Jump to content

Talk:Donald Trump/Archive 160

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 155←Archive 158Archive 159Archive 160Archive 161Archive 162→Archive 165

Oregon fire district election

Donald Trump won election to Hubbard fire district through write-in votes. If he had nominated for the election, this would be included in the article. Since the election would not be noteworthy otherwise, the connection to Trump in that instance would render it noteworthy for inclusion. I would argue that a write-in campaign, even one unbeknownst to the candidate, provides a similar connection rendering it worthy of inclusion in the article of the person who was elected. Therefore, I feel this election should be included in the post-presidency section. Alextheconservative (talk) 10:07, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

He got two votes and then won by a literal roll of a die to be the fifth member of the board of a fire district, a job no one ran for? No, this isn't close. O3000, Ret. (talk) 10:40, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
The amount of votes cast is irrelevant; the fact is that it was an election, and Trump won. Regardless of the position, I feel it should be included. It would be included on an "Electoral History of Donald Trump" page. Alextheconservative (talk) 10:57, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
Why, is this a major election, or some trivial rubbish no one even cared about (not even, in fact, him).? Slatersteven (talk) 11:14, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
Mickey Mouse and Donald Duck regularly get write-in votes in actual, major elections. O3000, Ret. (talk) 12:34, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
Hubbard Rural Fire Protection District, Director (unpaid position, one of five, three up for election, two with incumbents running, no candidates for the third position, 286 votes total, and you have to live in the district to be eligible). Trump and four other people received 2 write-in votes each, 15 received one vote. We don't mention Trump's hair, and that has received much more attention than this. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 13:30, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

More relevant audio recording?

I know there has been some debate about whether the current audio file is super relevant to his presidency as a whole or not so I thought I'd provide another option for a more relevant piece if it is deemed preferable. The audio file presented is of Donald Trump's presidential address to the Nation following the announcment of the Covid-19 pandemic as a worldwide pandemic by the WHO. Given the pandemic was likely the most notable event to occur during his presidency (with maybe the exception of January 6th) I don't think there should be any debate as to whether it's notable or not. If others believe that the current audio file is fine that's also fine with me. I just know there was some initial concern about relevance to his presidency as a whole so I thought I'd provide a potential replacement if consensus is reached in that regard. the file is as follows:

Donald Trump speaks on declaration of Covid-19 as a Global Pandemic by the World Health Organization.ogg

The date of recording was March 11, 2020 LosPajaros (talk) 05:39, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

Opportunity Zones

Opportunity Zones should be added to the presidency part of bio the trump admin did 9,000 opportunity zones for low income areas.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/29/business/tax-bill-economic-recovery-opportunity-zones.html 2601:14E:80:46D0:9CF9:22D4:A8FB:F620 (talk) 06:04, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

Opposed. This was part of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, and it rated one sentence in the Miscellaneous tax provisions section. Isn't even mentioned in Presidency of Donald Trump. How should we mention it, under Economy, subsection "Windfalls for the rich"? ProPublica, NBC, Politico, FactCheck, NY Times — quote: Among the early beneficiaries of the tax incentive are billionaire financiers like Leon Cooperman and business magnates like Sidney Kohl — and Mr. Trump’s family members and advisers. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 10:54, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
Agree with Space4Time3Continuum2x. Given that this article is split per WP:SUMMARY, we have to consider relative noteworthiness here—which can, usually, best be judged by examining the proportionate attention a subject received relative to the overall coverage of Trump by reliable sources. Above, I agreed that the First Step Act should probably be mentioned, but that has to do with the amount of attention both it and its association with Trump have received. But opportunity zones are just not generally written about as a significant issue in terms of Trump's presidency or legacy.--Jerome Frank Disciple 12:34, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
Ok your bias is crazy right now I’ve been reading your responses and honestly when it comes to political discussions and accuracy you should just not talk, every response you type is just your opinion and this is not the place for that @spacetime. 174.216.50.35 (talk) 19:19, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

Right To Try Act

The Right to Try act should be added to the bio as it gave access to experimental treatment for terminally ill patients who without the right to try act could not even try to benefit from experimental treatments.

https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2018/05/30/politics/right-to-try-donald-trump/index.html 2601:14E:80:46D0:9CF9:22D4:A8FB:F620 (talk) 06:08, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

Hi! I appreciate that you're using reliable sources, but my response in the above section, unfortunately, also applies here. Perhaps you could suggest inclusion on Presidency of Donald Trump (if it's not already there)?--Jerome Frank Disciple 12:35, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
Oppose. "Trump signed" is the extent of his involvement per Right-to-try law, no mention in Presidency of Donald Trump. Found a few sources that boil down to this: Motivated by efforts to weaken FDA regulation and sold as providing greater access to experimental drugs, the federal Right to Try Act (RTT) was passed in 2017. It reduces FDA oversight by not requiring physicians to report safety data and foregoes approval of protocols by local institutional review boards. Additionally, Right to Try does not actually give patients the right to try any unapproved drug they wish to try. Instead, it gives them the right to request access to an unapproved drug from the company that makes it, without having to go through the FDA. Bypassing the FDA does not necessarily mean that such access will be granted.. Also Bloomberg Law, CNN. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 12:43, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
Ok so it was signed into law and supported by Donald Trump and you won’t mention it at all @Space4Time3Continuum2x ? Seems like more of a personal bias than actual reporting on the Trump Presidency. 2600:1002:B157:B56:4AD:FE6D:1629:32F7 (talk) 19:24, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

Criminal justice reform

The first step act should be added

https://trumpwhitehouse.archives.gov/briefings-statements/president-donald-j-trump-championed-reforms-providing-hope-forgotten-americans/

It was a great bi-partisan achievement and is worthy of mention. 2601:14E:80:46D0:9CF9:22D4:A8FB:F620 (talk) 06:00, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

Hi! This has been brought up before, and I think my opinion hasn't changed, though I do think it's a semi close call. If there aren't objections I'll try to think of a one-sentence inclusion we could put under "social issues". For now, just restating my reasoning from before.
Per WP:SUMMARY, we have to ask, essentially, whether the Act is a top-line level detail. Sources covering the act generally agree that it was both (1) only a start on the matter of mass incarceration but (2) still "the most significant [federal] criminal justice reform legislation in years" Vox. That said, Trump's relationship to the Act is complicated, as noted by several sources, including this recent Semafor article: Donald Trump used to brag about the First Step Act. Not any more.
Given the other subjects the article currently covers in the social-issues section (including Trump's anti-marijuana position or his rollback of LGBT workplace protections, which both got significantly less attention than the First Step Act), I think you're probably right it should be included.--Jerome Frank Disciple 12:39, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
Opposed. More like a drop in a bucket bill bill, much ado (Kim Kardashian!, Kanye West!) about relatively little, per Vox and its source, this WaPo analysis. The act has one sentence in Presidency_of_Donald_Trump#Criminal_justice, i.e., he signed a bipartisan criminal justice reform bill. ("Sought to" — not a word about how Trump's Justice Department implemented it or, rather, didn't.) Also, re anti-marijuana position ... got significantly less attention than the First Step Act, how many of the incarcerated drug offenders are incarcerated for cannabis?) Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 14:43, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
Exclusively cannabis? ... very, very, VERY few. I promise far more people have been released early due to the First Step Act than are incarcerated on federal charges for exclusively marijuana-related offenses. The advocacy org you link cites some studies showing 3000 people would be released if marijuana were retroactively decriminalized. But 3000 people were released early thanks to the First Step Act in just its first year, with the total as of July 2022 around 7500. (The ~10000 number they use is itself ... complicated—I mean, it includes "individuals that have cannabis offenses treated as secondary offense" ... but, except to the portion of a sentence that's exclusively attributable to the marijuana offense, those persons would be incarcerated anyway.) Also, even more significantly, Trump's personal opposition to marijuana would have very little to do with the vast majority of the persons incarcerated for marijuana. Trump's unilateral action would only affect a small fraction of the number incarcerated—as Biden's pardon showed. (Granted, even Biden refused to pardon persons accused of selling or distributing marijuana.) As The Marshall Project reported: "As far as bold acts of mass clemency go, [Biden's pardon] won’t lead to many people getting out of prison. In fact, it will lead to none. According to the White House and a report this week from the U.S. Sentencing Commission (USSC) there is no one currently in federal custody for simple possession of marijuana."
But I think the larger issue I take is more philosophical—asking whether reliable sources or editors should determine due weight for the purposes of WP:SUMMARY. If reliable sources–including contemporaneous coverage and retrospectives are more likely to mention the First Step Act than Trump's marijuana views, then I think it's fairly obvious that this article should, too. In fact, retrospectives are exceedingly unlikely to mention Trump's marijuana views, and it seems a bit dangerous to say, in the face of those sources, "well I've personally researched the matter and those views were actually more impactful than the First Step Act" (which, for the record, none of the sources say! In fact, not even the link you provided says Trump's personal opposition to marijuana was significant!).--Jerome Frank Disciple 15:26, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
Regardless of personal opinion it should be added it was signed into law by and supported by Donald Trump. 2600:1002:B157:B56:4AD:FE6D:1629:32F7 (talk) 19:12, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
I mean, if the Respect for Marriage Act or the Postal Service Reform Act of 2022, both pieces of legislation which had limited if any involvement by the President, gets mentioned as domestic policy under his Wikipedia article why isn't it the same for Donald Trump? The reality is that this was notable legislation passed during his presidency and there should be some mention of it on his profile. Many other presidential Wikipedia articles also mention similarly impactful legislation that had limited presidential involvement. LosPajaros (talk) 23:48, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

Edit request for typo

"Trump lost tree of his 15 original cabinet members within his first year."

requesting that "tree" be changed to "three". 2604:3D09:6A7F:82C0:3C2F:CFAE:2217:63CB (talk) 19:19, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Done. Slatersteven (talk) 19:21, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

"Changes the meaning"

@SPECIFICO:, can you explain how "more than once" changes the meaning in a way that doesn't make the statement "Trump is the only American president to have been impeached [twice / more than once]" more accurate? [1]--Jerome Frank Disciple 15:59, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

I hope we can all agree that 2 > 1! Then again, can't take much for granted on this page. I guess I can upload a picture of my fingers to show my work.
I don't actually think this needs to be addressed, but "only to be impeached twice" is, at least arguably, ambiguous—which is why, I imagine, another editor added "two or more times". Technically, you could argue that a president impeached three times was impeached twice, since he had to be impeached twice to be impeached three times. But let's imagine that every other president in history had been impeached—some once, some three times, some four times. It would also be accurate (though perhaps ill advised) to say "Trump is the only American president to have been impeached twice." There, it would not be accurate to say Trump was the only president impeached more than once. Conversely, it is accurate, in our real-world history, to say Trump was the only president impeached more than once.--Jerome Frank Disciple 16:08, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
Completely uninvolved, just watching these edits today. I don't want to speak for anyone, but I think twice is more precise, closer to the actual number, but not necessarily more or less accurate. My best guess is that it could be construed by the uninformed that he was impeached more than twice. I don't mind one way or another. - AquilaFasciata (talk | contribs) 16:12, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
Yes, and also that, well, they all get it once but only Pres. Trump did more than once. SPECIFICO talk 16:43, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
Fair enough! I was trying to capture the prior user's "2 or more times" edit, which I thought was awkward, but I'm also okay with twice.--Jerome Frank Disciple 16:50, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
This edit snuck in "at least", no reason given. If any presidents had been impeached three or more times, we probably wouldn't mention a mere two times at all. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 19:25, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

"Twice", would be less wordy & still get the info across. GoodDay (talk) 19:21, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

"More than once" is ambiguous," "Twice" is specific.--Mr Fink (talk) 00:48, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

Impact on the GOP

I think it might be a good idea to include a sentence in the lead mentioning Trump's political influence on (and the continued support of) the GOP, perhaps immediately after Since leaving office, Trump has remained heavily involved in the Republican Party.. I think phrasing needs to be careful and I am open to suggestions, but the partisan divide continues to be staggering, to say the least, and it seems there are a lot of reliable sources discussing his lasting impact on Republicans to warrant inclusion (and this is despite all scandals, trials, and poor midterm performance). Some examples below.

Newspaper and magazine articles

Scholarly article

  • Michael Espinoza, "Donald Trump's impact on the Republican Party" James, T.S. (Ed.). (2022). The Trump Administration: The President’s Legacy Within and Beyond America (1st ed.). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003259923

Ppt91talk 17:50, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

Yes, this is important information. But the article already says it. See the Post-presidency section: "Unlike other former presidents, Trump continued to dominate his party; he has been compared to a modern-day party boss." It continues with a full paragraph about all the things he has done to influence the party. -- MelanieN (talk) 20:00, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 13 July 2023

NO ACTION
The proposed change, while proposed in the correct change X to Y format, takes place after a recent discussion and RfC on the topic, diminishing its potential to incite change. In addition, the user made a number of unsubstantiated claims that go against the citations currently in the article; the user seems to have left the discussion (despite never really being part of it). The discussion is getting off-topic, so I have gone ahead and preemptively closed it, before it takes up any more editor time. Cessaune [talk] 04:57, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

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

The 6th paragraph contains the following incorrect statement: "On January 6, 2021, he urged his supporters to march to the U.S. Capitol, which many of them then attacked, resulting in multiple deaths and interrupting the electoral vote count."

Discussion: The false part is "resulting in multiple death". Actually, there was only one death attributed to the events at the Capitol that day, that of unarmed female protestor Ashli Babbitt, shot to death by a Capitol police officer. if you believe there were multiple deaths, name them and cite your source. Here is a source for Ashli Babbitt's death in the Capitol that day. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/ashli-babbitt-killed-capitol-riot-family-lawsuit/

Please correct the erroneous statement as follows, along with a separate sentence on the vote count for clarity:

"On January 6, 2021, he urged his supporters to march to the U.S. Capitol, which many of them then attacked, resulting in one death. That of unarmed female protestor Ashli Babbitt by gunshot from a Capitol police officer. The electoral vote count was interrupting temporarily." 74.203.170.226 (talk) 19:12, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Actauly plenty of RS say there was more than one death attributable to it. Slatersteven (talk) 19:15, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
There was a lengthy discussion on this topic very recently. If you can find reliable sources, then feel free to propose them here, but it is highly unlikely that the text will be changed. The source that you provided does not support the claim that you made.
if you believe there were multiple deaths, name them and cite your source—The sources have already been cited in the article text; see Donald Trump#January 6 Capitol attack, where it says: "According to the Department of Justice, more than 140 police officers were injured, and five people died." a) there are already two cites for this assertion and b) we attribute the number of deaths to the Department of Justice. If you disagree with the Department of Justice, or think that we shouldn't be uing the DOJ as our source, then that's a different problem entirely. Since we attribute the number of deaths to the Department of Justice, the statement can't be "incorrect", as it isn't our own opinion. You can in fact argue about the reliability of the DOJ's statement, but, again, there was a lengthy discussion on this recently, and the text is unlikely to change. Cessaune [talk] 22:37, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
Also consider that the characterization of Babbitt as an unarmed protestor does not adequately portray the event. She was at the forefront of a riot breaching the US Capitol calling for the death of the Vice-President of the United States, Speaker of the House, and others after a gallows had been built in front of the Congress, pipe bombs had been found, and at that point, she was climbing through a smashed window into a room where US Congressfolk were hiding between the aisles with gas masks afraid for their lives. I'll assume good faith and believe that's what you meant. And by "interrupted temporarily", you probably meant the attempt to halt the peaceful transition of power failed. O3000, Ret. (talk) 00:07, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
"I'll assume good faith" after what you said above seems kind of disingenuous and unnecessary, given that the IP made a reasonable request, seemed to comply with relevant policies, and provided a source (which is more than you can say for yourself). And you can't just call someone's (albeit weakly) sourced characterization of an event inadequate without providing any sources yourself. Stuff like this invariably leads to bias claims and all that junk that I'm becoming increasingly convinced is more our fault as editors than not. Cessaune [talk] 06:07, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
Please reread the OP. As said above, this was recently discussed at length. The OP's suggested text and link suggested that the only death was a murder caused by an overzealous Capitol officer as if these were merely protestors and the most violent part of the insurrection was the fault of police and that there was little other negative effect. I find this continuing minimization disingenuous and unnecessary and outrageous. O3000, Ret. (talk) 10:45, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
Cessaune, the proposed text was egregiously POV and misleading, and should have been rejected out of hand for that reason. It need not have consumed even the limited amount of editor resources and discussion that have been devoted to it. As Nancy Reagan advised, on some things we "just say no". SPECIFICO talk 13:35, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
All right, but that's not wht I'm worried about here. I just think that we can be a little more tactful with our responses to people who are trying to make a genuine attempt to contribute meaningfully, in this case evidenced in part by the sourcing and in part by the tone. Cessaune [talk] 15:46, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
By suggesting the result of the first breach of Congress since the War of 1812 was just a temporary interruption, claiming this was the only death, using the term protestor and adding the word unarmed while pointing to an article titled Family of Ashli Babbitt, woman shot by officer during Capitol riot, says it was murder and plans to sue for wrongful death, this one-edit-user looked nothing like someone here to genuinely contribute. The discussion was answered and I think it would have been better to let it remain that way, so I attempted to squelch it. O3000, Ret. (talk) 16:50, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
To me it sounds like, contrary to your earlier statement, you didn't actually assume good faith (and if you did it was a selective assumption at best), instead assuming the user looked nothing like someone here to genuinely contribute. You then attempted to shut them down with that idea in mind, without trying to meaningfully engage or explain, without providing sources, without providing any links to any relevant material, or alluding to any material at all that didn't just simply come from your brain, suggesting to any reasonable and uninformed person that this info that you've pulled out of nowhere is not to be trusted. The way you went about doing this was to characterize the events of Jan 6, tying them back in a sorta SYNTHy way to Babbitt in an attempt to prove your point. The fact that a pipe bomb was brought to the Capitol and the fact that Ashli Babbit was shot while climbing through a window are a) not the same event and b) not connected in any simple way; a connection between such events that would demonstrate your point to the degree that you would like (both being relevant to Jan 6 is not enough) cannot simply be asserted without a source. And, in the pursuit of quickly shutting down a discussion, I think you failed to adhere to two very simple rules:
  • Civility doesn’t just mean not being the asshole. It also means being reasonably polite to the asshole. If we consider the IP the aforementioned "asshole", then this boils down to treat others with greater respect that they treat you with. I don't think that you adhered to this.
  • ...never put any advice to editors on your user page as they will surely accuse you of not following your own advice. Cessaune [talk] 19:24, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
1. This isn't mainspace. The refs for what I stated are in the article.
2. I was not trying to tie these things to Babbit. I was talking about the mindset of a Capitol officer desperately trying to save the lives of the people's representatives during an extremely violent breach of Congress resulting in over 100 injuries. She was the point person breaking into the hall in front of a mob that was NOT unarmed as suggested by the OP, and the officer certainly had no reason to believe this was not a threat to his life and others' lives he swore to protect. The officer was not found in the wrong, contrary to what was suggested by the article title the OP selected, of all articles.
3. All the events were connected that day. The officers knew full well what was occurring.
4. Your last sentence proved my point in putting that on my user page. (Isn't irony ironic?) This is the second time in a week someone has gone to my TP or UP to find something to hit me with.
5. As for your first sentence, did you actually not understand I was being sarcastic? I'll try better next time.
6. If the OP was interested in debate -- where are they? You haven't been on these articles much. One-edit editors are constantly hitting these pages with flyby, useless edits and hardly ever debate. We try not to waste much editor time with them. And we are wasting an absurd amount of time with this seriously flawed edit trying to push a ridiculous POV. I deleted flyby edits on two other article TPs in teh last half hour, one saying Ahmaud Arbery wasn't murdered.
7. Enough. Have any more comments about me pulled from my user page or about me in general, use my TP and stop wasting other editors' time. O3000, Ret. (talk) 20:46, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. No need to leave this in the edit queue. Xan747 (talk) 19:38, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

 Still Not done: This section would look at lot better with a hat on. O3000, Ret. (talk) 20:51, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

@Objective3000: At risk of local policy wonkery: Consensus #13, which governs early archival, would require a close. It doesn't speak to hatting, collapsing, etc, which means they are subject to automated archival after 14 days idle like most everything else (which would happen only if editors in fact stopped commenting). Therefore I suggest a close, not a hat, and I'm not in a mood to do that myself. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:28, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
Yeah, understand the mood.:) regards, O3000, Ret. (talk) 21:32, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
Time to rethink Consenus 13 or whatever? SPECIFICO talk 22:50, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
Why? If the desired effect is to end pointless discussion, closure achieves it at least as well as hatting. Collapsing was never intended for ending entire threads, despite its incorrect use for that, and hatting seems redundant with closure in its purpose. So further complication of #13 seems unwarranted to me. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:13, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
Improve it by simplifying it! SPECIFICO talk 00:03, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
Good point. Normally you hat/collapse something within a thread that has gone off topic (and may, or usually not, be of interest elsewhere), is an annoying squabble, or settled misunderstanding. Close is better. Someone uninvolved, and careless enough to stumble on this TP, can close. Or, we can stop responding - which I shall do. O3000, Ret. (talk) 00:09, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Naming Supreme court justices in the lead

Re: this edit from @Ppt91 which was reverted by @Space4Time3Continuum2x: adding the names of the supreme court justices Trump appointed to the lead. I think these names are clearly DUE and agree with Ppt91. We have precedent from George W. Bush, a GA. We have many multiple overviews of Trump's presidency mentioning these appointments as key to the impact Trump will have over the next several decades: [2][3][4][5]. A zillion and a half longform large-scale overview pieces have been written focussed on specifically these appointments: [6][7][8][9] — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 18:59, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

@Shibbolethink Thank you for following up on this. I just left a message on @Space4Time3Continuum2x talk page to clarify the revert. They are technically correct in that I should have sought consensus on talk page since I had made a similar contribution two weeks ago. However, given that they were the one to revert the original edit without sufficient reason (mentioning that it was discussed "several" times without actual discussions is too ambiguous), I don't think today's contribution can really be seen as a clear violation of WP:BRDR. The most recent discussion I could find about this was in 2021: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Donald_Trump/Archive_137#Language_to_describe_judiial_appointments where the arguments clearly leaned toward the inclusion of names. If there are any discussions from this or last year, I would appreciate if someone could link these. I obviously think it's DUE and that information is critical enough in shaping the political and ideological legacy of his presidency (and happening as we speak with the three recent court decisions) to warrant WP:LEAD inclusion. Ppt91talk 19:15, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
It is routine to include this information in the lead, using the word "appointed" and the names. See George W. Bush: "He appointed John Roberts and Samuel Alito to the Supreme Court." See Barack Obama: "Obama also appointed Supreme Court justices Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan, the former being the first Hispanic American on the Supreme Court." -- MelanieN (talk) 20:07, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
If it's done for the other US presidential BLPs? By all means, include. GoodDay (talk) 20:34, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
It's relevant and should be included. Cessaune [talk] 04:02, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
For the sake of not expanding the already bloated lead, the justices individual names are superfluous and can be excluded. Iamreallygoodatcheckers talk 05:11, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
Agree. It makes sense on other presidential BLPs, and it makes sense here. The raw amount of SC appointees isn't very informative, but the names are. SC Justices (and their idiosyncracies) shape the direction of the country to a large extent. DFlhb (talk) 15:32, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
Precedent: presidents' BLPs prior to Bush 41 don't mention the justice(s) they appointed to the Supreme Courts. Also, the leads of Bush 41, Clinton, Bush 43, and Obama don't mention the number of appellate judges they were able to appoint; Trump's does. Most of the sources engage in some crystal gazing, i.e., "they will likely" - if the winner had been Cruz or any other Republican candidate, the appointments would have been the same because of Leonard Leo/the Federalist Society's list and MitchMcConnell/the Republican Senate majority. It took six justices to "flip" the court to the right, and half of them were appointed by Bush 41 and Bush 43. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 16:18, 1 July 2023 (UTC). Adding the names would presumably also add three wikilinks to an already bloated lead? Compare the leads of the Bushes and Obama with Clinton's. Would anyone miss the SC justices' sentence in Clinton's lead if it wasn't there? (Can you find the sentence? Dropped seemingly randomly between Clinton's ideological evolution and the congressional budget surplus?) Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 17:26, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

Proposed change

None of the other presidential articles say in the lead how many appellate court judges the person appointed. But they do name the Supreme Court justices who were appointed. I propose to change the current sentence here - "He appointed 54 federal appellate judges and three U.S. Supreme Court justices." - to "He appointed Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett to the U. S. Supreme Court." That is the exact format used in other recent presidential articles - not just George W. Bush and Barack Obama, but also Joe Biden, Bill Clinton, and George H. W. Bush. -- MelanieN (talk) 16:03, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

Strong support per my original edit and arguments: WP:DUE, clear precedent, and a plethora of WP:RS. Importantly, removing federal appellate judges also helps address the bloating argument raised by some editors earlier. Ppt91talk 16:10, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
Presumably added because Trump appointed a historic amount ([10][11]) which was one of his few successes ([12][13]). But if so, we should say it outright (the "historic" aspect, not the success part). I have no opinion on inclusion edit: of the appellate judges, but support naming the justices DFlhb (talk) 16:47, 1 July 2023 (UTC) edited 21:11, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
Support Change. Drop the number of appellate judges from lede and name the Supreme court justices. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 17:33, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
Support, not from a prose standpoint, but from a verifiability one. The justices themselves are more relevant than the number of them. It's key, important information that is present in all other US presidents' articles. Cessaune [talk] 21:04, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

OK, thanks for the input, all. I went ahead and changed it in the article. -- MelanieN (talk) 22:02, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

Post-change support - justices were one of the most consequential things Trump actually accomplished in his presidency. The ramifications are playing out right now.starship.paint (exalt) 10:19, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

Miss Universe pageant in the lead

Request other opinions on this exchange.

  • This edit added the Miss Universe pageant, a couple of Wikilinks, and some wordiness to the lead and switched the order of sentences. It also expanded the link to the Wharton School when the short link works just as well.
  • I reverted here (see edit summary).
  • FMSky reverted here without discussion on the Talk page and without an edit summary.
  • I reverted here, pointing out consensus item 60 and what I believe to be a BRD violation.
  • FMSky reinserted the pageant, again without saying why they think it is lead-worthy, and accused me of ownership behavior in the edit summary. The edit summary says that they "re-add[ed] mention of The Apprentice" - I assume that was an oversight.

The pageant was removed from the lead in this edit. I agree with the editor's summary that it's not leadworthy, not in this long lead. Miss Universe mentions Trump in two short paragraphs in the "History" section, as owner/co-owner for 19 years in the pageant's 71-year history. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 14:01, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

why is this such a big deal?? 😭 im gonna remove it again, i'm really not interested in a drawn out discussion over something so insignificant. btw, where was the "consensus" for the removal in the first place?--FMSky (talk) 14:06, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
When there is disagreement, we proceed to discussion. SPECIFICO talk 14:46, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

The Miss Universe bit, should be excluded from the lead. He's better known for having been President of the United States. GoodDay (talk) 15:29, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

On that basis you could delete a quarter of the page. Could you share your full reasoning? SPECIFICO talk 16:46, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
Miss Universe bit, just isn't quite as notable as the other non-presidential bits. GoodDay (talk) 18:30, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
Right, but why? What is your reasoning? What test or principle do you suggest we apply to verify the conclusion you advocate? That would be helpful. Re-asserting your view doesn't help converge the disussion. SPECIFICO talk 18:35, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
I've given my reasoning for why. If there's a consensus to include, it will be included. If there's no consensus to include, it will be excluded. GoodDay (talk) 18:40, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
If there's a consensus to include, it will be included. If there's no consensus to include, it will be excluded. is always true on all pages. The "more notable" thing is not. But thanks for the reply. SPECIFICO talk 21:13, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
Aside from his real estate and television business, Trump was involved in many lesser business pursuits. The lead should say that and may mention a few of them briefly as examples. For example, say something like "such as the Miss Universe Pageant, professional wrestling, an airline." Years and positions held are excess detail, IMHO. TFD (talk) 19:59, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
I'm with TFD. Miss Universe is one of Trump's lesser business pursuits. A lead mention would be UNDUE. Iamreallygoodatcheckers talk 02:43, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
None of his businesses is signficant except for their cash flows that sustained his image and lifestyle even while losing money for lenders and investors. But the pageant ties into his misogyny and claims of voyeurism as noted in RS, and the wrestling, also noted, into his 1950's-era tough guy charisma, so some version at the weight TFD suggests, better worded, would be appropriate. SPECIFICO talk 02:31, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

I don’t understand who is proposing what. The status quo ante is the current one:

He expanded its operations to building and renovating skyscrapers, hotels, casinos, and golf courses and later started side ventures, mostly by licensing his name. From 2004 to 2015, he co-produced and hosted the reality television series The Apprentice.

Side ventures include the NJ Generals, greenmailing, Trump Shuttle, Miss Universe, Trump University. The Apprentice is the only one of his forays into film (cameos), television (cameos, WWE), and radio (call-ins to Howard Stern, etc.) that we mention in the lead because that’s the one that "made him a star", or whatever. His role-playing on WWE, his film and TV cameos, his call-ins to radio shows etc. are mentioned in the body (Donald Trump#Film and television with a link to the main article Media career of Donald Trump) but do they belong in the lead? Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 11:50, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

Citation bot 2

An editor removed the {{bots|deny=Citation bot}} template from the article a month ago, resulting in the "work" parameter being replaced by "newspaper" for a couple of newspapers but not for several others. (I wonder whether someone sicced the bot on George Santos where CNN, ABC, NBC, Politico, Talking Points Memo were all called "newspaper" ([14]).) The previous discussion involved three editors, one opposed to and one supporting the template, one unclear ("should probably be discussed at community level" but they stopped caring about it). According to the bot’s user talk page, it’s a feature. IMO, on this page the argument that "newspaper is clear while work is not" doesn’t amount to much when it results in one in five newspapers having the parameter "newspaper", the other four having "work", and the output for the reader being exactly the same. The frequency of citation bot activity on this page has increased to less than 24 hours: June 9, June 25, June 26, July 4, July 6, July 7, July 8, July 9 Any objections to me reinserting the {{bots|deny=Citation bot}} template? Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 11:40, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

My word "probably" makes my position unclear? If so, feel free to ignore that word.
Your edit summaries have stated, 582 bytes of non-improvement in this long article, but this article's size problems are more about rendered length than about file size. The parameter name changes add nothing to rendered length, and the 0.13% increase in file size is not a significant problem. Remember, the latter has zero effect on readers, since they don't access the raw file that we edit.
I "stopped caring" about this issue because I was tired of fighting an endless parade of human editors who had nothing better to do than go around changing parameter names with no effect on the rendered articles. That was before Citation bot started doing this. I didn't stop having an opinion; I decided I had better things to occupy my time. And now I'm 99%-retired and doing my best to avoid controversial, time-consuming issues.
I'd suggest an RfC at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals) (in my opinion, the CS1/CS2 talk pages do not attract enough participation to establish community consensus on issues that are controversial and affect all editors). In the meantime, I'd let Citation bot have its way. This is not a battle for articles or article talk pages. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:19, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
Just came across this: Template:Cite_news#Usage. "Most commonly used parameters", and every single example has been using "work" since at least 2009. The Lua version (no idea what that is, mentioning it because it was mentioned in the previous discussion) was installed in 2013. Template:Cite_news says that the template is being used on 1,500,000+ pages (apparently none of them having come to the attention of Citation bot). Looks like community consensus to me, no? (I know, the answer probably is no.) Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 13:13, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
Regardless, since you even have to ask the question, you would need community consensus that it's community consensus. At best, it's no stronger community consensus than Citation bot itself, which has higher visibility. I don't know, but I assume it's doing the same thing site-wide with little objection. Many editors assume incorrectly that all bots are fully vetted and explicitly approved at community level (I did once). ―Mandruss ☎ 20:13, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 26 July 2023

The following line in the Wiki entry is inaccurate: "He considers exercise a waste of energy because he believes exercise depletes the body's energy "like a battery, with a finite amount of energy".[29]"

This is not what the source cited says. Trump said, specifically, that he believes TOO MUCH exercise depletes the body's energy, not just exercise.

The corrected line should be:

He considers too much exercise a waste of energy because he believes exercise depletes the body's energy "like a battery, with a finite amount of energy".[29] Metallix87 (talk) 23:11, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

 Done CLYDE TALK TO ME/STUFF DONE (I will not see your reply if you don't mention me) 01:45, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

Not a single "favorable" sentence, just endless trashing of trump?

Close after referral to the response page, per current consensus item 61. Eligible for manual archival after this time tomorrow. ―Mandruss ☎ 06:58, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

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

The whole article reads like a political piece written by democrats? Every single paragraph except the first two have wording saying that trump either missinformed, failed to keep a promise, or was accused of a crime. Sentence after sentence after sentence against him. Not a single sentence saying that he did anything viewed as okay or fine.

Every piece of neutral information about a policy or action is followed by a "however" or a "instead" and a sentence to explain why the policy or action should be seen as bad

I know nothing is going to change here. At least you kept the rapist claims outside of the lead so props for having some decency. 2A02:8084:D021:A900:50A9:4432:31C7:526D (talk) 22:08, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for the comment; however such general, wide-ranging bias complaints are impossible to address in a constructive way. You are correct that "nothing is going to change here" without suggestions for improvement that are more specific and supported by reliable sources, which you are required to provide. Please take a few minutes to read Talk:Donald Trump/Response to claims of bias. ―Mandruss ☎ 06:58, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

2016 Trump denial of sexual misconduct accusations

Also, in this section of the article, it is UNDUE to state that Trump denied such behavior in 2016, especially with respect to, and in light of, subsequent allegations. The reinserted text does not reflect the narrative the cited source. SpaceX correctly removed it, and it should not have been reinserted without affirmative consensus on talk. SPECIFICO talk 14:15, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

I just want to get affirmative consensus. The timeline of events was the following:
He apologized, then he denied it. His denial was based on his claim that it wasn't his voice. Starlighsky (talk) 14:20, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
I think (as this is a BLP) we have to include his denial. Slatersteven (talk) 14:21, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
I second Slatersteven. Some background: WP:BLP used to say: "If the subject has denied such allegations, their denial(s) should also be reported, while adhering to appropriate due weight of all sources covering the subject and avoiding false balance." In December 2022, an RFC was closed in which editors overwhelmingly supported trimming this sentence, bringing it to its current version: "If the subject has denied such allegations, their denial(s) should be reported too." As the closer said: "There is a clear consensus for the page to include option 1, namely including denials if they exist, as it received more !votes than everything else combined."
I realize WP:MANDY is being invoked here, but MANDY is an essay that long predates that RFC.--Jerome Frank Disciple 14:46, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
The mention of the allegations in this article are not specific enough to require such a denial. On other article pages, where specific allegations are described, such denials may need to be included. SPECIFICO talk 15:01, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
"At least 26 women publicly accused Trump of rape, kissing, and groping without consent; looking under women's skirts; and walking in on naked teenage pageant contestants."
... That is plenty specific.--Jerome Frank Disciple 15:05, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
But we should also include any court findings. Slatersteven (talk) 14:22, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
Before we could consider any such text, we would need a source that encompasses the allegations presented in the text and any source would need to present the denial as such -- a denial of the allegations. The currently cited source fails verification on both counts. SPECIFICO talk 14:27, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
I am adding the required citation from Vanity Fair magazine as we speak. Looks like problem solved. Starlighsky (talk) 14:36, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
I stated the the requirement to consider such text, not to automatically include it. This may take some time to resolve. SPECIFICO talk 15:01, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
OK with me. He denies everything, including things of which he hasn't been accused. But, if someone adds a BLP about me; I want my denial that I'm a part of he human race included. O3000, Ret. (talk) 14:45, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
Ok...What is BLP? Starlighsky (talk) 14:23, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
wp:BLP biography of a living person. Slatersteven (talk) 14:26, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
More specifically WP:PUBLICFIGURE. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 14:49, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
I removed this sentence:

In 2016, he denied all such accusations, calling them "false smears" and alleging a conspiracy against him and the American people.[1]

and moved the rest of the paragraph into the first one. My edit was reverted here. I removed the Trump quote and paraphrased text here, left the denial. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 14:49, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
100% good with that second edit! (Small point: I actually think this is one instance where present perfect is appropriate: "have accused" seems warranted when (1) there are more than a couple persons accusing; (2) many accused at different times; and (3) the person is alive. But honestly I don't feel strongly on this point, as you might have guessed since I feel like 1/3 of my edits on this page were removing present-perfect tense :) )--Jerome Frank Disciple 15:07, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
Ok. I was going to follow the instructions for the corrections, but I think everyone else has better internet connections. Reading new comments slowed me attempt to make recommended corrections. Starlighsky (talk) 15:09, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

these edits are premature. No consensus for this amid ongoing discussion. They should be reverted. SPECIFICO talk 15:08, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

There was a consensus. Someone seconded the idea. Starlighsky (talk) 15:11, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
Not quite, they agreed we should have his denial, not how we should have it. Slatersteven (talk) 15:15, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
Ok...I have to give up on this. I will work on other articles instead. Starlighsky (talk) 17:12, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Healy, Patrick; Rappeport, Alan (October 13, 2016). "Donald Trump Calls Allegations by Women 'False Smears'". The New York Times. Retrieved October 13, 2016.

Pure Vice News, Trump "has denied every single sexual misconduct allegation against him—by no fewer than 26 women—and threatened to sue over them." [15] Also, the exact date that he denied some portion of the allegations seems to be a minor aspect. As such, I removed the year and restriction on number (e.g. instead of saying "In 2016, he denied six" ... just saying "He denied them")--Jerome Frank Disciple 16:17, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

Are all in agreement, on the wording? GoodDay (talk) 18:20, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

No, there's no such agreement, and this poorly sourced edit should not have been made prior to such agreement in this ongoing discussion. Jerome, please self-revert, be patient, address the substance of other editors' dissents, and engage here on talk. In particular, for this page -- written in summary style -- we don't give enough specific detail about the allegations for there to be any meaninful or NPOV way to representation Trump's reactions, denials, deflections, counterallegations, etc. Per WP:TALKNO, instead of merely reasserting that you believe, yes, "denied the allegations" is specific enough, please rebut this concern. SPECIFICO talk 18:58, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
SPECIFICO, okay, I will revert. Now, I am challenging your alteration, so please revert your edit, as well. Thanks--Jerome Frank Disciple 19:10, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
@SPECIFICO @GoodDay @Slatersteven @Space4Time3Continuum2x & @Starlighsky
SPECIFICO has challenged the inclusion of the denial on two grounds:
First, the allegations aren't specific enough to trigger the BLP protection.
Second, it's an UNDUE/NPOV issue.
Thoughts?
As for me, regarding the "specific claim": I think that's facially ridiculous. The line is "At least 26 women publicly accused Trump of rape, kissing, and groping without consent; looking under women's skirts; and walking in on naked teenage pageant contestants." There's no line in WP:DENIALS that says "but only if the allegation is really specific!!!" As if Wikipedia policy would ever say "A rape accusation doesn't trigger WP:DENIAL unless it's REAL VIVID." That's absurd, and it's made up. Also, the vast majority of sources that report the allegations also report the denial. So, from my perspective, there's no DUE issue.
I also think it's worth noting the WP:SUMMARY complaint. SPECIFICO altered Space's text by adding details to the article that detracted from the denial. [16] SPECIFICO then asked me to self revert when I (with proper sourcing) removed both those details and the year in which some of the denials were made. "Additional details are okay only if they make Trump look bad" isn't a legitimate editing philosophy.--Jerome Frank Disciple 19:19, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
How it's written, I'll leave to others to decide. But the former US president's denials must be included. GoodDay (talk) 19:23, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
@GoodDay:, do you think it counts as including the denials if we say that he's only denied 6 of the 26, even though other sources say he's denied all of them?--Jerome Frank Disciple 19:26, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
If a majority of reliable sources says he denied all charges, then include them all. If a majority of reliable sources say he's denied six of 26, then mention only the six denials. GoodDay (talk) 19:30, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
To my knowledge, none of them say he just "denied six" except for an article discussing his denials made at one particular rally.
Denied them all:
Can, of course, get more if requested--Jerome Frank Disciple 19:35, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
It would not advance our work to google more confirmations of preselected content. The fact is that the weight of tertiary RS do not take his deflections and prevarications seriously and do not portray them as credible. Secondary sources may report all kinds of statements, but fortunately we have more considered coverage now, many years into the public discussion of these matters. When Trump was under oath in the Carroll case deposition, he bobbed and weaved, basically landing on "I don't remember" along with various convoluted half-sentence deflections. See the Yahoo ref in your list -- which also notes that many of Trump lied in his responses to specific allegations. This article page is not the place for such detail, one way or the other. SPECIFICO talk 23:50, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
"It would not advance our work to google more confirmations of preselected content." For someone who hasn't provided any sources showing that his denials are not included, that sounds a lot like "I don't want to have to do any work to support the position I'm taking." While I'm a bit skeptical of the "include the denial of whatever number of allegations the majority of sources say he denied" rule that @GoodDay has suggested, it notably has nothing to do with anything you said above. Your original research analysis of how secondary sources present the denials is fascinating, but I'm not sure what it has to do with WP:DENIALS.
Also, once again, I've asked you to revert your last edit, which actually added details to the article, notwithstanding your WP:SUMMARY concerns. Pleaser revert, thanks.--Jerome Frank Disciple 00:58, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
How? You reverted Specifico's edit 11 minutes after they made it. Anyway, past tense would be appropriate rather than present perfect simple, and "all of the allegations" is no improvement over "the accusations" or even "the allegations". Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 08:35, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
Include his denial to all 26 accusations/charges, if that's what a majority of reliable sources say. GoodDay (talk) 19:38, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
BLP recommends including denial of allegations, and I'm not buying the argument that the brief mention of his denial is undue weight -- the response of the subject should be considered due weight in their BLP. Even if I was on the edge (which I'm not) regarding weight, it's still best to err on the side of caution with BLP's, especially since it's one small sentence. Iamreallygoodatcheckers talk 08:44, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
To address some other issues (what I see as WP:V concerns) mentioned above, the sources provided by Jerome are sufficient in establishing that Trump has denied all allegations against him regarding sexual misconduct. Furthermore, no, the allegations do not have to be described in a certain level of detail for the denial to be mentioned. That argument is not based in policy or guideline. It's also weakened by the fact that Trump has universally and unequivocally denied all allegations; so, it's not as though there's much of a distinction between his response to any specific allegation versus another. This is reflected in the RS framing of his denials as being "any" or "all" allegations (see the numerous references brought by Jerome above). Iamreallygoodatcheckers talk 09:00, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
Trump has denied all of the allegations instead of denied the allegations violates WP:IMPARTIAL (neutral characterization of disputes requires presenting viewpoints with a consistently impartial tone). Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 10:34, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
I'm not sure that there's a distinction there, but I'm totally okay with "denied the allegations".--Jerome Frank Disciple 11:36, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
I also don't care about how it is worded, but some indication that he denied the accusations is essential per BLP and other policies mentioned. I am not swayed at all by the UNDUE arguments for not including this material.LM2000 (talk) 11:43, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
Mr. Checkers, your argument above is just a repetition of the unsupported conclusion that his "denials" should be mentioned. Please review the reasons that I and others have provided above as to why this is incorrect, among them this and this. It is not correct to claim that Trump has unequivocally and denied all of the allegations. Tertiary sources, including the Yahoo/Business Insider one in Jerome's list and the one from USA Today, say quite the opposite. As you know, his "denials" in the only case to have been adjudicated have cost him many millions of dollars in damages. In the main article concerning these allegations, it is appropriate to go into the specific allegations and the nature of his responses, including tertiary evaluation of those responses, which -- yes -- were equivocal, selective and (under oath) garbled and evasive. Not in this article. It is not appropriate to give the briefest summary mention of the allegations and then to frame Trump's responses as if they were straightforward denials, when reasoned tertiary sources do not frame them that way. And the sad fact is that much of this discussion proceeded, apparently, without editors even having checked the initial reference to see that it was years old and referred only to six of the dozens of allegations. We need to do the reading and weigh the substance of sources rather than relying on casual impressions and the google machine. Google is a database tool, it is not an editorial tool. SPECIFICO talk 10:38, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
First, you're wrong about the Yahoo and Business Insider story:
Now, arguably the Yahoo! link is restricted to just assault (is that your argument? that he hasn't denied the misconduct claims?), but you also have the Vice story: "has denied every single sexual misconduct allegation against him—by no fewer than 26 women—and threatened to sue over them".
You say you and others ... but how many other users are campaigning for exclusion as hard as you? Arguably Space, although Space seems to be amenable to inclusion of "denied the allegations".
Meanwhile, the users who are favoring inclusion include me, GoodDay, Slatersteven, Starlighsky, LM2000, and Iamreallygoodatcheckers.--Jerome Frank Disciple 11:42, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
Hmph — I'm editor "terse", long article, remember? Now that the cited 2016 source has been replaced by a 2020 source, I support Trump denied the accusations as the neutral, brief, and clearly expressed version. I can live with "allegations" if I must, but I don't like the word in this context. The women alleged, he denied — when he's alleging, too (i.e., they lied). "Accused" and "denied" is neutral. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 12:11, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
Yes, sorry! I didn't mean to suggest you were strongly in the remove camp (NOT that I was assuming one way or the other, but I wasn't sure if that edit you linked to was maybe begrudging, and I didn't want to confidently say you were 100% in favor of inclusion in case that was a misrepresentation).
The reason the 2016 source was changed was because SPECIFICO pointed out that the 2016 source only related to 6 of Trump's denials, whereas the 2020 source made clear that he denied all 26. I'm 100% okay with "Trump denied the accusations" or "Trump denied the allegations". I don't think "all" presents an NPOV issue, but I actually do think it's redundant, so I support its removal!--Jerome Frank Disciple 12:16, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
Did you read the source before objecting to that edit? If not, what was the basis for your objection? If you'll review the entire tertiary sources I mentioned (note, Yahoo is an aggregator. The Yahoo piece is from Business Insider.) then you will see the "denials" characterized by the source in such a way that merely calling "denials" Verified is misleading and violates NPOV. Did you read the RS coverage of Trump's sworn deposition that I discussed above? You will see him equivocating @Iamverygoodatcheckers: mightily and then blustering that he did not remember. Again, that's not what our readers will understand by an uncontextualized "denied". As O3000 has pointed out Trump has for decades "denied" anything and everything. Framing and context are essential to NPOV, and when such framing, context, and detail would be excessive or inconsistent with the narrative of the summary style text, it is better to omit rather than to mislead. The detailed article page about the allegations is linked for our readers. SPECIFICO talk 13:11, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
Unless at least one or two other people agree with you here, I don't think this conversation is worth continuing. I, essentially, fundamentally disagree with all your points. We should follow the (many) reliable sources that say he's denied the allegations. As you are fond of saying: if you want specific denials noted so that readers can see any nuance or equivocation, then perhaps you should seek add that info to "[o]ther article pages, where specific allegations are described" --Jerome Frank Disciple 13:57, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
It would be much more constructive if you would follow Graham's Hierarchy that I linked above and present a substantive rebuttal to register your objection to my view. Repeating your view and proposing to shut down the discussion is pointless. Would you prefer that we go to a noticeboard or RfC on this? I think it would be more constructive to exhaust constructive engagement here before we conclude that would be necessary. SPECIFICO talk 14:05, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
His MO is deny everything, then deny the denial, present 15 different versions, deny those, etc. My first choice is "duh", WP:MANDY. Since the current consensus here is in favor of including the denial, my second choice is to keep the text as short as possible. Do we really need an RfC? Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 14:35, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
As always, I am open to reasoned rebuttals of my views, but in the absence of any statements that address the concerns that you, I, O3000 have expressed here, this is going to take up even more time and attention. Once we start expanding the content, we get on a spiral. He denies allegations. Well the jury found his denial of one allegation was false, RS find lies in other "denials". Under oath under penalty of perjury he fumbles and bumbles and equivocates, etc. etc. It's a can of worms. Where are the RS that contravene MANDY? It's the opposite, they take the unusual step of debunking and giving short shrift to his various reactions, attacks, and deflections. The standards of a secondary journalist require them to say he denied this or that. An encyclopedic narrative is not the same as a secondary news narrative. Tertiary RS do not treat his reactions as credible denials. We don't have space on this page to fully characterize his responses as those tertiary sources do. We do that in the separate page on the subject. SPECIFICO talk 15:08, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
Editors who support or say they are okay with inclusion:
  • Myself
  • GoodDay
  • Slatersteven
  • Starlighsky
  • LM2000
  • Iamreallygoodatcheckers
  • Objective3000 ("fine")
  • Space4Time3Continuum2x ("okay")
Editors who oppose inclusion
  • You.
If you think, under those circumstances, an RFC is appropriate, that's obviously up to you.
Multiple reliable sources—including Insider, ABC News, the Independent, Vice News, and more—have noted that Trump has denied all the accusations against him. WP:DENIALS says that such denials should be included in the article. You first argued that WP:DENIALS was only triggered by specific allegations—implicitly, that an allegation of rape was not, alone, enough to trigger it. No one here bought that argument. You then argued that WP:SUMMARY would advise against removing the denials, even though you simultaneously edited the page to add additional details limiting the denials. Next, you argued that it was WP:UNDUE based on the reliable sources available. You provided no examples of sources covering Trump's history of abuse allegations that didn't note his denials. Again, no one here brought that argument.
Now, you're arguing that because Trump has, in certain instances, equivocated or, as you put it in another post, bobbed and weaved in his "denials", that should cancel out the other instances in which Trump has, as you put it, "denied anything and everything". I don't see anyone who's been persuaded by that argument. I'll leave it to others to try to persuade you or you to either WP:DROPTHESTICK or start an RFC, as you deem appropriate.--Jerome Frank Disciple 15:13, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

We do not count votes on WP. Not clear the count is accurate, either. I see you misrepresenting the concern I have stated above and not attempting to resolve or rebut it. There is no rush. Please give editors some time for research and reflection. SPECIFICO talk 15:57, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

Nor do we need to satisfy one holdout editor demanding others persuade them.--Jerome Frank Disciple 16:00, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
I agree with following BLP policy and therefore including the denial. Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:21, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
Trump himself was not the one who issued the "denials" and counterattacks. This article in The Atlantic lists the allegations as of late 2017, documenting that nearly all the "denials" came not from Trump, but rather were from attorneys, campaign operatives, or White House staffers.
A brief mention that would be less prone to misinterpretation would be along the lines of what ABC news wrote. We could say something to paraphrase their assessment that "[Trump] and his team repeatedly issued blanket denials against all the allegations, calling the women liars" [17]. Perhaps also noting the observation in New Yorker that The assumption Trump is lying is a reasonable one". Perhaps a sentence that conveys the above would be OK. Example to replace the current sentence in the article:

Trump and his entourage have issued blanket denials of the allegations while disparaging the women who raised them.

SPECIFICO talk 19:29, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
Second this as it fits the pattern we repeatedly see in RS. Accusation, followed by angry denial calling accusers liars and many other nasty nouns and adjectives. Realize this is a man who attacked a woman immediately after she won a defamation suit over attacks (and appears to be using campaign donations to pay his legal bills[18]). Is succinct while Satisfying BLP, RS and DUE. O3000, Ret. (talk) 21:07, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
I think the current version is superior, in part because it's simpler and actually more accurate: Trump has specifically denied at least some of the accusations. To say that he's only responded with blanket denials is false, and the implication from the proposed sentence is just that. Compare that to what the ABC News source actually says: "In some cases, he and his team members have specifically denied individual accusations, but they have also repeatedly issued blanket denials against all the allegations, calling the women liars." Second, this is a far less significant issue, but I'm a bit skeptical of paraphrasing that he called the accusers liars to "disparaging", for the same reason that I'd be a bit skeptical of saying "26 women have disparaged Trump by saying that he ...."--Jerome Frank Disciple 21:14, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
We cannmot attribute the statements of Huckabee, HopeHicks, and various campaign officials and attorneys to Trump personally. Please review the sources. Few of the so-called denials are in Trump's voice. The rest are self-serving statements by individuals who have no way of knowing the facts. SPECIFICO talk 21:26, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
Nothing that I said is contradicted by what you just said. I say he has specifically denied at least some of the allegations. The source says "In some cases, he and his team members have specifically denied individual accusations ...." (emphasis added).--Jerome Frank Disciple 22:44, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
Well, certainly in addition to the blanket denials ABC refers to, he has made additional statements. After he lost the Carroll suit, he called her a "wack job", the case a "hoax", and said the court case was a "rigged deal". I don't see how rigged deal can be interpreted other than the jury and/or judge was somehow part of a conspiracy. Frankly, I think SPECIFICO's suggestion is a very easy on his performance and a good compromise. O3000, Ret. (talk) 21:39, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
Let's see what others think. I think it's misleading to suggest that he only issued blanket denials, when the source we're citing contradicts that, and that the extra details are superfluous.--Jerome Frank Disciple 22:45, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
The source I provided is one of many carefully reasoned tertiary sources that VERIFY "blanket denials". Few of the "denials" were made by Trump himself. It's mostly people in his circle with no direct knowledge as to the allegations' veracity. SPECIFICO talk 23:20, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
Your source says:
"Trump has vehemently denied all of the various women’s accusations multiple times. In some cases, he and his team members have specifically denied individual accusations, but they have also repeatedly issued blanket denials against all the allegations, calling the women liars."
Christ, I missed the first sentence the first time I checked, it's an even more ridiculous paraphrase than I thought! This is a pretty blatant WP:NPOV and WP:DUE violation. It's all the more ridiculous that someone who supposedly didn't want to include the denials on WP:SUMMARY grounds now wants to include far more detail about the denials .... It's even more telling that the details selected leave a false impression and don't line up with the source. Strong oppose. "Trump denied the accusations/allegations" is sufficient, and this has been a colossal waste of time.--Jerome Frank Disciple 23:28, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
This text,

Trump and his entourage have issued blanket denials of the allegations while disparaging the women who raised them.

provides a compact compromise that notes the denials while contextualizing them just barely enough so as not to be misleading - thus addressing the concerns of editors above without fully omitting "denials" per MANDY. The context, widely noted in RS is the use of his friends, allies, and employees to speak for him on matters of which they have no knowledge and the ongoing misogynistic framing disparagement and personal attacks on the women who came forward. I don't think ridiculous, Christ, supposedly, etc. invalidates this proposed compromise. SPECIFICO talk 18:05, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
@Jerome Frank Disciple: Please rebut the specific objections that have been presented in this thread. Presumably you have read the sources with those issues in mind. For others who have not yet commented on the current proposal, here is an example of the Verification problem with stating that "Trump denied." In the Business Insider tertiary source provided by Jerome, it states "Mr. Trump strongly denies this phony allegation by someone looking to get some free publicity," Hope Hicks, the president's then-spokeswoman and current White House communications director, told the Post in October 2016. "It is totally ridiculous."[19]
That is an example of one of Trump's entourage doing the MANDY with no RS attributing it to Trump or any reference to the facts. The language I proposed as a compromise would allow the article to include mentioning the "denials" without baselessly attributing them to Donald Trump. SPECIFICO talk 19:24, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
"Baselessly"? Really? Baselessly? Cessaune [talk] 19:27, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
What is your opinion of the text that I proposed. I believe that it takes account of your objections. SPECIFICO talk 20:41, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
It's not bad. I woudl support it. But, still, "baselessly" is shocking to me. Cessaune [talk] 21:41, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
Well good, thanks Cessaune. "Not bad" is the basis of compromise. @Jerome Frank Disciple:, can you endorse this compromise text? It does not say that there were no denials, only makes clear that their provenance is mixed, according to tertiary RS analysis. Compare this with the Bill Clinton denial wrt Monica Lewinsky. It was a lie, but it was direct, clear and unequivocal. Factors not found in all of the responses from the Trump team wrt the many times he has faced these allegations. SPECIFICO talk 23:16, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
As I said, no, for several reasons. Most prominently, it implies that Trump only issued blanket denials. That implication is contrary to the source. It also improperly conflates someone issuing a denial on Trump's behalf—as in the case with a spokesperson or an attorney—with someone issuing their own denial. Thirdly, "entourage"?? Is that a joke? Finally, WP:SUMMARY and WP:DUE—as the vast majority of reliable sources do, including the source cited, we can just say that Trump has denied all of the allegations.--Jerome Frank Disciple 23:46, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
Given that it's purposefully exclusionary I would strongly oppose it. Jesus I can't believe we're about to do an RFC on this. SPECIFICO if you think you've settled on your final argument I guess you might as well start one when you're ready.--Jerome Frank Disciple 22:37, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
Responding since you've specifically tagged me.
As I pointed out above, your own source says he denied the allegations.

Trump has vehemently denied all of the various women’s accusations multiple times. In some cases, he and his team members have specifically denied individual accusations, but they have also repeatedly issued blanket denials against all the allegations, calling the women liars.

(empahses added)
You, essentially, have argued that we should only pay attention to one half of the second sentence. All that response reveals is that you're willing to selectively curate details in order to push a POV.
Every source we have considered, including the one you want to rely on, says that Trump has denied all the allegations. You selectively picking one sentence and saying "this is all we should discuss" is particularly ironic given your previous invocation of WP:DUE. But, again, as I've said, that's not the only time you've reversed yourself. You were against mentioning Trump denied the allegations at all on WP:SUMMARY grounds, saying that even mentioning the denials was too much detail for this article. Now, you're trying to enhance the level of detail. Again, as I said above, "Additional details are okay only if they make Trump look bad" is not a legitimate editing philosophy.
Finally, your claim that we have to disregard any statements not personally made by Trump is completely made up. When you first said it, I thought you were saying that if one of Trump's agents denied an allegation, we couldn't attribute that to him, which is a reasonable enough proposition. But that Hicks example ... isn't even that. Hicks, who was Trump's spokesperson, directly said that Trump denied the claim, and the reliable sources treat her response as reflecting his view on the matter. You've repeatedly tried to create exceptions to WP:DENIALS that simply don't exist, as this thread documents, and this appears to be another one. And, again, the source you want to cite says Trump himself has specifically denied some of the claims.
The vast majority of editors here have disagreed with you. Discussing this with you has been like playing a game of whack-a-mole: you'll advance one ground and then, once that's rejected, switch to another, demanding responses to each successive argument. You seem to think that I or others either have to persuade you that you're wrong or cave to you. We don't.--Jerome Frank Disciple 19:51, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
OK, propose another word for "entourage" then. It's a diverse group. Campaign workers, press secretary, attorneys, other staff. Perhaps you can find the best word to substitute. SPECIFICO talk 00:30, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
I think you meant to respond to this comment I made:

As I said, no, for several reasons. Most prominently, it implies that Trump only issued blanket denials. That implication is contrary to the source. It also improperly conflates someone issuing a denial on Trump's behalf—as in the case with a spokesperson or an attorney—with someone issuing their own denial. Thirdly, "entourage"?? Is that a joke? Finally, WP:SUMMARY and WP:DUE—as the vast majority of reliable sources do, including the source cited, we can just say that Trump has denied all of the allegations.

I listed four reasons, including one I identified as the primary reason ... and you're only responding to the third and least consequential? The fact that it leaves a false implications the biggest problem, and changing entourage doesn't address that.--Jerome Frank Disciple 00:34, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
Please propose what text you would suggest, taking account of the issues raised in this discussion and in particular the narratives of the tertiary sources. Otherwise, we would need to revert to the longstanding version, which was sourced to a 2017 reference and correctly stated that in 2016 Trump personally denied six of the allegations, as shown here. I think there's agreement that this can be updated. We need to determine how to do that. SPECIFICO talk 16:17, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
See Space's comment below in terms of what the original text was. And everyone here agreed that it should be stated that he denied all allegations. It appears only you O3000 and Cessaune say the additional text should be included.--Jerome Frank Disciple 17:10, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
I really don't care either way, as long as something about denials is included. I'm not getting dragged into a multi-week discussion about this. Cessaune [talk] 17:22, 28 June 2023 (UTC)


Yikes. Since it's obvious that the editors agreeing with SPECIFICO's point of view are in the vast minority, what is the point of even continuing this discussion? Use an RS or two above to substantiate/verify the claim that Trump denied the allegations and close this thread, please. I have no strong opinion as to the underlying question, but there is really no value in dragging on an argument about something so minor. Cessaune [talk] 23:45, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

Seconded.--Jerome Frank Disciple 18:12, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
Thirded. We have numerous RSes which support including this information as DUE. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 16:23, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
Fourthed, per WP:BLPPUBLIC. – .Raven  .talk 17:17, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

SPECIFICO, this was the long-standing version: In 2016, he denied all such accusations, calling them "false smears" and alleging a conspiracy against him and the American people. I removed the sentence here and — naturally — got reverted here. I then removed the second clause here, followed by Starlighsky's edits, etc. The current cite for the sentence, the 2020 Guardian article, was in the paragraph all along, used as the cite for the first sentence. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 16:43, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. I may have gone back too far and skipped that longstanding update. To those who are objecting to a Verified and NPOV update: It might be helpful as a thought experiment to consider the events of the past several days after Trump's Florida indictment. Evidence has been widely published and overwhelmingly evaluated as credible in RS. At the same time we have Trump and his entourage-team-cohort-allies-employees-attorneys (whatever word you choose) making self-contradictory, false, denials and deflections that are evaluated by RS and experts as false and ridiculous. This is what MANDY is about. We would have no BLP or NPOV obligation to straightfaced report that he "denied the allegation" without giving the mainstream NPOV context and assessment of such denial. Although the conduct of Trump and his supporters is somewhat different in the somewhat different matter of the 26 miscoduct allegations, the same issues apply to straightfaced "he denied". It would create a false equivalency between these episodes and the times when we do feel obligated to report a denial to indicate that the charges are contested and unadjudicated. As O3000 has pointed out, Trump denies almost anything that discomforts him. That is why denials by him or his attorneys, press agents, John Baron, campaigh staff, et al have attracted such widespread mainstream scrutiny and scepticism for so many decades. We need to come up with the right wording or go back to the former text. If there's no progress, SpaceX reinstatement of the longstanding should be put back in place. SPECIFICO talk 17:24, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
So ... you're fine with saying that he denied all such accusations in 2016 ... even though that, if I recall, doesn't fit the source that's immediately after it ... but you think it's misleading to state "he denied the accusations"??
I mean, that's ... not really logical. Does anyone else here support reverting back to that prior version?--Jerome Frank Disciple 17:38, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
Just please remember for the balance that WP:MANDY is an essay, while WP:BLPPUBLIC is policy: "If the subject has denied such allegations, their denial(s) should be reported too." – .Raven  .talk 06:23, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
If we have to revert to this version given the lack of consensus, but I think the simpler "Trump denied the allegations/accusations" line is sufficient.--Jerome Frank Disciple 17:11, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
Nobody supports that, so we need not consider that? As has been indicated and discussed here, the 2017 citation refers to 6 charges that came up in a televised debate, not "all" 26 allegations. I asked you above to suggest a word that you propose instead of "entourage" in the versioni now under discussion. Is "team" acceptable to you? If not, what other wording would you propose to follow the sourcing as to who was alongside Trump issuing these robo-denials on issues of which they had no apparent knowledge. SPECIFICO talk 18:08, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
Read what Space wrote again. It says "all". That's the status quo, and since it's also supported by the Guardian link that's also in the old version of the article, I would object to you changing all to six, given WP:DENIALS.
And, as I've said multiple times, your version has MANY issues, only the smallest of which is the entourage word choice. I explicitly said the other issues were more important. Even now, you're selectively ignoring the source you wanted to exclusively rely on in order to characterize the issue. That's an obvious NPOV issue and a nonstarter. I am satisfied with either the status quo, which said he denied all allegations in 2016, or the shorter "Trump has denied all the accusations/allegations." That's it. --Jerome Frank Disciple 18:14, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
I think Trump has denied all accusations is sufficient. Iamreallygoodatcheckers talk 06:07, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
Agreed... with footnotes, of course. – .Raven  .talk 06:21, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
Agreed, I would support the succinct and easily DUE "Trump has denied all accusations." It's the least wordy and must effective at communicating the relevant info. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 16:24, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
Shibbolethink: The problem is that tertiary sources that have examined each allegation and the Trump team's responses say more than that. First, they do not attribute all of the "denials" to Trump himself. (See the tertiary sources refernced above in this thread) Many of the responses were from Trump-adjacent advocates who had no knowledge of the incidents and were giving what sources call blanket denials or what basically said that he denies anything bad. Second, in those and other sources, the responses, or "denials" are not all taken seriously by fact checkers and RS analysts. Sources point out lies, contradictions, and other defects in the responses, and we know in the Jean Carroll matter that a jury did not find his denial of misconduct credible. The longstanding version that SpaceX linked above gave context and presented the weight of RS evaluation of the responses by Trump and his team. It is longer than just "Trump denied all allegations" but it gives our readers the NPOV narrative, which we need to do especially when referring to statements many of which RS find false, equivocal, or misleading. SPECIFICO talk 21:13, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
I would say the statement above remains a valid summary of the best available sources. You are, of course, free to disagree. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 01:49, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
What is the wording that you are endorsing? As you know, the longstanding text noted his denials but also characterized them and included his collateral attacks on the women making the allegations. That was sourced to and referred only to an event that predated many of the allegations. Therefore in updating a mention of his now ~26 allegations, the question is whether to remove the characterizations of those responses now widely published in tertiary RS or whether to cut back the context that was longstanding and just state that he denied the allegations. If you are advocating the latter, what is the rationale for omitting the longstanding NPOV approach of presenting the weight of mainstream RS narratives as to the allegations? SPECIFICO talk 20:31, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
WP:BLPPUBLIC's "If the subject has denied such allegations, their denial(s) should be reported too" doesn't even say "in all the detail that RS's give", let alone "with all the expressions of skepticism with which RS's greeted them." Footnotes can link to the RS's. – .Raven  .talk 22:27, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
@.Raven:, nobody has argued that BLP states that. But the NPOV narrative of RS does state that. In terms of this article text: The context about Trump's attacts on the women was longstanding in the article, but it was sourced to a 2017 reference and therefore did not verify subsequent allegations and responses by Trump. Unless there is some reason not to include such context, it seems to me that we should update the status quo representation of NPOV narrative by updating the sourced characterization of Trump's attacks and smears in his responses. This is not new, just needs to be updated. SPECIFICO talk 14:52, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
> "... attacks and smears in his responses." — That is a very good point.
To say "Trump denied all the allegations" is a concise and sufficient summary of his denials as such. But that he conjoined these with the sort of counter-accusations as to lose him a defamation lawsuit and cost him millions of dollars is significant, speaks to personality (or what used to be called "character"), and deserves mention. – .Raven  .talk 18:36, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

The brief text with references cited above (tertiary and more recent than the former 2017 source) needs to be written and put in place. SPECIFICO talk 02:29, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

Protests sparked by Trump's election and policies

We currently say "His election and policies sparked numerous protests." in the lead section. How many protests are needed before including this as an important statement in the lead? I looked up at the entry for George W. Bush, who also had numerous protests, and this was not included in his lead section. Forich (talk) 19:35, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

I do not believe the number, size, or media coverage of Bush protests was comparable, do you? However, that lead sentence does look a bit off the wall and uninformative. SPECIFICO talk 20:30, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
I've long supported removal of this sentence. Protest are expected against all presidents. Sure, maybe Trump had more protests, but I don't think that makes it lead worthy. Iamreallygoodatcheckers talk 20:38, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
I've no objections to deleting the sentence-in-question. GoodDay (talk) 23:55, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
Consensus can change, but editors should review the discussions linked at current consensus item 20. If a new consensus is reached to omit the sentence (it should be at least as strong as #20), that should result in a new consensus item that supersedes #20. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:39, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
I support removing the sentence. It is vague. What in particular sparked the protests. Were they "numerous" or large?--Jack Upland (talk) 00:59, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
I support removing the sentence. "Numerous" isn't quantifiable. It differs from other non-quantifiable adjectives such as "small" (Town X is a small village is a relatively common formulation on Wikipedia) due to the fact that no real mental picture can be established from the word numerous, barring the inclusion of the total number of protests (which would then make using the word numerous unnecessary and potentially redundant). Cessaune [talk] 01:59, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
I don't think we need to be painting pictures with our words. "Numerous" here denotes significantly many, which does convey that it was much more than baseline-for-all-presidents and that the demonstrations arose from his having been elected and from his policies. But to remain in the lead, it would be much better somehow to pack more information as to what in particular gave rise to the protests, when they occurred, etc. One thing that was noteworthy was that an unusual number and size of such demonstrations occurred right away and continued throughout his first year, including in Europe and elsewhere that he roamed. SPECIFICO talk 03:05, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
The sources used for the statement are news coverage immediately after he became president. It seems they were larger than normal, but after six years, the sources should be updated. We would also need a source that protests against Trump and his policies during his presidency were significant. It seems that most of the protests were from BLM, which were not specifically anti-Trump. TFD (talk) 04:42, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
There were some demonstrators at Bush's 2000 inauguration but nothing comparable to the millions who demonstrated against Trump the day after his inauguration. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 11:29, 17 July 2023 (UTC) Rmv superfluous brackets, add "protesters" Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 13:11, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
  • Mandruss already pointed out that we'd need to discuss changing consensus #20. Clearing up some confusion: the sentence in the lead was there long before the BLM protests in 2020. It's based on content in Donald Trump#Election to the presidency:

    Trump's election victory sparked protests in major U.S. cities in the days following the election.[1][2] On the day after Trump's inauguration, an estimated 2.6 million people worldwide, including an estimated half million in Washington, D.C., protested against Trump in the Women's Marches.[3]

    The facts (huge, peaceful demonstrations) haven't changed. "Policies" refers to the things he said during the campaign (second sentence of the lead paragraph, During that campaign, Trump's political positions were described as populist, protectionist, isolationist, and nationalist). Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 11:29, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
    The Women's March was large and unprecedented. The European protests were unprecedented for a new president -- the Brits flew a Trump-top baby balloon in diapers. BLM was not personal rejection of Trump, not relevant to this discussion. SPECIFICO talk 11:41, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Logan, Brian; Sanchez, Chris (November 10, 2016). "Protests against Donald Trump break out nationwide". Business Insider. Retrieved September 16, 2022.
  2. ^ Colson, Thomas (November 11, 2016). "Trump says protesters have 'passion for our great country' after calling demonstrations 'very unfair'". Business Insider.
  3. ^ Przybyla, Heidi M.; Schouten, Fredreka (January 21, 2017). "At 2.6 million strong, Women's Marches crush expectations". USA Today. Retrieved January 22, 2017.

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 1 August 2023

Insert at first line: {{Current related|Federal prosecution of Donald Trump (2020 election case)|Date=2 August 2023}} IntUnderflow (talk) 22:13, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

 Done Iamreallygoodatcheckers talk 22:21, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 3 August 2023

Closed after linking to the bias page. Eligible for manual archival tommorow at this time per current consensus #61. Cessaune [talk] 00:30, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

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

This is clearly an extremely partisan biography, it should embarrass the writers and editors, quite frankly. Please reread it. I say this a non American with no specific interests in your internal politics. 78.150.101.116 (talk) 19:50, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Please read RE:Claims of Bias/Partisan WikiVirusC(talk) 19:59, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
Please read Talk:Donald Trump/Response to claims of bias. Many of the points you make are addressed there. A nonspecific claim of bias is unhelpful and will not lead to improvement. Also, you should generally avoid using the edit request feature unless the edit you are requesting is uncontroversial and unlikely to lead to discussion (typos, formatting errors, category additions, etc.)
You are welcome to open a new thread with a specific, policy based suggestion. Cessaune [talk] 00:28, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Minor change requested under the Misogyny section

A minor change, but considering what Trump said, wouldn't it make sense to remove the "without their consent" line from the following:

" Trump was heard bragging about kissing and groping women without their consent, saying that "when you're a star, they let you do it. You can do anything. ... Grab 'em by the pussy." "

My point is that taking the statement as a whole, it isn't exactly clear if he was bragging about groping woman without their consent. In fact, one could argue the "they let you do it" part of the quote implies there was consent. At the very least it's ambiguous, and I think "Trump was heard bragging about kissing and groping women" followed by what he said should suffice as a neutral statement. 174.7.15.203 (talk) 09:59, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

We by by what wp:rs say. Slatersteven (talk) 10:08, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
I didn't see the word consent anywhere in the source (NBC article) at the end of the sentence? 174.7.15.203 (talk) 04:05, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
It could also be interpreted as "society let's you get away with it, whether the woman consented or not". --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 20:45, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
Yes, but if there are multiple interpretations, it shouldn't be a shown as statement of fact to uphold Wikipedia's neutrality standards.
This could easily be accomplished by adding the word "possibly" before "without their consent" or removing the "without their consent" portion entirely. 174.7.15.203 (talk) 03:31, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
The full quote per NBC: "I’m automatically attracted to beautiful women — I just start kissing them, it’s like a magnet. Just kiss. I don’t even wait. And when you’re a star, they let you do it. You can do anything," he said in the 2005 conversation. "Grab 'em by the pussy." That doesn't sound as though he's waited for consent. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 18:50, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

Ponzi schemer commutation of sentence

On his last evening in office Trump gave clemency to Eliyahu Weinstein, a used car salesman who had run a Ponzi scheme that stole almost a quarter of a billion dollars, and who had been ordered by a federal judge to forfeit that money, plus pay over $6 million more in restitution. The guy had continued to swindle while he was out on bail awaiting sentencing. Trump cut 16 years off his 24-year sentence. He was represented in his clemency application by Trump attorney Alan Dershowitz and paid a former Ted Cruz staffer lobbyist to lean on Trump's Chief of Staff Mark Meadows in the clemency matter. His clemency application was supported by New Jersey Democrat-turned-Republican Representative Jeff Van Drew and by Q-Anon conspiracist Rep. Scott Perry of Pennsylvania, (who had also made inquiries with Meadows about a "January 6th" pardon for himself), as well as additional now-ex-congressmen. On release, he concealed his assets to avoid paying restitution, then engaged in another Ponzi scheme that netted $35 million more for which he was rearrested yesterday. My edit covering Trump's executive action was reverted. I disagree strongly and submit its retention to other editors for further discussion. Activist (talk) 20:21, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

We already have a list of people granted executive clemency by Donald Trump, why must we single out Weinstein? Dimadick (talk) 13:14, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
Yea, does seem a but undue. Slatersteven (talk) 13:17, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
Just because there's a separate article listing people granted executive clemency isn't a reasonable basis for claiming that this is undue. That article would include all the "routine" cases of executive clemency, along with ones which are not so routine. It would be a "selective omission" to omit (from this article) clemencies of particularly notorious crimes/persons, and Weinstein seems to clearly meet that criteria. That's without even considering the irony of his being re-arrested after receiving clemency. Fabrickator (talk) 14:44, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
The most important information in the section is that Trump bypassed the "Justice Department process for identifying and vetting recipients. ... As The New York Times reported, Mr. Weinstein was one of many who received clemency from Mr. Trump by skipping the official process and relying on well-connected lobbyists and lawyers to obtain relief." He is one of 143 well-connected criminals whose pardons or commutations Trump rubber-stamped on his last day in office (presumably in between packing up classified documents and his correspondence with Kim Jong-Un). Most of the people mentioned by name had made national news during the Trump presidency. I don't see, however, why we need to mention the "three former Republican congressmen" (anybody not from their respective districts ever heard of them?), a former Detroit mayor (anybody not from Detroit ever heard of him?), or the sports gambler ((anybody not a sports gambler ever heard of him?). With the exception of the sports gambler (because he was represented by former Trumper lawyer Dowd), I tried to trim them from the content but, of course, was reverted. All of the aforementioned have WP pages, i.e., some notability in their own right. Weinstein doesn't. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 17:12, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
The coverage of aspects of Trump's life are determined by the degree of their coverage in reliable sources about him. There's already a long section about Trump's pardons. If anything, I would like to see the section reduced in size. Incidentally, controversial pardons and commutations are a normal part of most presidencies. TFD (talk) 17:43, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
What makes this pardon stand out from the others is the guy re-offended, and in a big way. Nobody is suggesting that we should write about all 143 individuals. Richard75 (talk) 17:47, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
Weinstein is not even mentioned as one of Dershowitz's notable clients, although Dershowitz represented him. Also, WP:SUSPECT applies — he's been charged, not convicted, and "con man" is a contentious label (WP:CONTENTIOUS). Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 19:25, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
the guy re-offended Sure. But that's an ad-hoc rationale for why this is due. It's trivial to find a good-sounding ad-hoc rationale for every possible addition. But the article is already extremely long at 17k words (the informal Featured Article "limit" is usually 10k word nowadays), and this goes against summary-style, since it's not an essential aspect of his presidency. 30% of mobile visitors read nothing but the lead. The more cruft we add, the more people skim or quickly close the tab, and don't stick around for the important stuff. DFlhb (talk) 19:35, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
It wasn't a pardon, it was a commutation from 24 to 8 years. In any case, the fact he is facing new charges, no matter the outcome, is not a policy based reason for inclusion. It's not our role to decide what is important about Trump. Articles merely reflect the weight assigned in reliable sources. TFD (talk) 19:50, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
Three of the sources you mention are targeted at specific communities; two are local New Jersey news sites, and Yeshiva World News is an online news site for Orthodox Jews. I just added the NY Times Jan 27, 2021 article to the first paragraph of the "Pardons" section, sort of a summary-level intro of Trump's handling of pardons and commutations. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 14:09, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

Suggested small change in lede

Hello all, I noticed in the lede it says "After he tried to pressure Ukraine in 2019 to investigate Biden". Shouldn't this be something more akin to "Biden and his family"? Since it was moreso about Hunter, if anything. Thanks. Just suggesting. conman33 (. . .talk) 04:49, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

I agree it should say "...Biden and his son..." Richard75 (talk) 17:44, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
Disagree. The target was Biden, Hunter was the means to get to him. Still is, but the lead's already very long. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 14:58, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

Pro-Trump bias in the lead?

Donald Trump is the subject of no less than 4 criminal investigations for various acts ranging from incitement of insurrection and high treason to the paying off of his hookers with campaign funds to the theft of classified documents for nefarious purposes to the attempt to overthrow US democracy by force and install himself as unelected dictator Yet this article has apparently so thoroughly been infiltrated by Trumpian propagandists that these facts, which are sadly all too well known, are buried until the final words of the lede. We place the shocking fact Trump and his businesses have been the subject of over 4,0000 civil lawsuits in paragraph 2. Although I believe Trump’s crimes and misdemeanors should be mentioned in the opening paragraph, I will graciously compromise with the Trumpists and propose they be placed in paragraph 2 next to the mention of Trump’s civil infractions. 67.85.99.134 (talk) 16:35, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

When he is convicted we can have more information (see wp:crime). Slatersteven (talk) 16:38, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
Thanks for this comment. Editors around these parts are getting tired of all the claims of anti-Trump bias in this article. I have no other comment. ―Mandruss ☎ 16:53, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
Well, if we've gotten claims of both pro & anti bias in this BLP? I reckon that's a reflection of this BLP's neutrality. GoodDay (talk) 17:30, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
Thanks . I'm pretty sure that the info will feature prominently in the lead and in the infobox if he is convicted of any of the charges and has lost all appeals. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 14:25, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
It's quite surprising to see a claim of pro-Trump bias. Regardless, most of what is written on Talk:Donald Trump/Response to claims of bias applies. There was a specific improvement suggested (and I don't think I can close this thread based on that fact), but your rationale isn't based on reliable sources and the accusatory, sarcastic tone is unnecessary.
If Trump is convicted, we will include much more information about it in the lead. If Trump isn't convicted, the information will continue to reside in its relatively small spot at the bottom of the lead. Cessaune [talk] 01:56, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
The lead is not biased toward Trump. His lawsuits, impeachments, and two indictments are all there. Iamreallygoodatcheckers talk 02:31, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
I think one of the reasons for saving the criminal indictments to the end of the lead section is an effort to maintain clarity by keeping lead statements in a rough chronological order. We're trying to summarize the story of this man's entire life in a few short paragraphs in the lead; so we need to maintain a logical flow, and chronological order helps with that. If he gets hit by a bus and dies tomorrow, I would expect that information to come after the information about the indictments. ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 16:32, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
Stole the words right out of my mouth. - AquilaFasciata (talk | contribs) 16:53, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 8 August 2023

The line "Scholars and historians rank Trump as one of the worst presidents in American history." is false due to recency bias. This means that we do not know the effects of his presidency until 5-10 years after. He also has the ability to become president again, so I believe it is not appropriate to make this claim. My edit would be to remove the sentence. Joecompan (talk) 00:54, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

 Not done There is consensus to include this on the page, and it is well backed by sources. ser! (chat to me - see my edits) 01:00, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Proposal to remove consensus #20

There is a proposal to remove the following sentence from the third paragraph of the lead:

His election and policies sparked numerous protests.

The sentence was added to the lead per consensus #20, based on these discussions: June 2017 and May 2018. I don't see that the editors who supported the removal were aware of consensus #20 or took it into account, and at least one of them thought the sentence was about the BLM protests in 2020 (His election seems fairly clear to me). I've reverted the premature removal of the sentence. Should consensus #20 and the sentence in the lead be removed? Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 16:34, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

  • Support removal - The discussions for Consensus item 20 are 5 and 6 years old, respectively. Consensus can change. Yes, Donald Trump has been protested against, even more than many other presidents. This fact is briefly noted in a small paragraph in the body. That's fine. Adding this to the lead however is undue. The lead is already bloated and needing of a trim. This sentence is vague, uninformative, out of place, and outdated. It's prime for removal. Iamreallygoodatcheckers talk 17:09, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
  • Keep, I think. The protests indeed are an important part of what is specific for Trump's period as president. However, @Space4Time3Continuum2x: I'm not quite happy about the way you supported your claim that this still is the largest single-day protest in U.S. history with just three references from 2017. What you claim may be completely true, or be true if it is requalified as the largest peaceful single-day protest; but you still have to compare it also to later protests, if you are to certify that claim. After all, it may be said that the election of Joe Biden 'sparked' not just some protests, but even an attempt to make a violent coup d'état against Biden and in favour of the losing but still acting president. (This is at least what the January 6 events seemed to be, as reported by our news media, from my European horizont.) I think that such attempts to use group violence in order to stop a presidential installation is rather unique in the US history. Is this correct?
    It seems quite possible that the number of people involved in that 'protest' was smaller (and actually I hope that this was the case); but you cannot employ just sources from 2017 in order to compare with the size of a 'single-day protest' from 2021.
(This also makes me wonder whether not a short sentence about the attempted coup d'état − or whatever short and sufficient NPOV description could be employed − should be included in the lead of Joe Biden. However, that has no direct bearing on the Donald Trump article.)JoergenB (talk) 20:20, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
There is no doubt that the massive January, 2017 nationwide protests of 3 to 5 million people were vastly larger than the pro-Trump gathering on January 6, 2021. Cullen328 (talk) 20:26, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
The sentence says "numerous protests": it doesn't comment on their size.--Jack Upland (talk) 01:04, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
(I adjusted the indents of the three preceding edits because otherwise I wouldn't know where to place my response to JoergenB.) RS haven't reported on any larger single-day protests. The number of participants at individual protests against the 2020 election results ranged from "a few scores" to several hundred to thousands to over 10,000, while Trump and his spokesperson, without evidence, claimed a million (in D.C., November 14, 2020) and "hundreds and hundreds of thousands" (January 6, 2021). Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 18:37, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
  • Weak Remove as the protests as a result of his merely being elected was larger than most presidents as I understand it (I was in elementary school when Bin Laden was killed though, so I don't have the best frame of reference). That said, considering we don't include the protests of other presidents in the lead typically, I wouldn't be opposed. - AquilaFasciata (talk | contribs) 13:57, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
  • Keep I think it was, it is, and it is yet to be, applies. He has been the most visive president ever, with numerous protests for and against. But a reword might be in order to make it clear it continued after he was no longer president (Jan 6th for example). Slatersteven (talk) 14:02, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 15 August 2023

Add "He was then indicted later that month by a Fulton County, Georgia, grand jury on multiple counts for efforts to allegedly overthrow the results in that state." after "In August, a Washington, D.C., federal grand jury indicted him on four felony counts of conspiracy and obstruction related to efforts to overturn the 2020 election." TheCelebrinator (talk) 03:08, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

Added | MK17b | (talk) 03:15, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

First paragraph should mention something about the investigations

The current first paragraph mentions his activities as a media personality and his business activities. In the last few years Trump has become better known for being at the centre of numerous investigations and criminal cases than his former career as a media personality nearly a decade ago. When the media has discussed Trump since he left the presidency, it has very often been related to the investigations of him. It would be reasonable to mention something about the criminal investigations that now engulf him. For example something like this: Donald John Trump (born June 14, 1946) is an American politician, media personality, and businessman who served as the 45th president of the United States from 2017 to 2021. Since leaving the presidency he has been the subject of several criminal investigations. --Tataral (talk) 11:17, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

lets leave it until they go somewhere. Slatersteven (talk) 11:25, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
MOS:OPEN, WP:SUSPECT. If and when he is convicted of any of the charges we can discuss this, but for now we should keep them in chronological order in the last paragraph. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 12:36, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

Quick question

Hey, I have a question: was the conensus list a novel idea first implemented on this page or was it adapted from another page? Thanks in advance. Cessaune [talk] 02:27, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

There might not be a quick answer.--Jack Upland (talk) 03:15, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
It appears to have been born in this edit, in Dec 2016, as part of the "top material" using the {{Consensus}} template, which is used in many other article talk pages. It then underwent a number of evolutionary changes that were unique to this page. At some point it became a section on the page, which (1) increased its visibility by adding it to the table of contents and (2) provided a target for section links on this page and in article edit summaries. Later, the section became a separate, transcluded page to allow for edit protection. ―Mandruss ☎ 08:47, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

Reversing order of last two sentences in 2nd paragraph of lead

@FMSky: why?. You didn't provide an edit summary. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 10:54, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

yes i did https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Donald_Trump&diff=prev&oldid=1168761241 , which you reverted without giving a reason --FMSky (talk) 10:55, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
My apology, I didn't notice that edit among the other edits to the lead. However, the sentence about suing and getting sued also applies to the "Apprentice". Trump wasn't just playing a part on the show, he was also involved in the business end (producer, promoting products as part of the show, etc.) and got sued at least a couple of times (Summer Zervos and this. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 11:04, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
Ah ok, makes sense then --FMSky (talk) 11:06, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

Names of presiding judges in the criminal cases

I was about to delete the sentence Judge Tanya S. Chutkan was assigned to the case with cite when I noticed that I had accidentally removed it in an earlier edit. The reason is the same as the mention of Judge Cannon that I removed just now, i.e., there will be at least six criminal cases with six judges, and at the moment their names don't seem relevant details for Trump’s top bio. We can add them if that changes. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 15:44, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

Protective order for evidence

@Tataral: This "standard move" isn't as dramatic as your two sentences with seven cites and the sentence in the lead made it appear. The prosecutors at the special counsel's office and Trump's counsel will be filing more motions. That might have a place at Federal prosecution of Donald Trump (2020 election case) but not here. I haven't removed the sentence from the lead yet (3RR). WP:NOTNEWS and consensus #37 (summary-level) apply. Space4Time3Continuum2x (cowabunga) 20:07, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

Is it significant? It has been very widely reported[20][21][22][23][24] by RS that the special counsel sought a protective order and cited Trump's threats. This is what Trump's own former spokeswoman had to say about the threats[25]. If those threats and the response to them are supposedly just a "standard move", then why is there widespread and global RS coverage and commentary on it? I seems to me that this clearly belongs here, in light of widespread RS coverage that indicates that it is a significant development. Threatening people in a legal case, particularly when federal prosecutors alert the federal court to the threats, seems like a big issue to me. --Tataral (talk) 20:37, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
The prosecutors asked the judge to issue a protective order to "ensure that sensitive materials are used by Trump's defense team for only the trial, and that the former president view the materials in the presence of his lawyers" — that's the routine request. They cited the all-caps post as evidence that such an order is necessary — that's unusual but then most defendants are smart enough to not post something that stupid. If the judge does issue the order, that will make the headlines on major and minor news sites, too. Space4Time3Continuum2x (cowabunga) 21:05, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

RFC to change Alma Mater section

WITHDRAWN
I've decided to discuss it below, even though this has discussed many times before. GreenFrogsGoRibbit (talk) 07:34, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

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

Should the Alma Mater box say "University of Pennsylvania (BS)" rather than "Wharton School (BS Econ.)"? GreenFrogsGoRibbit (talk) 03:19, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

Discussion

  • Yes - It's never too late to fix a perpetual error. The time has come to once against challenge the outlier that is this page. This page stands alone among presidential pages and other graduates of this school. For years, this page has erroneously stuck out by hyper-focusing on the specific department Trump went to and explaining what his degree was without any real reason to justify say WP:IGNORE. To wit, prominent billionaires like Elon Musk and Brian L. Roberts went to the exact same school. Yet, their pages follow the correct protocol and say "University of Pennsylvania (BA, BS)" or "University of Pennsylvania (BS)". It's not just other graduates of this very school that this page sticks out for no reason whatsoever. In comparison to other presidents, it sticks out as well. We don't mention Obama went to Columbia College or Biden went to Syracuse Law. We simply include the university in full (so we simply say Columbia University or Syracuse University) in full recognition that we hyperfocus on the exact department in the early life section. Yes, this page has been this way for years and it's been embarrassing non-stop. The prior consensus is shockingly pretty minimal and the arguments are borderline nonsensical, falsely claiming all or most of the sources say Wharton when plenty simply says UPenn. Because it fails to meet WP:IGNORE, there is no reason it should differ from the presidents before or after. We don't focus on the department of the university nor do we elucidate the major of a particular degree in the infobox for any page, but this one. That was error when it was first implemented and it's still error today. GreenFrogsGoRibbit (talk) 02:17, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
  • Procedural close—why would you open an RfC on this? Per WP:RfC: Make sure that all relevant WP:RFCBEFORE suggestions have been tried. As far as I'm aware, that hasn't been done. Let's just have a normal discussion. Cessaune [talk] 05:21, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
So this is the 5th time an RFC has been held on this exact topic, so I believe it's fair to say WP:RFCBEFORE has been satisfied by other editors with the exact same viewpoint as mine. Furthermore, it's satisfied because there is a consensus on this issue which is what WP:RFCBEFORE cites as the main thing to look for to not start an RFC, but I am arguing that the consensus was wrong and was lacking in a valid rationale. Therefore, I clearly lack consensus and thus a reason to make an RFC. GreenFrogsGoRibbit (talk) 06:08, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
You need to discuss first before RfC. Support procedural close. Iamreallygoodatcheckers talk 06:28, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Residence

Shouldn't residence in the Infobox include Trump National Golf Club Bedminster? He spends summers there and says he wants to be buried there. JonathanDP81 (talk) 02:58, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

Mar-a-Lago is his legal domicile where he pays taxes, is registered to vote, and where court summons can be served. The private quarters at Bedminster and the apartment at Trump Tower in Manhattan are not his primary residence. Space4Time3Continuum2x (cowabunga) 10:35, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

Wording for low ranking by historians

I think the "one of the worst presidents by historians" part should be changed to "he is ranked poorly by historians, normally near the bottom ". It sounds less biased in my opinion TRJ2008 (talk) 00:44, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

@TRJ2008: Please don't use the edit request facility to start a discussion. Its purpose is for things that are unlikely to require discussion. Instead, use the "New section" link at the top of this page. I am converting this to a discussion by changing the heading and removing the edit request template. ―Mandruss ☎ 04:31, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
The current wording consistent with other US presidential articles. Warren G. Harding: "In historical rankings of the U.S. presidents during the decades after his term in office, Harding was often rated among the worst." James Buchanan: "Historians and scholars rank Buchanan as one of the worst presidents in American history." Franklin Pierce: "As a result of his support of the South, as well as failing to hold the Union together in time of strife, historians and scholars generally rank Pierce as one of the worst as well as least memorable U.S. presidents." Cessaune [talk] 05:45, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
Wikipedia's NPOV is dead buddy 43.241.144.234 (talk) 11:46, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
Why, do any historians say he is not? Slatersteven (talk) 11:50, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
[citation needed] AryKun (talk) 11:55, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
i rather like to have this paragraph more precise: he is ranked as THE worst or second worst president, depending on the source / study / survey.
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2021/01/trump-worst-president-history/617730/
https://www.usnews.com/news/special-reports/the-worst-presidents/articles/ranking-americas-worst-presidents
'one of the worst' is actually to kind. 84.115.227.133 (talk) 19:04, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
true Andre🚐 19:19, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

Notification

Resolved to OP's satisfaction. As far as I can tell, there is nothing left to talk about here. ―Mandruss ☎ 17:56, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

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

I have been asked, by way of a message on my talk page, to close Talk:Donald Trump/Archive 157#Multi-part proposal for content on E. Jean Carroll v. Trump. I have no objection to doing this, and if nobody else minds, then I'll proceed to do so. I'm not American, I've never set foot in the US, I don't follow US politics, and I think I'm neutral and uninvolved. But it's a little unusual for a discussion participant to choose their own closer, so it's right for me to give people on this talk page a chance to raise any concerns or objections they might have before I start doing all the required reading. If you'd like to check my previous closes for any hint of bias, you're welcome to review User:S Marshall/RfC close log. I intend to leave this note here for a few days, and I will recuse from closing on request from any good faith, established editor (by which I mean any editor who's autoconfirmed as of this timestamp and not under any admin-imposed sanctions).—S Marshall T/C 18:23, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

@S Marshall: Thank you for the notification. I would agree this is quite an unusual request, particularly because there is a request for closure and some dissent at the Requests for closure page. When heavily participated threads such as that one dissapate and are archived, we generally move on to other things. In this case, given the subsequent real world news related to the issue, I think that any renewed advocacy would most clearly be decided by a new discussion, proposal, and poll. (Not that I think it warrants such discussion. I was involved in the archived discussion.) SPECIFICO talk 18:37, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
@S Marshall: I believe a close would be helpful. This issue has come up some since it was discussed and is prime to become a chronic content dispute on this article without a formal consensus statement. Editors put a lot of effort into that discussion for it to just sum up to nothing. I have no concerns over you suitability as a closer here. Iamreallygoodatcheckers talk 18:48, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
One reason that it was inconclusive and therefore not closed is that it was poorly framed before the issue was narrowed down as it must be for successful and lasting RfC decisions. But at any rate, 3 months later there is new information and the passage of time, and it would not be correct to draw any conclusions without reopening the discussion -- which can be done in a narrowly framed new poll, if anybody cares to do so. SPECIFICO talk 19:53, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
"Unusual" — if I understand AirshipJungleman29's comment correctly, it is improper for Starship.paint as a participant in the discussion to select a closer. The discussion had stopped and was archived without objections, so I'm a bit surprised to learn that Starship requested a close a month after that. Space4Time3Continuum2x (cowabunga) 21:10, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
  • AirshipJungleman29's saying that nobody should close the discussion. Although I haven't read the discussion we're talking about, I already know there's a good chance that I'll disagree with him. It's been my experience that most contested discussions in contentious topic areas benefit from a formal closing statement that summarizes what the community thinks.—S Marshall T/C 21:24, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
    It died a quiet death, just like so many other discussions that don't reach a consenus to do anything. Apparently, not to put words in their mouth, but I am guessing that Starship hopes that the close will favor insertion of the content. But as I've said, we have new developments. Yesterday a judge told Trump that in the ordinary meaning of the English word "rape", he did indeed rape her. I still think, however this is UNDUE for this page and inclusion of more detail will require even more detail to properly contextualize it. But that's what the trial's own page is for. So there cannot be any conclusive close of this three month old thread. If Starship wishes to pursue inclusion of this content, the best course would be to workshop a new RfC framing and launch a new more clearly defined RfC now. SPECIFICO talk 22:38, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
  • The closure request had been sitting for nearly a month, Space4Time3Continuum2x, and it was being marked as not done. I hope that you can see why I requested a closure from an experienced closer, and I thank S Marshall for their consideration. SPECIFICO, my main concern is that I want a proper close for the discussion in which many editors participated. At least everyone’s efforts would have not come to nothing. The close may go against me, or it may not; if my proposal is accepted, that is merely a bonus. starship.paint (exalt) 00:59, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
  • proper close: don’t you mean "formal"? Looks to me as though everyone involved decided to WP:DISENGAGE and live with the status quo ante, preferring no mention to "the wrong one". I kind of assume that during the month the closure request was open a number of potential closers took a look at the discussion and said "not with a ten-foot pole". By that time, the discussion had been closed for over 7 weeks and buried (archived) for 5 weeks.
Following up on Specifico’s edit, since the discussion stopped on May 17 Trump hasn’t just appealed the judgment (still pending), he also requested a new trial on damages or grant remittitur because contrary to Plaintiff's claim of rape, the Jury found that she was not raped but was sexually abused by Defendant". The judge denied the request and clarified the judgment. "Instead," the judge wrote, "the proof convincingly established, and the jury implicitly found, that Mr. Trump deliberately and forcibly penetrated Ms. Carroll's vagina with his fingers, causing immediate pain and long lasting emotional and psychological harm. Mr. Trump's argument therefore ignores the bulk of the evidence at trial, misinterprets the jury's verdict, and mistakenly focuses on the New York Penal Law definition of 'rape' to the exclusion of the meaning of that word as it often is used in everyday life and of the evidence of what actually occurred between Ms. Carroll and Mr. Trump," the ruling said. In the meantime, we’ve added the section Federal and state criminal cases against Trump and in January, at the latest, will probably add a section on the civil cases (at least three I know of, Carroll II and ACN scheduled for January, NY tax case unknown date), so I personally wouldn’t want to pet-sematary the discussion that stopped almost 3 months ago. Space4Time3Continuum2x (cowabunga) 11:34, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
  • Any close of any discussion involving Mr Trump is highly likely be challenged, and that's okay. Anyone qualified to close this is no stranger to close challenges. But I've been asked to recuse by an editor who meets the criteria I set; and therefore I recuse. This section can be hatted if you wish.—S Marshall T/C 17:37, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

@S Marshall: Do you have any figures or a personal estimate of the relative frequency of close challenges to Trump-related discussions? I do not recall that having been the case, nor do I expect it generally to be the case in the future. Thanks for your efforts here. SPECIFICO talk 19:37, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

Mug shot

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

Preventing Animal Cruelty And Torture Act

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

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

I'm not sure how biographically significant this is to put it in this article. It might better belong in Presidency of Donald Trump. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 19:38, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
I agree with you. Can we add it? 2600:1002:B157:B56:4AD:FE6D:1629:32F7 (talk) 20:35, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
@OuroborosCobra there are plenty of other pieces of legislation mentioned in this article, i don't see how this particular act is any less "biographically significant" 2604:3D09:6A7F:82C0:3C2F:CFAE:2217:63CB (talk) 18:58, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
This is an argument for reducing what we have to only mile stone acts, those of great significance. Slatersteven (talk) 19:05, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
I just think it’s a cool fact about the presidency also a lot of people agree it has value and should be added. Especially animal activists, not only that but he signed it into law and this is supposed to be a summary of his presidency so it does at least belong in the presidency section. 2601:14E:80:46D0:1D1F:BF57:3C27:533C (talk) 02:08, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
@2600:1002:B157:B56:4AD:FE6D:1629:32F7
It certainly is relevant to the article on the Trump presidency, but it has very little to do with Donald Trump himself, since he has never owned any pets, either growing up or in adulthood, and reputedly hates personal pets, in particular dogs and cats. Since it's legislation signed into law, anything on this topic should be moved to the Trump presidency and removed from his personal article since it has very little to do with him personally. The inclusion of this topic here in this article makes a mockery of Wikipedia and what it is supposed to be. Stevenmitchell (talk) 19:29, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

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

Justification for the replacement of the current infobox photo with the more recent mugshot taken by Fulton County Jail

WP:SNOW. There's no way this is going to be changed. --Jayron32 12:16, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

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

The current image in the infobox for Donald Trump is his official presidential portrait taken in 2017. This photo is directly associated with his term as President of the United States; a bygone era. The man has been in the public eye long before the beginning of his presidential campaign, and still is now well into the Biden administration. Therefore, the current image is no longer representative of his place in the world, and has not been since January of 2021. Currently, a more relevant image would be the mugshot taken by Fulton County Jail. This benefits from its recency, as well as its relation to current events concerning Donald Trump. IanTaggart1215 (talk) 02:25, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

WP:FART and probably WP:NPOV, IanTaggart1215. Muhibm0307 (talk) 02:47, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
Correct, and if we replace the the official photo with a current event photo, does that mean we replace that photo, with photo of Trump in an orange jumpsuit a few months from now? Should all dead presidents have their lead photo of them in their casket or a grave marker?Flight Risk (talk) 02:58, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
I think the booking photo definitely belongs on the page somewhere, since it is in itself an indelible part of his story, but at this point in time, it does not belong up top. Maybe at some point in the future, like if he actually is incarcerated or something, the mugshot may serve that purpose. Aresef (talk) 03:50, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
WP:MUGSHOT Images of living persons should not be used out of context to present a person in a false or disparaging light. I think putting the mugshot in the infobox is intentional to present him in a disparaging light, or at least does so enough to run afoul of WP:NPOV. Put it in the appropriate section on the indictment but keep the infobox photo as is. – Muboshgu (talk) 04:22, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
In agreement. The mugshot does belong on the page in the relevant section, but we should leave the infobox as is. Cubuffs01 (talk) 05:01, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
The current photo is years old and out of date. Also is related to his previous occupation; while the new one is more current and related to his recent endeavours. I'd suggest a caption something like this in the infobox.
Donald Trump/Archive 160
Official Georgia mug shot of Trump, angry at his fourth arrest in as many months, wearing a dark blue suit jacket, white shirt, and red necktie
Official mug shot, 2023
Nfitz (talk) 05:23, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
Per WP:FREER, we should not use a non-free image (like the mugshot) to replace free images. Di (they-them) (talk) 05:44, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
The solution to that is adding his latest portrait, rather than replacing. Nfitz (talk) 06:15, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
I agree mainly because.
1. It's a recent picture, we haven't updated the picture in almost 7 years.
2. Most Mugshot images are public domain so Wikipedia should have no problem being able to use the mugshot on the website, although correct me if I'm wrong for this one, since the pictures of him are on the news and I'm just sourcing this from other celebrities who have their mugshots as their picture (i.e YNW Melly.) sexy (talk) 07:21, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
@IPhoneRoots It'd get in the way of NPOV - mugshots, by design, make their subject look like a bad person. Trump undeniably is a bad person, but it's not Wikipedia's place to pass that judgement. I also believe YNW Melly's should be removed. Couruu (talk) 09:16, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

While I would personally be happy to see the mugshot replace the official photograph, WP:MUGSHOT applies here, and it can't be done. However, it's entirely reasonable to look for a more recent photograph than the 2017 one, which is a carefully chosen, lit and posed (and quite possibly also retouched) official photograph intended to portray Trump in the most favorable possible light. Trump now looks very little like that photograph, and a more realistic photograph would be appropriate. — The Anome (talk) 09:32, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

@The Anome Also to comment on this - Joe Biden, Barack Obama, George W Bush, Bill Clinton - there's a pretty strong tradition of using official photographs to portray presidents. Couruu (talk) 09:39, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
We're still using the official portraits of all presidents going back to Truman. If Trump is convicted on any of the charges, we can reopen the discussion IMO. (Forgot to sign when I posted.) Space4Time3Continuum2x (cowabunga) 12:01, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

There's no general assumption that mugshots are public domain. Works created by Federal agencies (in the course of their duties) are usually public domain. The states of Florida and California also have provisions which make their mugshots usually public domain (that probably covers the majority of existing mugshots), and there's a few other quirks in the system. However there's no indication at this time that images from Fulton County Sheriff's Office or the State of Georgia are public domain. Our Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline requires that a rationale is provided for each article that a non-free image is used in. There's currently no rationale listed at File:Donald Trump mug shot.jpg for its usage in this article, and it will keep getting removed entirely until one is provided. Other things aside, when you consider a rationale, it's not going to be for identification of the subject at the top of the article; it's going to be in some sub-section about his current predicament. -- zzuuzz (talk) 11:26, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

A non-free use rationale was posted around the time you posted here. It says that The current version will not be deleted, only previous revision(s). We're linking to the current version, and the image is at Donald_Trump#Federal_and_state_criminal_cases_against_Trump, so we're complying with applicable WP rules, I think. Space4Time3Continuum2x (cowabunga) 12:12, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
Fulton County mugshots are not public domain -- but you can easily get permission. This was done for Giuliani's. But, it does not belong in the infobox. If he's convicted, that's another story. O3000, Ret. (talk) 12:13, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
Absolutely. If he's convicted, his crimes would become the central aspect of his presidency - indeed, his whole life - as the first ever U.S. president to have been tried and convicted of a crime while in office, and updating the image, say with an image taken during the trial, would become a serious prospect. — The Anome (talk) 13:56, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
  • I don't see a realistic scenario (beyond a new official portrait...) where the infobox photo should be changed. Right now, the Fulton County mugshot obviously should not be the image used (see WP:MUGSHOT) because of the presumption of innocence that goes along with NPOV, V, etc. There should be little reason to depart from the near universal standard of using official portraits for presidents photos. The standard makes sense to me because the presidency is generally the most significant part of any given presidents life. A Trump conviction would not be more relevant than his presidency itself. The mugshot is perfectly fine where it's at now in the body. Iamreallygoodatcheckers talk 21:50, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
    Chex, the "mugshot" is a carefully posed portrait, prepped by a makeup artist who most likely flew with him on the plane to secure the hair with extreme aerosol, and Trump himself is already publishing it far and wide. There's no shame or presumption of conviction attached to publishing this photo. Moreover, many presidents have been more successful at things other than being president: Eisenhower, Reagan, and Pappy Bush for starters. SPECIFICO talk 22:15, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
    Jeez, I almost forgot: Herbert Hoover SPECIFICO talk 22:17, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
    The general practice on Wikipedia is to not have mugshots as infobox photos especially without a conviction because it can convey guilt of a crime that has not been established. Either way I've laid out my arguments -- article consistency and relative significance -- as to why I think the official presidential portrait should stand both now and in the future. If you oppose my position, please explain why this "posed portrait, prepped by a makeup artist who most likely flew with him on the plane to secure the hair with extreme aerosol" should be the infobox photo. Otherwise, I don't see why this exchange should continue. Iamreallygoodatcheckers talk 22:31, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
    I wasn't opposing your conclusion about the infobox. But since The question has been closed as snow no, I didn't understand why you continued beneath the close box. I just pointed out -- to the extent that these discussions will relate to the other decision about using his photo elsewhere on the page -- that your reasoning is incorrect. There's no implication of guilt in a mugshot, especially a beautifully posed one such as Trump's, that makes him look like an action superhero. SPECIFICO talk 22:49, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
    Nor should we mention that he gained an inch in height and lost 20 pounds since his April booking. O3000, Ret. (talk) 23:03, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
  • The infobox (presidential) image shouldn't be changed. Consistency with the other US Presidents infoboxes, is best. GoodDay (talk) 21:56, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Donald_Trump/Archive_160&oldid=1172375413"