is pressing his health officials to pursue a crash development program for a coronavirus vaccine that could be widely distributed by the beginning of next year, despite widespread skepticism that such an effort could succeed and considerable concern about the implications for safety." In an earlier statement by Pfizer April 9, 2020 [10]

• Potential to supply millions of vaccine doses by the end of 2020 subject to technical success of the development program and approval by regulatory authorities, and then rapidly scale up capacity to produce hundreds of millions of doses in 2021.

• BioNTech will contribute multiple mRNA vaccine candidates as part of its BNT162 COVID-19 vaccine program, which are expected to enter human testing in April 2020

Bob K31416 (talk) 16:51, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

This point has got its response, rebuttal and recognition and is ripe for closure. SPECIFICO talk 15:45, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

I object. Bob K31416 (talk) 15:51, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

At the very least, what the article says is out of context and gives the wrong impression. I don't know how much Trump was behind this but it seems like things that happen because of the executive branch in a presidency are usually mentioned on the president's article.

Also, I don't know what is meant by "Published 6:50 PM EST, Tue November 17, 2020. Be better, Bob." These sources are from March 2020... a source from November 2020 is clearly better. —Lights and freedom (talk ~ contribs) 16:00, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

The sentence is in the section describing Trump and his administration's first response to the pandemic (downplay the seriousness of the pandemic, promote quack remedies), and this is the cited source for the sentence. “So you’re talking over the next few months, you think you could have a vaccine?” Trump asked during a meeting with top health officials on Monday. "You won’t have a vaccine," corrected Health and Human Services Secretary Alex Azar after some cross talk. "You’ll have a vaccine to go into testing." "All right, so you’re talking within a year," Trump said moments later. "A year to a year and a half," interjected Anthony Fauci, a government veteran of disease outbreaks under six presidents. I've just amended our phrasing to a vaccine was a few months to less than a year away. (Bob, for the umpteenth time, Pfizer/BioNTech were not part of the U.S. "crash program".) Lights, do you have a reliable source that contradicts this description of events? Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 17:44, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

Space4Time3Continuum2x, Although Pfizer didn't accept US government money for R&D, it was a part of Operation Warp Speed^[11]. But that wasn't the point of mentioning the April 9 statement of Pfizer in my above message. The point was to give some of the background for Trump's April 29 position on having a vaccine for use by the end of the year. I agree with the opening message point that the article item is misleading. Bob K31416 (talk) 11:46, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

Quoting from your source: We also do not know exactly what happened behind the scenes at Pfizer, so we can’t definitively pinpoint the extent of any influence the US government had on its development timeline. In addition, it’s worth noting in response to Pence’s tweet that Pfizer’s partner on the coronavirus vaccine, German company BioNTech, received significant funding from the German government – and that Pfizer and BioNTech have purchase agreements with other countries in addition to the US. Still, three experts contacted by CNN said the US federal government likely played a significant role in the progress of the vaccine. (Another expert disagreed.) "Other countries" being the entire EU, for one thing. That's a lot of ifs. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 20:23, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

Bob all that has nothing to do with Trump. "Trump's position" is LOL funny. Trump does not have "positions", certainily not on organic chemistry. SPECIFICO talk 20:58, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

There's no reason to contradict that because it's true. However saying this in the first sentence without further commentary suggests that Trump was wrong. That was perfectly fine info in spring 2020, but now that we are looking back at the description there should be a less chronological description. See

• https://www.forbes.com/sites/jemimamcevoy/2021/03/21/operation-warp-speed-head-says-trump-administration-responsible-for-90-of-vaccine-rollout/?sh=5b7343ba1848
• https://www.cbc.ca/news/health/operation-warp-speed-trump-pfizer-moderna-vaccine-1.5806820
• https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/2020/12/14/trump-operation-warp-speed-vaccine/

—Lights and freedom (talk ~ contribs) 18:01, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

"The point" was, we do not use old, outdated news articles. The notion that the former president was responsible for its success, or that it was even much of of a success at all, is debunked to today by more recent analysis, (The crash landing of ‘Operation Warp Speed’), and...well, the former president himself - Trump’s effort to disavow Operation Warp Speed shows how far he’s fallen. Zaathras (talk) 20:53, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

@Zaathras Did you link to the wrong article? The page in your link 'The crash landing of ‘Operation Warp Speed' is actually titled 'Operation Warp Speed Head Says Trump Administration Responsible For 90% Of Vaccine Rollout'.

Also, this sentence is sourced to a page from March 2020, so it IS an old, outdated news article. It would be better to use only sources from 2021-2023 when talking about vaccines. Before then, there was just predictions and speculation by various people, some of which ended up being wrong (for example, whoever said the vaccines would take 12-18 months ended up being wrong). —Lights and freedom (talk ~ contribs) 20:59, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

(User:Lights and freedom, You might consider acting on the first response to your opening message re proposal. If not, that's OK. Bob K31416 (talk) 22:23, 14 May 2023 (UTC))

Zaathras, The NY Post source that you used for the other link is considered unreliable by Wikipedia. [12] "There is consensus that the New York Post is generally unreliable for factual reporting especially with regard to politics, particularly New York City politics. A tabloid newspaper, editors criticise its lack of concern for fact-checking or corrections, including a number of examples of outright fabrication." Bob K31416 (talk) 01:11, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

Support inclusion of the 1 year remark - I think from the sources above and a quick lit review, the claim was made, is WP:DUE, and it should be mentioned. Edit 11:12, 17 May 2023 (UTC) I now see what is particularly being argued, and I don't see very good evidence that this remark (that Trump had a good or notable prediction here) is particularly DUE. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 15:53, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

I'm ... a little confused as to what's being discussed here.

So the article currently says:

Trump claimed that a vaccine was a few months to less than a year away, although HHS and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) officials had repeatedly told him that vaccine development would take 12–18 months.

It cites this March 2020 Politico article, but frankly the better source would be this May 2020 NBC News article, which says:

"Vaccine work is looking VERY promising, before end of year,' Trump tweeted on Thursday.

But I think the point Bob & Lights are making is that ... the vaccine did emerge within a year—he points to this November 2020 CNN article noting its upcoming rollout.

As I understand, Bob and Light think it should be noted that Trump was right, while SPECIFICO, Space, and Chaheel are saying that it shouldn't be noted because Trump wasn't responsible for the vaccine being completed in the year. Do I have that right?--Jerome Frank Disciple 18:43, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

The reason I'm not a huge fan of the Politico article being cited for the proposition is that the "few months" comment Trump made was ... in the form of a question.

“So you’re talking over the next few months, you think you could have a vaccine?” Trump asked during a meeting with top health officials on Monday.

After receiving an answer, Trump followed up, "All right, so you’re talking within a year."

From my perspective, the article's current text is a little weird in light of the fact that the vaccine did come out within a year of Trump's remarks.--Jerome Frank Disciple 18:46, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

There's no consensus for this. Why are you prolonging this pointless discussion? Trump does not make statements because he thinks they are true or predictive. He speaks out of impulse and self-interest. That has nothing to do with vaccines, etc. This is a dead end. No consensus for this. SPECIFICO talk 19:12, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

First, what are you talking about? I didn't propose anything, I recapped the discussion and asked for clarification. "There's no consensus for me to ask for clarification"? Thanks for repeating "There's no consensus for this" twice. By the way, a talk page is where we often try to build consensus.

In terms of the discussion being "pointless" ... I understand you decided that. But you do not own this page. Both Bob & Light disagreed with your "ripe for closure" remark above, and I'm disagreeing with it, too. As I said, I don't believe the discussion is pointless, because, [f]rom my perspective, the article's current text is a little weird in light of the fact that the vaccine did come out within a year of Trump's remarks.--Jerome Frank Disciple 19:18, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

I think if we have no consensus for this, then the line should probably be removed. I would say my overview of the discussion now makes me think it likely should not be included, since it's main purpose is to be a dog whistle, and I don't see very good evidence that this remark is particularly WP:DUE, e.g. that secondary RSes have covered it as a unique or important declaration. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 11:09, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

• IIRC, there was a Hungarian woman who spent over a decade working on mRNA vaccines whose research formed the basis for the COVID vaccines. She had a difficult time with funding in the US and had to move to Europe to finish her research. I can’t remember her name as no one talks about her. Frankly, I’m disgusted at any politician of any stripe taking any credit. O3000, Ret. (talk)

Katalin Karikó, VP of BioNTech, the company whose research wasn't funded through Warp Speed, from 2013 until October 2022, according to her LinkedIn page. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 19:50, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

• Remove discussion of prediction. I can see the logic that "Trump said it would come out within a year, and the experts told him it would take at least twelve months, BUT THEN IT CAME OUT WITHIN A YEAR" wouldn't add much to the article and, I think, falsely imply some involvement by Trump. But it's also crazy to be like "Trump REPEATEDLY said it would come out within a year, EVEN THOUGH THE EXPERTS TOLD HIM OTHERWISE. (But if you look around Wikipedia enough you'll find that it did, in fact, come out within a year.)" The thing is, these seem to have been relatively off the cuff predictions. What's the significance of him having guessed correctly? Why don't we just remove the line?--Jerome Frank Disciple 19:23, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

Sold to US Air

Just wanted to flag that, in the discussion of Trump's airline foray, there's a failed verification issue. The line is:

Trump failed to earn a profit with the airline and sold it to USAir.

It's cited to this article: a WaPo fact check. But the WaPo article doesn't mention USAir (or US Airways). It does link to a Daily Beast article, but I actually can't tell if Trump himself sold the airway to USAir based on that article. It says:

By the middle of 1991, it was clear that the situation was not going to improve; Trump had raised $380 million from a syndicate of 22 banks led by Citicorp, putting in just $20 million of his own money. But the airline was just one of a cluster of assets that were at stake; and Trump finally hammered out a deal that gave bankers control of the airline; the climate was turned so sour that no bidders came forward to buy it. US Airways was later tapped to run it and by mid-1992, the plus-size “T” logos on the planes were replaced by more conventional airline livery.

--Jerome Frank Disciple 14:09, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

I've rephrased it to, "Trump failed to earn a profit with the airline and it was eventually sold to USAir." which I think is more accurate than the previous wording. I left the failed verification tag pending additional discussion here. Should we also cite the Daily Beast article in combination with the Washington Post one? ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 14:12, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

The New York Times describes initial operational takeover deal with with option to buy after 5 years. Airway Magazine Has more detail from later on: "In 1992, the branding was shifted to US Airways as the latter purchased a 40% stake with branding rights. By 1997, US Airways had purchased the remaining 60% and taken full control of the franchise." WikiVirusC^(talk) 14:25, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

I replaced the WaPo article with the DB article—I thought about just adding the DB article, but since the WaPo article just inherently didn't support any mention of USAir, I figured it would be wrong to include it at the end of the sentence, and putting it in the middle of the sentence would just be unecessary. @WikiVirusC I'm also good with the NYT article, which does say Trump still had control of some of the airline when sold. The Airway Mag version seems even better. Whatever you al think. Thanks for the research!--Jerome Frank Disciple 14:28, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

Wording change re:Greenberg call

Hello! I saw @SPECIFICO: reverted me here and asked that I get consensus for this change, so I figured best to bring this to the talk page.

I'd like to discuss this sentence in the article

Journalist Jonathan Greenberg reported in 2018 that Trump, using the pseudonym "John Barron" and claiming to be a Trump Organization official, called him in 1984 to falsely assert that he owned "in excess of ninety percent" of the Trump family's business to secure a higher ranking on the Forbes 400 list of wealthy Americans.

I noticed a few things about that sentence: First, having read the source, let's be clear: Greenberg was saying that Trump falsely made a claim to him. The point wasn't what Trump intended to do on the call. As such "Trump called him to falsely assert" is unfortunately ambiguous, and it's probably better stated that Trump called him and falsely asserted the info. Second, the double "to X" in the sentence makes the sentence, in my opinion, a bit awkwardly constructed. As such, I suggested:

Journalist Jonathan Greenberg reported in 2018 that Trump, using the pseudonym "John Barron" and claiming to be a Trump Organization official, called him in 1984 and, to secure a higher ranking on the Forbes 400 list of wealthy Americans, falsely asserted that he owned "in excess of ninety percent" of the Trump family's business.

Admittedly, I still don't love that wording. A bit more radically, I might say:

In 2018, journalist Jonathan Greenberg reported on a 1984 call he had with Trump, who was using the pseudonym "John Barron" and claiming to be a Trump Organization official. According to Greenberg, Trump falsely asserted that he owned "in excess of ninety percent" of the Trump family's business in order to secure a higher ranking on the Forbes 400 list of wealthy Americans.

Any thoughts?--Jerome Frank Disciple 22:44, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

Wow yeah I find this entire set of content really confusingly worded. Especially the "him" with unclear antecedent. I would personally change it to something like:

Journalist Jonathan Greenberg reported in 2018 that Trump, during a phone call with Greeberg in 1984, used the pseudonym "John Barron" and claimed to be a Trump Organization official. Greenberg said Trump used the Barron pseudonym to falsely assert that he (Trump) owned a stake "in excess of ninety percent" of his family's business to secure a higher ranking on the Forbes 400 list of wealthy Americans.

As it stands, the current wording is really difficult to parse. I had to read it several times to actually understand what claims are being made. And, as a scientist/physician, I guarantee I regularly read more dense and strange jargon on a daily basis than the average Wikipedia-reader. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 16:29, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

I'm glad I don't need to question my literacy after giving the article text a double take. I'm good with your proposal—certainly prefer it to the status quo, though I wonder if we need the second reference to the pseudonym (and repetition of the word pseudonym). Could we just say, combining your version with my last proposed version, "Greenberg said that Trump falsely asserted that he (Trump) ...."? Not super important to me either way; your call.--Jerome Frank Disciple 16:37, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

Yeah I was on the fence about it. I think that is a fair change. Oh I see how this can become even more confusing. I was toying around with removing the "he (Trump)" but I think we need it to make clear that Trump wasn't asserting that John Barron owned >90%, but in fact, (as Barron) asserted that Trump did. Okay i think that's fair, to remove the second pseudonym reference and maintain the "he (Trump) owned a stake..." It makes sense, there are no unclear antecedents, and it's relatively concise. Will implement unless significant disagreement arises here. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 16:38, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

What? Huh? I think I just simplified and clarified that sentence without the use of a stake. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 19:19, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

The current version looks fine to me, but also does have a few overly long sentences. It would be my second choice, but I'm generally open to compromise. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 19:36, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

I'd also prefer the shorter version, but honestly from my perspective both versions are better than the previous version, so I'm content. :) --Jerome Frank Disciple 19:45, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

The most recent change is not an improvement. Please continue to use this talk thread instead of jumping into the article, where revert rules and other needless complications are forced.

Journalist Jonathan Greenberg reported that Trump called him in 1984, introducing himself as the fictitious Trump Organization offical "John Barron". Greenberg said Trump used the Barron pseudonym to falsely assert that he (Trump) owned a stake "in excess of ninety percent" of his family's business to secure a higher ranking on the Forbes 400 list of wealthy Americans.

that's better, but there are many similar improvements that could be made. See how it's described on the John Barron page. Also, there's no reason to confine this content only to Greenberg's experience. SPECIFICO talk 22:29, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

Was following Space's lead and being bold :) I personally prefer Space's and Shibbolethink's versions to yours, but we'll see what they think! Just for clarification, this was Space's version:

Journalist Jonathan Greenberg reported in 2018 that Trump, posing as Trump Organization official "John Barron", called him in 1984 and falsely asserted that Trump owned "in excess of ninety percent" of his father's business to get a higher ranking for himself on the Forbes 400 list of wealthy Americans.

The change I suggested was:

Journalist Jonathan Greenberg reported in 2018 that Trump, posing as Trump Organization official "John Barron", called him in 1984 and, to get a higher ranking for himself on the Forbes 400 list of wealthy Americans, falsely asserted that Trump owned "in excess of ninety percent" of his father's business.

I'll revert that change since you objected here and reinsert Space's version, which I think 3 people said they preferred to what was there before.

I'm not sure what you mean about "confine this content only to Greenberg's experience" ... it's Greenberg ... describing a phone call he had. Not that many other people would have experienced that!--Jerome Frank Disciple 22:37, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

@SPECIFICO@Space4Time3Continuum2x@Shibbolethink ... I actually think the current version is massive improvement over what used to be! Great work all.--Jerome Frank Disciple 14:24, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

Hello! @SPECIFICO, Space4Time3Continuum2x, and Shibbolethink: Below, User:SPECIFICO said (and I replied):

While this subject is on the table, the John Barron run-on sentence that was repaired by splitting should not have been split again. SPECIFICO talk 14:31, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I disagree with that edit. (1) It's not a run-on sentence; it's a compound sentence. (2) I think we should connect what Trump purportedly said to Greenberg. As I said yesterday, if we don't have that tie, I'd prefer going back to what was before (the first version put in by Space). Does this have to do with your assertion that we shouldn't confine this content only to Greenberg's experience. I asked what you meant by that, above, and you didn't respond. This is, inherently, only Greenberg's experience that we're talking about. Also, we should probably discuss this ... in the section discussing Greenberg, above.--Jerome Frank Disciple 14:34, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

I thought it would make the most sense to move that discussion here.

After reverting SPECIFICO, I did offer a separated version that I'd agree to, if the only contention is that the sentence is too long and should be broken up: [13] Thoughts?--Jerome Frank Disciple 14:37, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

@SPECIFICO has requested I revert. I have reverted to the version last edited by SpaceX. After a few changes to the paragraph, including the separation of the first sentence, I said I'd object to that separation and that I'd prefer the older version to a version with separated text. Nonetheless, as that diff shows, to try to find a compromise, I just combined the first two sentences and left the other changes. SPECIFICO then un-combined the sentences, claiming that doing so was a "copyedit (minor)" [14]. I offered another compromise version, but he has requested I revert. As such, given that my efforts to find a compromise failed, I'm reverting to the last stable version: this, by SpaceX.

For the record, I think this version of the text would be best:

Journalist Jonathan Greenberg reported that Trump called him in 1984, pretending to be a fictional Trump Organization official named "John Barron". Greenberg said that Trump, speaking as "Barron", falsely asserted that he owned more than 90 percent of his father's business to get a higher ranking for himself on the Forbes 400 list of wealthy Americans.

--Jerome Frank Disciple 14:51, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

User Gugak has now—I think mistakenly—reverted my self revert to the version of the article with the text I proposed. I've alerted that user that this was probably an error, but I just wanted to alert this talk page, too.--Jerome Frank Disciple 15:35, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

Purported MOS:OP-ED issue?

@Space4Time3Continuum2x ... could you elaborate on this edit? I added "but" to transition from the period in which he was declared eligible to the period in which he was declared not eligible—just as I would say (in theory) "He won the 2016 election, but lost in 2020." How is that editorializing? Did you flag it just because of the word but? "But" doesn't always indicate editorializing. And if you're not okay with "but" there, are you okay with the following uses currently in the article:

• Trump met with North Korean leader Kim Jong Un three times but made no progress on denuclearization.
• Trump has called golfing his "primary form of exercise" but usually does not walk the course.
• During the 1980s, more than 70 banks had lent Trump $4 billion,[122] but in the aftermath of his corporate bankruptcies of the early 1990s, most major banks declined to lend to him, with only Deutsche Bank still willing to lend money.

--Jerome Frank Disciple 13:02, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

Another:

• In 2000, Trump ran in the California and Michigan primaries for nomination as the Reform Party candidate for the 2000 United States presidential election but withdrew from the race in February 2000.

--Jerome Frank Disciple 13:52, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

"But" is one of the words to watch. When you use it to begin a sentence, you’re putting emphasis on it. That’s not the case in the three sentences you cite. The exact wording of the "golfing" sentence is prescribed by consensus item 40. The wording of the N. Korea sentence is based on consensus item 44, and "but" is just a conjunction to connect coordinate elements. I just split the third sentence in two, "declined to lend" followed by "willing to lend" was awkward anyway. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 13:54, 17 May 2023 (UTC). Are you planning to cite every single "but" on the page now? Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 13:55, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

When you use it to begin a sentence, you’re putting emphasis on it. Where does MOS:OP-ED say that? But okay, I can abide by your personal "compound sentences are more neutral" rule.--Jerome Frank Disciple 13:56, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

Terrific, putting the emphasis right back in by connecting two independent clauses with "but" and then splitting off the the third independent clause as "overlong". Way to cooperate. As with many writing “rules,” the truth is that beginning with but isn’t about wrong or right; it’s about formality, emphasis, and style. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 14:13, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

Yes, because it makes sense to have a transition between the finding of eligibility and the deferment; sorry I wasn't prepared for your rule. Quick follow up on that rule—"words on the flag list shouldn't start sentences"—there are a few issues in the article. For context, the words to watch are but, despite, however, though, although, furthermore, while .... The article currently says:

• However, no denuclearization agreement was reached, and talks in October 2019 broke down after one day. (starts a paragraph!)
• Despite a campaign promise to eliminate the national debt in eight years, Trump approved large increases in government spending and the 2017 tax cut. (same)
• Despite record numbers of COVID-19 cases in the U.S. from mid-June onward and an increasing percentage of positive test results, Trump largely continued to downplay the pandemic, including his false claim in early July 2020 that 99 percent of COVID-19 cases are "totally harmless".
• Despite the frequency of Trump's falsehoods, the media rarely referred to them as lies.
• Despite "numerous links between the Russian government and the Trump campaign", the report found that the prevailing evidence "did not establish" that Trump campaign members conspired or coordinated with Russian interference.
• Though Trump said he would eschew "new foreign deals", the Trump Organization pursued expansions of its operations in Dubai, Scotland, and the Dominican Republic.
• Although Trump originally argued that the separations could not be stopped by an executive order, he accceded to intense public objection and signed an executive order on June 20, 2018, mandating that migrant families be detained together unless "there is a concern" doing so would pose a risk to the child. (starts a paragraph)
• While Trump has not filed for personal bankruptcy, his over-leveraged hotel and casino businesses in Atlantic City and New York filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection six times between 1991 and 2009.

If you'd like help, I have some free time today and I can address these. I just want to make sure that's actually what you're advocating for. I recombined the last sentence per your above objection to separating off the 1972 finding.--Jerome Frank Disciple 14:16, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

Terrific, putting the emphasis right back in by connecting two independent clauses with "but" ... wait, what? I'm sorry, now you're saying compound sentences (which, yes, connect two independent clauses with a conjunction) can't use "but", per MOS:OP-ED?--Jerome Frank Disciple 14:21, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

While this subject is on the table, the John Barron run-on sentence that was repaired by splitting should not have been split again. SPECIFICO talk 14:31, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I disagree with that edit. (1) It's not a run-on sentence; it's a compound sentence. (2) I think we should connect what Trump purportedly said to Greenberg. As I said yesterday, if we don't have that tie, I'd prefer going back to what was before (the first version put in by Space). Does this have to do with your assertion that we shouldn't confine this content only to Greenberg's experience. I asked what you meant by that, above, and you didn't respond. This is, inherently, only Greenberg's experience that we're talking about. Also, we should probably discuss this ... in the section discussing Greenberg, above.--Jerome Frank Disciple 14:34, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

The original version of the military service/eligibility text:

In 1966, he was deemed fit for military service based upon a medical examination, and in July 1968, a local draft board classified him as eligible to serve.[12] In October 1968, he was classified 1-Y, a conditional medical deferment,[13] and in 1972, he was reclassified 4-F due to bone spurs, permanently disqualifying him from service.[14

After your edit adding "commas, add transition word":

In 1966, he was deemed fit for military service based upon a medical examination, and, in July 1968, a local draft board classified him as eligible to serve.[12] But in October 1968, he was classified 1-Y, a conditional medical deferment,[13] and, in 1972, he was reclassified 4-F due to bone spurs, permanently disqualifying him from service.[14]

I challenged your edit. You started a discussion on the talk page and, after less than an hour, did a hairsplitting revert because my objection doesn’t count or something and then this grammatical rearrange. So now the text is:

In 1966, he was deemed fit for military service based upon a medical examination, and, in July 1968, a local draft board classified him as eligible to serve,[12] but, in October 1968, he was classified 1-Y, a conditional medical deferment.[13] In 1972, he was reclassified 4-F due to bone spurs, permanently disqualifying him from service.[14]

Not an improvement IMO. The initial version had two compound sentences consisting of two independent clauses each. Now, we have a compound sentence consisting of three independent clauses because you want the third one to start with "but". Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 16:18, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

Fair enough! If you don't want there to be a transition, take it out. I won't object. Or, if you're okay with a mid sentence transition but not a start-of-sentence transition (which I still think is pretty baseless but it's fine), you could say:

In 1966, he was deemed fit for military service based upon a medical examination, and, in July 1968, a local draft board classified him as eligible to serve.[12] In October 1968, however, he was classified 1-Y, a conditional medical deferment,[13] and, in 1972, he was reclassified 4-F due to bone spurs, permanently disqualifying him from service.[14]

--Jerome Frank Disciple 16:21, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

Given your interest in copy editing, I respectfully recommend reading Strunk & White. The original was the best. DFlhb (talk) 16:28, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

I have! Long time ago. But I'm not sure how Strunk & White relates to the version I just suggested. You have a page cite on you? I still have my copy.--Jerome Frank Disciple 16:29, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

To be clear: @Space4Time3Continuum2x regardless of whether Strunk & White actually recommends against transitions, as I said in my above comment—feel free to take it back to the original. (@DFlhb do you also mean getting rid of the commas? I think that'd be pretty plainly grammatically incorrect, but hey the principle WP:IAR is also used in grammar :) )--Jerome Frank Disciple 16:32, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

"Omit needless words" and "Express coordinate ideas in similar form". It's excessively didactic to point out an contrast which is obvious to all readers. DFlhb (talk) 19:50, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

By that argument, "but" should almost never be used—certainly not in the examples I put forward above, but alright.--Jerome Frank Disciple 22:50, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

Age

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

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

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

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

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

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

There are too many inaccuracies in this to give it credibility 2601:340:4201:93A0:BD3E:2FA6:136F:1B77 (talk) 23:43, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

This is obviously a notable topic. It needs to be somewhere in the article, probably in the "2016 campaign" section. —Lights and freedom (talk ~ contribs) 16:28, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

It's not obvious to me, and the source you cited is an opinion piece with some stats on oldest and youngest to take office. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 19:09, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

These are not opinion pieces:

• https://www.insider.com/donald-trump-oldest-president-us-history-2016-11
• https://www.ajc.com/news/national/donald-trump-the-oldest-president-elect-history/h7ipsR6rRHXGEbjcY3LnWP/

—Lights and freedom (talk ~ contribs) 19:14, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

It's still stats trivia, he's no longer the oldest president-elect to take office, and this is still low-importance information that seems like a bad use of space, to quote another editor. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 19:48, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

This is being edit-warred back into the article, with no resolution of the concern voiced by at least two editors that it is trivia. Somebody needs to remove it pending any consensus to include. WP:ONUS. SPECIFICO talk 19:57, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

Disagree that it is trivial. It's covered by high quality reliable sources including NPR, CBS, NYT, etc.: [15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22] I have added these sources to the content, and removed the "ronald reagan" part. If someone would like to add that it was later surpassed by Biden's election, I would be fine with including that as well. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 19:58, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

Please read and advocate your position according to WP:ONUS. Merely asserting that you are correct will not lead to consensus to include it. And meanwhile, please self-revert. SPECIFICO talk 20:07, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

Please refrain from telling me how to argue my own points. I think I can do that quite well on my own, thanks. I made an argument along WP:RSUW and WP:DUE. I then linked to 8 sources out of many which mention this fact when discussing Trump's election. That my argument is not convincing to you is honestly not very important to me. I will state my reasoning, and if you disagree with it, that is your purview. Consensus will win out, and I will be happy with that consensus if and when it does. At the moment, I'm not sure you do have consensus on your side either. I would personally close this (if I were in a position to do so) as "no con". — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 20:10, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

Should there be an RFC for this? And if there is no consensus in the RFC, then it would go back to the way it was originally (which I think is excluding this)? —Lights and freedom (talk ~ contribs) 20:15, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

Personally I think an RFC would be unnecessary. But if others would like to stonewall and exclude these 18 words without any interest in compromise, then yes it may become necessary. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 20:20, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

I also agree this is not trivial information when covered by so many sources. I support consensus to add this. The Capitalist forever (talk) 20:11, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

How is this situation handled at the Ronald Reagan page? Concerning when he held the oldest-serving US president record. GoodDay (talk) 20:13, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

That depends, was it a topic of conversation covered in many multiple independent reliable sources at that time? If it was, then it should be included. If not, then it should be excluded. That's the nature of WP:DUE. I don't consider whether it is "right now" included at that page very relevant, given that the encyclopedia is ever-changing. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 20:18, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

Well, I was thinking about how 'age' was brought up, during the 1984 presidential debates, between Reagan & Mondale. GoodDay (talk) 20:20, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

Right, I do think it was a common criticism of Reagan: [23], (so much so that an American Experience PBS documentary covered this exact topic in an hour-long documentary in 2011. And in many news pieces both contemporary and modern: [24][25][26] That is the essence of staying power, that it was still relevant enough for PBS to devote an hour to it 27 years later. So I would overall agree at a glance, that it is DUE for that page and likely DUE here. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 20:28, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

This is not the criterion we use to evaluate NPOV due weight. "At that time" is exactly what we do not use. On the biography of a notable individual we give weight to what is of lasting significance. Reagan's age has had some lasting significance due to his incipient senility while in office. Trump's age is the least of his noteworthy achievements. SPECIFICO talk 20:27, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

Trump's being the oldest elected at that time has continued to be discussed in multiple independent reliable sources now in 2022/2023. See those linked above: [27][28][29][30] — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 20:29, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

There are more and more "old" folks due to the longer lives of boomer and subsequent generations. There will therefore be a succession of oldest presidents now and in the future. It's trivia unrelated to anything essential about the individuals. Biden apparently suffers from spinal stenosis, Trump from baldness. These are common and unremarkable aging effects widely seen in the population. SPECIFICO talk 20:43, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

all of the above appears to be your opinion, but it isn't what our highest quality RSes find notable enough to cover. They have repeatedly covered Trump and Biden's age, as a notable subject worthy of newsreader attention. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 20:44, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

Yes, reliable sources cover a wide range of views. If in doubt of the importance of a topic that is covered in many reliable sources, it's better to err on the side of inclusion unless it violates WP:PUBLICFIGURE. In general Wikipedia editors are not qualified to decide what subjects are important and which are not if they are covered in reliable sources. —Lights and freedom (talk ~ contribs) 20:49, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

BLP speculation not based on RS. "It has often been claimed..." and then repeating a partisan attack meme is not constructive and will not lead to any article content improvements here. Don't do this. SPECIFICO talk 20:37, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Although Reagan was affected by Alzheimer's disease unlike Trump and Biden, it has been often claimed that both Trump and Biden have showed effects of senility/old age. Also, Reagan is equally notable to Trump. —Lights and freedom (talk ~ contribs) 20:29, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

Re the above hatting, there are multiple RSes which support the statement that 'Trump and Biden have both been accused of senility/old age.': Axios · The Guardian · PsychologyToday · USAToday · The GLP · Newsweek · WaPo · NYT · NBC · Alzheimers UK · Snopes · Dallas News. It isn't a BLP violation to simply state that such accusations have been made. Such statements also do not require MEDRS unless they are asserting the validity of the claims, which no one appears to have done here.— Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 20:43, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

I see you decided to dive into the cess pool after all. WP is not a newspaper. We don't mention Trump's hair, whatever that shiny stuff on his face is, or his verbal garbling, either, and they have all received plenty of coverage in RS. It's a trivial statistic that may have a place in a shorter article but not in this one. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 11:15, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

Yes, the effects of age are discussed by reliable sources:

• This has been discussed by reliable sources: [31] [32] for example. This is a place for discussing how to make the article accurate, not a place for removing people's comments. —Lights and freedom (talk ~ contribs) 20:45, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

I agree this is trivial. Given the general increase in longevity in the USA, it is inevitable that successive presidents will more or less tend to be the oldest. This article should not be a baseball card with statistics about age and firsts.--Jack Upland (talk) 03:28, 18 May 2023 (UTC)