Jump to content

Talk:Donald Trump/Archive 161

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 155←Archive 159Archive 160Archive 161Archive 162Archive 163→Archive 165

Six business bankruptcies

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

There was a discussion about this months ago that’s been archived. I suggested among other things: “keep bankruptcy figure but clarify it was business bankruptcies not personal bankruptcies”. The only response AFAIK was from User:SPECIFICO: “Also he didn't grow 4 arms. 4 personal bankruptcies, even for someone as old as Trump, would be difficult.” I still don’t understand this comment, I agree Trump does not have four arms, but I didn’t understand that comment as pertaining to inserting the word “business” before “bankruptcies” in the lead. Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:29, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
SPECIFICO, what's your grievance with saying "business bankruptcy"? Iamreallygoodatcheckers talk 07:17, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
I think User:SPECIFICO may have meant that it’s obvious from the present version of the lead that Trump didn’t have personal bankruptcies six times, since that would be an extremely unusual feat. But it’s not obvious from the present version of the lead that Trump didn’t have one or two personal bankruptcies, with the rest being business bankruptcies. Anythingyouwant (talk) 08:48, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
So much attention is making this old gal blush! Please follow ONUS and see whether you can gain support for your preferred word. SPECIFICO is not going in the article, so discussing her is barking up the wrong tree. SPECIFICO talk 11:50, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

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

Well, it's not to the level of "I didn't rape her, I just sexually assaulted her."--User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 14:07, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
Except for I didn't shoot the deputy, not much is. Space4Time3Continuum2x (cowabunga) 15:36, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

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

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

Cherrypickin' courtesy of Google. SPECIFICO talk 19:30, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
If there’s no stigma attached to personal bankruptcy, then you should be able to find a reliable source that says so. I didn’t see any such sources. Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:06, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
One of your sources was published in 2004, the other one in 2006. The data both papers are based on is 20 years old or older. I haven't been able to find any newer sources, pro or contra — don't know what that indicates, general indifference to the subject? Space4Time3Continuum2x (cowabunga) 13:36, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
  • The "business bankruptcy" revision is more precise and it only adds one more word and a wiki link to the lead. I support it. Iamreallygoodatcheckers talk 20:48, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
  • Clarification isn't a bad thing. By all means add "business bankruptcy", to the sentence. GoodDay (talk) 20:50, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
    That is not the qadduestion we are disussing. And it's false. Adding excessive detail interrupts and dilutes the narrative. Consider all the adjectives that you could add before his name in the lead? If you care to support your view with relevant reasoning that addresses the stated objections, that would be helpful. SPECIFICO talk 21:08, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
    As the person who started this thread and who raised the question we’re discussing, I agree that clarification isn't a bad thing, and adding the word "business” before “bankruptcies” in the lead would be wise. Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:32, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
  • I'm actually good with adding "business". Six business bankruptcies are quite the "discrediting predicament" such as poor financial performance, times six, per "Stigma of Bankruptcy: Spoiled Organizational Image and Its Management", another blast from the past (1987, four years before Trump's first bankruptcy). competent leaders are expected to exercise control over their organizations and that such control is expected to lead to organizational success, not to more than $1 billion in debt that the business can't pay interest on or repay. I'm opposed to add the link, per consensus #60 and MOS:OVERLINK. IMO business and bankrupty are "everyday words understood by most readers in context (e.g., education, violence, aircraft, river)". Space4Time3Continuum2x (cowabunga) 13:36, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
    If it's to be added, it should be stated it in proper English. "Business" is not an adjective. Six Trump businesses went bankrupt, six of his businesses filed for bankruptcy, or something. Were they all petitions filed by Trump? What were the circumstances? Were some forced by creditors? SPECIFICO talk 13:46, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
    Of course it’s an adjective. Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:43, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
    There's a lot of improper English going around — business hours, business environment, business jet, business class. Don't creditors and their pesky requests for payment of interest and principal usually "force" debtors to go to bankruptcy court? It's a summary, thousands of legal actions, including six trips to bankruptcy court. I'm good with "bankruptcy" and "business bankruptcy", prefer the shorter version but meh. Space4Time3Continuum2x (cowabunga) 14:53, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
    I still oppose "business bankruptcies" and prefer the status quo "bankruptcies". One cannot have 6 personal bankruptcies. It would be like having six appendectomies. I think the insertion of "business" is an awkard, unnecessary, and misleading dilution of the narrative. SPECIFICO talk 15:33, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
    One can have two personal bankruptcies and four business bankruptcies. Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:43, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

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

How about six of his businesses went bankrupt. Is that what you want want to be sure that our readers know? SPECIFICO talk 13:10, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
If we talk about Bankruptcies in the lead, then we should insert the word business to clarify that they are business bankruptcies. The word business is obviously an adjective, I gave you a link to the dictionary, as in business deals business arrangements business trips etc. etc. etc. etc. Anythingyouwant (talk) 14:47, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
That is not the issue I raised immediately above. I proposed a compromise that includes your "business" but makes it clear that it was Trump's businsesses that were forced into bankruptcy, not that he pursued others as plaintiff/creditor. I thought you would respond before you made the article edit. It will be evident to future generations of editors that "He and his businesses"..."Business bankruptcies" is redundant. Ciao. SPECIFICO talk 19:55, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
It is not redundant, because the word "business" excludes personal bankruptcy. We could add lots more modifers besides "business" but I think one is enough. Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:40, 12 August 2023 (UTC)
It is both settled and nonsense. Gratuitous detail that clutters the summary lead content and, contrary to your apparent belief, does not fully specify the meaning of the sentence. SPECIFICO talk 12:29, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

Criminal Status

The lone reply sums it up well and should go without saying. Non-starter unworthy of further discussion. Eligible for manual archival after this time tomorrow, per consensus #13. ―Mandruss ☎ 01:05, 26 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.

Idk if this has been discussed but should "Criminal Status" be added to the infobox? GamerKlim9716 (talk) 00:47, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

A criminal is, by definition, somebody who has committed a crime. Because he has not been convicted, he is innocent until proven guilty. In the eyes of the law, he has not been proven to have committed any crime. To add criminal status to the infobox of somebody who is (currently) not convicted of any crime violates neutral point of view because it makes the assumption that he's guilty without due process. Di (they-them) (talk) 00:54, 26 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.

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 25 August 2023

change photot to mugshot 2605:B100:117:4AD8:1D19:2397:85BC:AC13 (talk) 23:28, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: #Justification for the replacement of the current infobox photo with the more recent mugshot taken by Fulton County Jail Hyphenation Expert (talk) 23:31, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

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

trump indicted

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

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

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

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

Do you have links to reliable sources that describe this "cult of Trump" going back to the 1980s? As for the contributions of editors outside the United States, Wikipedia is a worldwide project, and anybody anywhere in the world can contribute to any article on any topic, as long as they comply with our policies and guidelines. We don't do nationality tests. As for information about Trump being "largely unavailable" in other countries, that assertion is without merit. Media outlets worldwide cover Trump heavily, and anybody with a working uncensored internet connection in any country has easy access to vastly more Trump content than any human being can possibly read. Cullen328 (talk) 02:27, 12 August 2023 (UTC)
This is partly covered by Public image of Donald Trump.--Jack Upland (talk) 02:51, 12 August 2023 (UTC)
WP had a page called MAGA cult which was moved to Trumpism. I'm fairly certain that Trump didn't have an "ardent cult following" in the 1980s — can't prove a negative, 'though. In the 80s, he did seek and get a lot of publicity, including a lot of ridicule. When "The Apprentice" became a success on reality TV, Trump used that success to advertise products offered/made by others, such as real estate training courses and the ACN videophone. The only property he's ever owned in Las Vegas, afaik, is the Trump International Hotel Las Vegas, the No. 10 ugliest building in the world and the sixth ugliest building in the U.S., which he co-owns with Phil Ruffin (it's a condo-hotel, unknown how many units were sold. It doesn't have a casino and didn't open until 2008. Space4Time3Continuum2x (cowabunga) 12:20, 12 August 2023 (UTC)
Sixth ugliest building in the U.S. is a wild description but I second this. If you find reliable sources (and in this case more scholarly sources would be warranted in my opinion) that discuss this "cult of Trump" extensively then we can probably include a short paragraph somewhere in the article. Cessaune [talk] 01:53, 13 August 2023 (UTC)
The only mention of Trump in the 1980s that I am familiar with is the Marvel Comics supervillain of that name, a stage magician and illusionist. His big ego, a tendency to abuse or kill his employees, and a lust for beautiful women were the character's only personality traits. Dimadick (talk) 23:13, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

14th Amendment

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

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

Why are the charges against Trump buried in this article?

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

If you have specific suggestions as to improvement of the article, please present them. Otherwise, "disgrace. Sad!" is pointless. SPECIFICO talk 12:37, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
Why, he has not been found guilty yet. Slatersteven (talk) 12:38, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
They're not buried. Per our consensus #37 they're limited to summary-level in the body and in the last paragraph of the lead. Space4Time3Continuum2x (cowabunga) 13:40, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
You and at least 2 other people who have brought this concern to the talk page seem to not realize that Wikipedia is not news and thus that the lead of a Wikipedia article is not meant to follow the inverted pyramid structure of a news article. The lead is meant to summarize the body, and the body is meant to tell the story of the man's life, and chronological order is important to that endeavor. ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 14:08, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
I mean, Trump tried to illegally overthrow the duly elected US Government and install himself as unelected dictator after losing the election. It's a pretty big deal. 67.82.74.5 (talk) 14:34, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
See wp:blp until he is found guilty of any of these, he is innocent of all of them. Slatersteven (talk) 14:44, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
Hmm, when did that happen? He tried to state the election was his, and he'd be PRESIDENT again. Not "dictator." If you want to be take seriously, stay within the realms of reality. HammerFilmFan (talk) 03:02, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
  • Because it's a huge article about a topic where we have a ton of stuff to discuss, so it's hard to avoid things getting "buried." If you have a proposal for how it could be restructured, go ahead and offer it, but the charges do get nearly an entire paragraph at the end of the lead (and the two paragraphs above it, while not about them directly, discuss events that lead to them.) Currently the lead is mostly chronological because... imagine someone who knows little to nothing about Trump reading it. There's a lot of other biographical details we have to introduce before the charges even make sense - we have to talk about him being president and about the 2020 election before we can talk about his attempts to overturn the 2020 election, and we have to talk about his attempts to overturn the 2020 election before we can talk about charges stemming from that in particular. --Aquillion (talk) 14:42, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

Overlinking in the lead

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

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

E Jean Carroll civil case finding sexual abuse

Withdrawn by proposer in favour of regular editing of recent BOLD inserted text. I had not realised, nor expected, that text’s insertion, after this month’s recommendation to be holding off until the appeal court's decision. starship.paint (exalt) 23:13, 14 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.

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

Should we include the following text?

Proposed text:

In November 2022, columnist E. Jean Carroll sued Trump for battery, alleging that he "forcibly raped and groped her" in a Manhattan department store in 1995 or 1996, and also sued him for defamation for his October 2022 statement, which included Trump's claim that Carroll "completely made up" the allegation.[1] The jury's verdict, delivered in May 2023, stated that Carroll had proven that Trump sexually abused her and defamed her; thus the jury ordered Trump to pay $5 million to Carroll for damages.[2] Federal judge Lewis Kaplan dismissed Trump's counter-claim that Carroll had defamed him by alleging rape. In his ruling, Kaplan stated that jury's verdict found that Trump did rape Carroll in the common understanding of the word, which includes digital rape.[3] Trump has appealed the jury verdict against him.[4]

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

References

  1. ^ Neumeister, Larry (November 24, 2022). "Elle advice columnist who accused Trump of rape has filed a new upgraded lawsuit". Fortune. Associated Press. Retrieved May 11, 2023.
  2. ^ "Read the full Trump-E. Jean Carroll verdict text here". CBS News. May 9, 2023. Retrieved May 11, 2023.
  3. ^ "Trump Defamation Claim Against Rape Accuser Carroll Fails". Bloomberg News. August 7, 2023. Archived from the original on August 8, 2023. Retrieved August 14, 2023.
  4. ^ Neumeister, Larry (May 12, 2023). "Trump appealing jury's sexual abuse verdict and $5 million award". Associated Press. Retrieved May 14, 2023.

Survey (Carroll)

A question rather than a comment, in the "Discussion" section below. Space4Time3Continuum2x (cowabunga) 19:13, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
Thanks. Scorpions13256 (talk) 19:17, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
  • Support this wording (or merge with the version that was added yesterday.) This proposal is overall more detailed in terms of the accusation and Trump's response. Some parts and sources could be merged from the two versions, but overall nobody has really given a good reason to omit anything present in either; even with both of them combined it'll still be one relatively small paragraph. --Aquillion (talk) 20:04, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
    I think merging the text could work. We should see this as a working text open to helpful revisions. Iamreallygoodatcheckers talk 20:25, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
    Now that we're all aware that this proposal ignored the current article text, I see no basis to start from this as a "working text". As is always the case, the status quo is the working text, and having read the RS reporting and commentary on the matter, while this version might have been OK as a first try, it is in no respect better than the revision that SpaceX volunteered the time and effort to create. The past several days' discussion of this matter has been a waste of the time and attention we need for other improvements. SPECIFICO talk 22:07, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
    "the status quo is the working text" - I agree. But, I don't want people to see the current revision as written in stone through talk page consensus. If somebody want's to alter it (including merging aspects of Starship's proposal), it's something I'm open to. That's all I'm saying. Iamreallygoodatcheckers talk 22:14, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
    Well, fine but that's the opposite of what you wrote above. Nothing is ever in stone on this site. No worries there. SPECIFICO talk 22:33, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

Discussion (Carroll)

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


Mainstream sources on the jury's verdict - starship
  1. Associated Press (link)
  2. Reuters (link)
  3. Agence France Presse (link)
  4. CNN (link)
  5. NBC News (link)
  6. ABC News, American version (link)
  7. CNBC (link)
  8. CBS News (link)
  9. Bloomberg (link)
  10. USA Today (link)
  11. The New York Times (link)
  12. The Washington Post (link)
  13. The Wall Street Journal (link)
  14. NPR (link)
  15. PBS (link)
  16. UPI (link)
  17. Telemundo, national Spanish-language outlet in America - (link) (link)
  18. Australian Broadcasting Corporation (link)
  19. British Broadcasting Corporation (link)
  20. Al Jazeera (link)
  21. Der Speigel (link)
  22. The Guardian (link)
  23. Forbes staff (link)
  24. The Hill (link)
  25. Politico (link)

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

SPECIFICO, did you see the text I added yesterday? See Muboshgo's comment below, I amended the text a few times. Space4Time3Continuum2x (cowabunga) 17:59, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
SpaceX -- No, sorry I missed that. Yours is better and it accomplishes what I tried to suggest Starship do with a bold edit rather than an RfC. Starship -- did you see SpaceX's edit? If so, I would have expected your RfC to give the two alternatives. It feels like a bit too much insistence on the needless close request that SpaceX remedied with their new post-trial text. I will withdraw my !vote, thank you for bringing this to our attention, Muboshgu & Space. SPECIFICO talk 18:06, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

In May 2023, a New York jury in a federal lawsuit brought by journalist E. Jean Carroll found Trump liable for sexual abuse and defamation and ordered him to pay her $5 million.[1] Trump asked the court for a new trial or a reduction of the damage award, arguing that the jury had not found him liable for rape. In July, the judge denied the request, saying that Trump had misinterpreted the verdict. The appeal Trump filed separately with the federal appeals court is still pending.[2] In August, the judge dismissed Trump's countersuit for defamation, saying that the details of the jury’s findings showed that Carroll "having maintained that Trump raped her is 'substantially true'". Trump appealed the dismissal.[3]

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

Agreed. This appears to be unnecessary. Iamreallygoodatcheckers talk 18:20, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
@Starship.paint: (doesn't look like SPECIFICO's ping to you went through) Iamreallygoodatcheckers talk 18:21, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Sullivan, Becky; Bernstein, Andrea; Marritz, Ilya; Lawrence, Quil. "A jury finds Trump liable for battery and defamation in E. Jean Carroll trial". NPR. Retrieved 10 May 2023.
  2. ^ Orden, Erica (July 19, 2023). "Trump loses bid for new trial in E. Jean Carroll case". Politico. Retrieved August 13, 2023.
  3. ^ Reiss, Adam; Gregorian, Dareh (August 7, 2023). "Judge tosses Trump's counterclaim against E. Jean Carroll, finding rape claim is 'substantially true'". NBC News. Retrieved August 13, 2023.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

UNDUE rape detail added to article

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

Daily news

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

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

ok i see.....the article is just made up of news sources as to why I ask. Moxy- 11:52, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
News sources are widely available. starship.paint (exalt) 11:57, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
Got to be academic sources for older stuff by now. The article has very little research value.Moxy- 12:03, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
You are welcome to start adding them. Thanks! starship.paint (exalt) 12:06, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

Actually, WP:NOTNEWS applies to this article, too. We also have a local consensus, #37, above, that "[c]ontent related to Trump's presidency should be limited to summary-level about things that are likely to have a lasting impact on his life and/or long-term presidential legacy." It's just that editors disagree on what's WP:NOTNEWS, and some, especially those who are not regulars on this page, get overly enthusiastic about adding the latest headlines. Space4Time3Continuum2x (cowabunga) 12:37, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

Opening paragraph should not have the criminal indictments

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

I have removed the content. I see in the edit history that it was a WP:BOLD addition by an editor yesterday, so it did not have a consensus to include. Per BLP, I've removed it for now, at least. (On another note, I don't know what Michael Phelps has to do with anything here.) – Muboshgu (talk) 20:21, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
Michael Phelps has a history of legal issues and it was included in his opening paragraph as per Wikipedia's example of not being neutral, hence why I referenced it. It is not in the introduction anymore as it is inappropriate to include, as he is more known for his many achievements in Olympic swimming. The Financial Scribe (talk) 20:25, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
what policies and guidelines? why is the content "op-ed?" why is it "random stats?" just askin' is all. soibangla (talk) 20:35, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
On the left tab, there is a hyperlink that says "Learn to Edit". I am pretty sure you are supposed to go through the guidelines and policies before editing... As for why it is in op-ed, I am not sure. But his indictments are mentioned in the 5th paragraph and I think they are where it should be, if we are considering the chronological structure from the second paragraph onwards. The Financial Scribe (talk) 20:42, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
what PAGs did the edit contravene? does I think they are where it should be mean you just don't like the edit? soibangla (talk) 20:46, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
It seems like you obviously do not care for what reasoning I have as I have stated it in the comment you replied to. "considering the chronological structure from the second paragraph onwards". If you have anymore remarks, I will reply to them tomorrow at 9. I am done for the day :) The Financial Scribe (talk) 20:58, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
Soibangla, I believe you are referring to this edit. "Op-ed" referred to the sentence you added to the opening paragraph; the other stuff mentioned in the edit summary referred to other content in the lead that I reverted/corrected in the same edit. It showed up again when Sleyece reverted the lead to the version preceding my removal, saying that my next edit made Random Huge Changes to Lede Without Discussion. I said "op-ed" because within three years after leaving office and the sum total weren't supported by the body and the sources at the time, and I agree with the Scribe that we shouldn't be mentioning indictments in the first paragraph. MOS:OPEN: if Trump is convicted of a crime, we should mention it in the first paragraph, IMO, but until then he's innocent until proven guilty. The indictments are good where they are, in chronological order in the last paragraph.
it was not op-ed or random stats. as you note, your citation of OPEN is your opinion, but I see no mention of conviction there. I saw the edit as notable as no previous former president had ever been criminally indicted, let alone 91 times. that's all I got here. soibangla (talk) 13:06, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
Yeah, tbh, I'm calling this one as nonsense and WP:IDONTLIKEIT; you can't just say "Wikipedia's policies and guidelines" and have literally nothing to back that up. -- Sleyece (talk) 20:54, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
As I replied to the comment above, read my whole comment. You have ironically committed the very thing you accuse me of in a way by ignoring my reasoning so you can push your "I dont like it" edit. I specifically stated where in the Policies and Guidelines tab my reasoning is coming from. I will respond to any remarks at 9 tomorrow as I am done for the day. The Financial Scribe (talk) 21:00, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
I mean, you're correct in saying the indictment count has no business in the lede, but the "Wikipedia's policies and guidelines" shtick has been used to justify far more underhanded edits in the past. If you're going to reference policy it takes 2 seconds to call the template. -- Sleyece (talk) 21:04, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
Ok, perhaps you are correct in mentioning of how the PAG has been abused in making edits, but at least we agree on the fact that the original edit did not belong where it was placed. I know I am not as well versed with how edits are done in Wikipedia as most of my edits are on the topic of numbers and not words, which are much easier to do with no issues. I also started editing a few weeks ago at work as my workload is extremely light at the moment, which is why I only respond between 9-5 (LOL). The Financial Scribe (talk) 16:20, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
Which specific PAGs are you referring to? I've read the entire thread and have no idea. Cessaune [talk] 16:12, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
Click the Learn to Edit tab on the left and go though the prompts, then take the quiz. It is one of the examples in the questions. The Financial Scribe (talk) 16:16, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
Oh my! Started to go through the questions and found this "neutral" example: According to Simon Wiesenthal, the Holocaust was a program of extermination of the Jewish people in Germany, but David Irving disputes this analysis. Irving sure does but he's a discredited historian and Holocaust denier, so WP:UNDUE applies, probably also WP:FALSEBALANCE. Space4Time3Continuum2x (cowabunga) 17:06, 17 August 2023 (UTC) Looked at the answer above the question. The answer correctly says that Not neutral and that Irving's position of Holocaust denial is a fringe viewpoint that should not be given equal standing with the consensus among respected historians". Trouting myself. Space4Time3Continuum2x (cowabunga) 19:32, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

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

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

Consensus to change the infobox's alma mater field to "University of Pennsylvania (BS)".

This is a fairly sticky one. It would be a slam dunk for "University of Pennsylvania (BS)" if not for the existence of a prior, years-old consensus for the status quo. The lone dissenter's arguments have no policy basis, which is the only thing that might allow them to prevail over the other five editors. I see no evidence that reliable sources give us a compelling answer one way or the other (and I wouldn't expect them to do so).

The only issue is the amount of participation: We have barely more participation than in the existing consensus (as to the relevant parts of it), and no additional editors are jumping in. I still feel an RfC would be useful, but I'm not going to start one and there seems to be little other appetite for one.

In the end, this is a relatively minor issue and a matter of form rather than fact; i.e., no one is disputing that Trump attended Wharton, and this is stated in the body. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:53, 1 September 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 stand by my view that the RFC above is perfectly valid and that discussion has already happened multiple times on this issue, but on the chance that agreement is made that the RFC is premature and shut down, I strongly stand by my central argument which I will incorporate here:

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

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

  • Support "University of Pennsylvania (BS)" or "University of Pennsylvania (BS Econ.)" (BS Econ is the current consensus) in the infobox and "University of Pennsylvania" in the lead. The infobox said "University of Pennsylvania" until this edit on Jan 3, 2016, added Fordham University. This edit without edit summary on Jan 8 replaced Fordham and UPenn with Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania. The info then changed several times in 2016, with and without Fordham, Wharton, U of Penn, and (BS), followed by the discussions mentioned in consensus #18.
We had the same back-and-forth in the lead. A month ago this edit changed Wharton School to UPenn with this edit summary: Corrected "Wharton School" to "University of Pennsylvania", which is the institution from which Donald Trump was graduated and received a BS degree. A business school at a university is not a degree-granting institution graduates of most other undergrad programs refer to the university, not school, as their alma mater. ("Wharton grad" e.g. as a metonym is widely understood as referring to an MBA graduate, not a Penn undergrad with a business major.) Amen. It was Trump who, for decades, claimed genius status for having attended a school that only admitted geniuses, without mentioning that he attended the undergraduate school and not the MBA program. Space4Time3Continuum2x (cowabunga) 14:17, 19 August 2023 (UTC) Changed format from indent to bullet point. GoodDay, maybe you want to consider changing the format of your post, as well? Space4Time3Continuum2x (cowabunga) 10:16, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
Procedural note: This would not change #18, as suggested in the section heading, but rather create a new consensus item superseding #18. This creates a clearer record. Follow existing examples. Existing items are occasionally "changed", but not in cases of complete reversal such as this would be. ―Mandruss ☎ 15:09, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
What is the basis for this? SPECIFICO talk 15:21, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
That may be my fault — supporting changing the infobox entry AND suggesting to add the language in the lead. (Or maybe not, see "complete reversal". Space4Time3Continuum2x (cowabunga) 15:38, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
Basis? Clearer record, and precedent. What other kind of basis did you have in mind? ―Mandruss ☎ 15:47, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
No objection from me, for changing "Wharton School" to "University of Pennsylvania", if that means maintaining consistency & precedent. GoodDay (talk) 15:43, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
Support. All the points made are valid. The arguments against this fall flat in comparison. Cessaune [talk] 02:01, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
We now have four Supports and one "no objection", which I read as a Tepid Support. No Opposes. Even at 100% support, I don't think we have nearly enough participation to supersede #18. At the same time, the challenge is well articulated and I don't think it should be allowed to die a natural death in these circumstances. So, unless we have a substantial influx of participation in the next week or so, while remaining at a high support percentage, I'd suggest we declare RFCBEFORE satisfied and take this back to RfC. (Note, I'd be arguing "settled issue" if #18 weren't 3-6 years old. I've no objection to revisiting a consensus after that amount of time, particularly when new arguments are raised.) ―Mandruss ☎ 03:17, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
If nobody comes to oppose just change it. A RfC would be overly bureaucratic. Iamreallygoodatcheckers talk 03:39, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
Agreed. Especially considering the number of talk page watchers that could chime in at any moment. Cessaune [talk] 03:46, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
I disagree (obviously). An existing consensus can only be changed by a stronger consensus, and amount of participation is one of the factors in the strength of a consensus. Otherwise, two editors in agreement could change any existing consensus. 90% of 12 editors is a stronger consensus than 100% of three editors, in my view. ―Mandruss ☎ 03:50, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
In my humble opinion, I think that the "stronger consensus" argument applies only to cases of extreme controversy or recent consensus. And 2017 is, frankly speaking, a long time ago when you think about it in a Trump context. However, I honestly don't even think consensus 18 applies here.
The argument in the August 2020 discussion wasn't between The Wharton School and The University of Pennsylvania, it was between The Wharton School and the Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania. Consensus 18 seems to me to be a consensus against The Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania and not a consensus for The Wharton School.
So, in my opinion, the arguments brought up above by GreenFrogs are new arguments that do not have to take into account consensus 18. Cessaune [talk] 04:25, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
Change or supersede — meh, I'm good either way. "Not applicable" does not apply — we can change the wording or supersede with a new consensus or revert to the general free-for-all that preceded the consensus. A long time ago in a Trump context is 1968, the year he graduated. Space4Time3Continuum2x (cowabunga) 17:15, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

Iamreallygoodatcheckers, a bold edit while the discussion is still open and consensus #18 is still on the books? I realize that the participation was underwhelming, the last edit was five days ago, and the five editors who voiced an opinion on substance supported the change but there's still Mandruss's dissent on the minimum number of participants. (Not sure how Mandruss counted the number of editors who supported "Wharton School" in the four discussions mentioned in #18. I find the number of options editors voted on a tad confusing.) Space4Time3Continuum2x (cowabunga) 14:55, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

I didn't look at the discussions that closely, and I probably should have (thanks for doing that). I was just going on my memory of higher participation in those discussions over all. I'll withdraw my comment about participation, but an RfC consensus would be more durable, reducing the likelihood that this will be changed again years from now by a different small group of editors. ―Mandruss ☎ 16:37, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
There may have been some discussions that weren't cited in the consensus. Pinging the other editors who've participated to see how they want to proceed: Iamreallygoodatcheckers, GreenFrogsGoRibbit, Cessaune, GoodDay, SPECIFICO. Space4Time3Continuum2x (cowabunga) 14:54, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
My position hasn't changed. Recommend we go with "University of Pennsylvania". GoodDay (talk) 19:20, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
My position remains the same. Infobox is perfect as is. When @SPECIFICO says "Wharton is a separate college within U of P" I have no idea what that means. Separate from what? The other colleges under UPenn? Well yeah, that's how it works at every university in the USA. Harvard College is separate college from Harvard Law School within Harvard University. That doesn't mean for Harvard alums we hyperfocus on the specific department in the infobox, rather we simply say Harvard University in the infobox since that's the institution granting the degree. If SPECIFICO meant to imply there is a fundamental difference between Wharton and UPenn, then we would need to engage in massive editing to comply with that. Starting from Trump to Musk to Warren Buffet, we'd have to eliminate them from the UPenn alumni page and erase the factual claim UPenn even has a president alumnus. Everytime Trump or Musk declared they attended UPenn we'd have to say that's a false claim (even though it isn't), and since UPenn has claimed both Trump and Musk as alumni we'd have to charge the university as lying as well. Here's a question, why would we limit this erroneous practice to UPenn? Do we next say Harvard Business School is separate from Harvard and that all alumni from there are wrong to claim to be a Harvard alumnus? Every time Harvard or UPenn provides funds to their respective business school or chooses a dean for their school do we refuse to write about it and ban users who report it? In sum, if Wharton is a separate school from UPenn then that's false, and if it's a separate school within UPenn then the "within" is operative and we focus on the institute granting the degree, not the department within.
After years, we have finally fixed this page and aligned it with every other Presidential page and UPenn alumni. Let's not ruin it again. GreenFrogsGoRibbit (talk) 03:40, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
You can change the consensus, but you can't force the edit through and then hope the consensus item will follow. Repeated such action can and should be treated as disruption in the AP2 arena. I have reverted with the editsum: "Talk:Donald Trump#Current consensus, item 18. There is no such thing as a 'BOLD' edit against the consensus list. It has never worked that way since inception of the list.This issue remains under discussion." ―Mandruss ☎ 04:11, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
Um I didn't make the edit, but I supported it. It could be justified under WP:IGNORE. Iamreallygoodatcheckers, Cessaune, GoodDay, do any of you have a suggestion to prevent others from doing Mandruss did, erroneously hyperfocusing on a miscellaneous department of a University and degree of Trump a practice that exists for no other President or alumnus of the school all throughout Wikpeidia. I can start an RFC to formally overrule item 18, but if any of you have another way to keep this wrong infobox? GreenFrogsGoRibbit (talk) 12:36, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
Time to take the dog for a walk? Still waiting for Checkers's reply. Space4Time3Continuum2x (cowabunga) 13:18, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
Space4Time, I have given my position and there is nothing more for me to say. Wharton is part of UPenn and in infobox's we don't differentiate between colleges. Almost everyone on the Supreme Court went to Harvard Law School or Yale Law School but in the infobox's it's "Harvard University (JD)" or "Yale University (JD)". And the distinction between a law school and the undergrad is significant, but it doesn't make a difference for the purposes of the infobox. If you go look at the infobox's of Wharton alumni -- some notable one's would be Elon Musk and Warren Buffett -- it would say "University of Pennsylvania". This article is inconsistent with other articles and departs from editorial norms. This is why I support change.
I made a bold edit to correct this after I saw the will of the discussion pointing towards a change. I was reverted and that is fine. There have been objections raised that the edit was inappropriate because it counters the consensus item list. While I have respect for the consensus list, I don't believe it's the law of the land. IMO, it's overly bureaucratic to have to launch a RfC to change this. I don't see this as a "protecting the process" issue but rather wikilawyering. Furthermore, I do believe a RfC needs to be launched over this as it's too small of an issue. Instead, I will accept that the bureaucratic tendencies of the community have been successful at filbustering meaningful change that this discussion had supported at the time. You could say it's a catch-22; consensus is too strong to change in small discussion but the issue is not important enough to bring to larger attention. So we are stuck with the status quo. This is just how it works around here. Business as usual. Iamreallygoodatcheckers talk 19:28, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
Personally I agree with the points that GreenFrogs has made. I was opposed to an RfC but at this point we're just prolonging a discussion that will likely end in one anyway. Let's just get it started. Cessaune [talk] 16:05, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
But they are not "points" - they're just lots of conjecture, false analogy, and snark. We don't need to go to RfC on every failed proposal. Let's improve the page instead. SPECIFICO talk 16:11, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
While I don't agree with Greenfrogs tone at all times, I do think that points are being made, and I do agree with them. 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)". While correct protocol isn't necessarily true, this is defintely a point and not simply conjecture. Cessaune [talk] 16:20, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
We have five editors supporting "University of Pennsylvania", one supporting "Wharton School", one neutral. Sorry, Specifico, that may be weak participation, possibly because the guy is facing 91 criminal indictment and people don't care which school's name is printed on his degree, but it's not a failed proposal. How many participants do we need to? We're not trying to override community consensus, and there are no POV or BLP concerns. We can still go to RfC if people start edit-warring over the alma mater. I agree with Checkers that an RfC would be overly bureaucratic, I just don't agree with their bold editing against consensus #18. Space4Time3Continuum2x (cowabunga) 19:32, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
Two bits of clarification: 1. I know you didn't make the edit, GreenFrogs, but you supported it by your own admission, so you're properly included in my plural "you". 2. I am not "hyperfocused" on the alma mater field – I personally don't care about it one way or the other – but I will vigorously defend the process that I strongly believe has played a large part in keeping this highly contentious article's editing relatively peaceful for seven years. Process is important. Achieve a change to #18 by whatever means necessary, then do the edit; that's how it works. Thank you (plural) for not re-reverting. ―Mandruss ☎ 17:57, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
Instead of deflectinng this issue to a discussion of Wikipedia pages, the relevant research would have been to consult the U of P website pages that describe the separate Wharton and Arts & Sciences programs. You do not appear to be familiar with the programs at Penn, but you can easily familiarize yourself with the distinctions by reviewing the information he university publishes on its website, e.g. [1] [2] [3] [4]. After you've digested the information there, please indicate whether your view is still as stated above. FYI, Harvard Business School is not a separate undergraduate college within Harvard U, but WP certainly does differentiate Harvard College undergraduate degrees from HBS degrees. SPECIFICO talk 13:27, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
In 1968, UPenn had a number of colleges and schools (see page 3), but only one Commencement for the Conferring of Degrees] in courses (page 8). The Wharton School of Finance and Commerce bestowed various Bachelor, Associate, and Master degrees (page 19, Trump's name is on page 21, Bachelor of Science in Economics). As of today, FAQ: All students in the Wharton School’s undergraduate program receive a Bachelor of Science in Economics degree from the University of Pennsylvania, even those with a real estate concentration like the orange super genius, I imagine. Space4Time3Continuum2x (cowabunga) 14:35, 31 August 2023 (UTC) Aaand, then there is this (left hand not knowing what the right one is doing?): Graduates earn a BS in Economics from the Wharton School. Space4Time3Continuum2x (cowabunga) 15:52, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
And Wharton is BS, while Arts & Sciences is BA. That is the important distinction - biz vs. econ. SPECIFICO talk 16:01, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
Trump didn't go to the College of Arts and Sciences (which didn't offer Economics in 1968 — see the commencement program), he went to Wharton. And that genius school for geniuses gives contradicting answers about the degree graduates will earn. Wharton Admissions FAQ says that "students in the Wharton School’s undergraduate program receive a Bachelor of Science in Economics degree from the University of Pennsylvania" while the Wharton "Academic Programs" page says that "graduates earn a BS in Economics from the Wharton School". Doesn't Trump have his degree up on one of his I-love-me walls? Space4Time3Continuum2x (cowabunga) 17:39, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

Vote

Keep Consensus 18 - Wharton is a separate college within U of P. BS makes it clear his concentration was their BS track. SPECIFICO talk 15:59, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

  • Change to "University of Pennsylvania (BSEcon)". Space4Time3Continuum2x (cowabunga) 19:36, 31 August 2023 (UTC) Striking "Econ". Space4Time3Continuum2x (cowabunga) 16:57, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
  • Change to "University of Pennsylvania". GoodDay (talk) 20:27, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
  • Change to "University of Pennsylvania (BS)" per all my reasons above. Iamreallygoodatcheckers talk 22:53, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
  • Change to "University of Pennsylvania (BS)" or "University of Pennsylvania (BS Econ)" per above reasoning by GreenFrogs. Cessaune [talk] 00:00, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
  • Change to "University of Pennsylvania (BS)" @SPECIFICO arguments make no sense. He points out that Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania and University of Pennsylvania School of Arts and Sciences are different schools within the University of Pennsylvania, but that does not contribute to his argument one bit. That's because for graduates of the University of Pennsylvania School of Arts and Sciences program we also simply say "University of Pennsylvania" not "University of Pennsylvania School of Arts and Sciences". We don't hyperfocus on the undergraduate department for those alumni either. The same applies to every undergraduate degree-granting department under UPenn including University of Pennsylvania School of Engineering and Applied Science and University of Pennsylvania School of Nursing. Indeed, for all those alumni, their infobox simply says "University of Pennsylvania" and no more. (Proof: George H. Heilmeier *engineering Mary Ellen Balchunis *arts and science Shirley Chater *nursing) Specifico would have us treat Wharton differently from the other three undergraduate institutions under UPenn and it's not clear why. Why is Wharton any more worthy of this special treatment than the other three undergraduate institutions mentioned above? None of the sources from UPenn he cites challenges these two basic facts. 1. The University of Pennsylvania has four undergraduate institutions. 2. With the exception of this page, for all of Wikipedia when we deal with any university graduate we focus only on the institution (not specific department) granting the degree. Actually, I am lying as Specifico would not have us treat Wharton differently from the other UPenn undergraduate departments. He would simply have us give Trump different treatment than literally everyone us since others who graduated from Wharton also followed the correct protocol in the infobox (Proof: Ivanka Trump). Finally, Specifico charge of "conjecture, false analogy, and snark" is no different from reading the communist manifesto and saying "this is dumb, poorly written, and unrealistic." All of us know how any instructor would respond "How? Explain? Actually, deal with the arguments posed." If this is the best the status quo has, it's time to stop giving this page special treatment from other Wharton school graduates and other presidents for no clear reason then a fundamentally flawed argument that Wharton is somehow more unique then the other three undergraduate departments of UPenn. GreenFrogsGoRibbit (talk) 14:31, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
    If Trump had a nursing degree and he emphasized, ABOUTSELF, that it came from the School of Nursing, then sources would most likely convey that fact -- just as both Trump and RS highlight Wharton. Wharton is a separate school within Penn, and uniquely renowned in the B-school world. It's not correct to call it a "department". That's how well-informed folks and journalists understand the institutional structure in RS. This thread is about the infobox, which is really too small to get so very excited about. But in the RS, in Trump's own narratives -- and most significantly in the article text of this and other WP pages about Wharton grads -- we make the distinction and cite Wharton as the nexus of various business leaders' education. SPECIFICO talk 15:19, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
    So your reasoning for giving Trump a unique infobox never before seen among other graduates of Wharton or presidents writ large is because of his rhetoric? Because he emphasizes it, it warrants this hyperfocus? This would have sweeping ramifications. If Obama starts emphasizing he went to Harvard Law, then say from 2030 to 2040 he suddenly stopped saying "Harvard Law" then said he went to "Harvard University" would we have to switch the infobox in accordance with how often he emphasized what? Would future talkpages go something like "oh he said Columbia college 30 times and Columbia university 29 times, so we have to switch the infob- OH WAIT in a speech a few minutes ago he said columbia university 3 more times so switch it again". Nonsense, we have never given subjects such control over infoboxes and as a general practice, when we look for the alma mater section of infoboxes we rely on the universities themselves not the subject whenever possible. This is why we don't have George Santos as an NYU graduate, though under your theory we would. As for the separate school within Penn, separate from what? It is an undergraduate department with the University of Pennsylvania and nothing more. It does not warrant this special treatment. The other three UPenn undergrad departments are also separate schools with UPenn. They are also undergraduate departments and nothing more. Well informed folks and journalists as well as the people who run UPenn would be very shocked to hear that their business' school has suddenly become an independent institute. You'd think UPenn would immediately sue Wharton for, well literally everything, if what you were saying was true. Of course, UPenn isn't going to sue one of it's own schools, because companies don't sue itself. We do not cite Wharton for other alumni, not even Trump's own daughter. The only real question is why does this erroneous practice only apply to UPenn. Why can't we pretend Harvard Business' School is completely separate from Harvard too? GreenFrogsGoRibbit (talk) 15:42, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

The four discussions forming consensus #18

  • Add Fordham University to Wharton and/or UPenn. Three yes, two no.
  • University of Pennsylvania — 0 yes, The Wharton School — 4 yes, University of Pennsylvania (The Wharton School) — 1 yes, Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania — 1 yes
  • Show BS in parentheses as (BS): 4 yes, one no
  • Use "Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania" in the Infobox. 1 yes, 7 no.
  • Use "University of Pennsylvania". 1 yes, 1 no

If an RFC is required? then so be it. GoodDay (talk) 19:30, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

Best cleanup would be to remove the Political Party, Residence, and Education entries so that we could get the infobox down to a reasonable length on various non-desktop devices. Those 3 are not very informative. SPECIFICO talk 17:03, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

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

I love how the conjecture, snide equivocation, false analogy, etc. continued even after everyone agreed it wasn't worth worrying about. A benchmark thread that will live on in the annals of CT talk pages. Thanks to Mandruss for the prompt close. SPECIFICO talk 20:46, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

E Jean Carroll lawsuits

When/Where/Carroll II defamation claim

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

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

Conflating Carroll I and Carroll II

  • I renamed the section to keep the discussion of E. Jean Carroll v. Donald Trump in one place. I just noticed that our current text conflates the two cases. Trump countersued Carroll in the 2019 case that hasn't gone to trial yet because it was hampered by Trump being president and the DOJ mulling over whether he made the remarks in his official capacity. The trial is scheduled for January 2024. We have two separate cases, and Trump has filed appeals in both cases. Here's an overview of both cases:
Carroll v. Trump (1:20-cv-07311) (Carroll I) (docket). November 2019: Carroll sues Trump for defaming her while he was president (by saying she made it all up). June 27, 2023: Trump sues Carroll for defaming him by saying in an interview after the jury verdict in Carroll II that he raped her. August 7: Judge dismisses Trump’s countersuit. August 10: Trump appeals dismissal.
Carroll v. Trump (1:22-cv-10016) (Carroll II) (docket). November 2022: Carroll sues Trump for Bergdorf attack in mid-90s and defamation after New York passed the Adult Survivors Act. May 10, 2023: Jury verdict. May 11, 2023: Trump appeals to Court of Appeals, Second Circuit. June 8: Trump motion for new trial. June 15: appeal was stayed. July 19: Judge denies request for new trial, stay on appeal is lifted.
Ran out of time to draft something for main space. Summary-level! Space4Time3Continuum2x (cowabunga) 15:11, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
Unless you want to explain everything, I simply noted that the counter-suit is in a different lawsuit: starship.paint (exalt) 23:09, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

Details of physical attack

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

Mainstream sources on the judge's ruling on penetration with fingers / digital rape - starship
  1. Associated Press (link) the ‘truth’ — that Mr. Trump forcibly digitally penetrated Ms. Carroll
  2. Reuters (link) - Kaplan said the May 9 verdict reflected a finding that Trump "deliberately and forcibly" penetrated Carroll's vagina with his fingers.
  3. Bloomberg (link) “It accordingly is the ‘truth,’ as relevant here, that Mr. Trump digitally raped Ms. Carroll.”
  4. CBS News ([5]) - the jurors' conclusion that he was liable for sexually abusing her by forcefully inserting his fingers was an "implicit determination that Mr. Trump digitally raped her."
  5. The New York Times (link) Kaplan wrote that the jury’s finding implicitly determined that Mr. Trump had forcibly penetrated Ms. Carroll with his fingers, which he said amounts to rape as the term is commonly used
  6. NBC News (link) - the jury believed Trump forcibly penetrated Carroll with his fingers. The verdict "establishes, as against Mr. Trump, the fact that Mr. Trump 'raped' her, albeit digitally rather than with his penis
  7. Al Jazeera (link) - The verdict reflected that “Mr Trump ‘raped’ her, albeit digitally rather than with his penis”
  8. The Washington Post (link) - that the conduct the jury effectively found Trump liable for — forced digital penetration — meets a more common definition of rape
  9. Politico (link) - the proof convincingly established, and the jury implicitly found, that Mr. Trump deliberately and forcibly penetrated Ms. Carroll’s vagina with his fingers
  10. NPR (link) - the jury in May established that "Mr. Trump 'raped her,' albeit digitally rather than with his penis."
  11. ABC News (link) - Judge Lewis Kaplan said the jury's finding "implicitly determined that he forcibly penetrated her" with his fingers.
  12. CNN (link) - Mr Trump ‘raped her’, albeit digitally rather than with his penis.
  13. Courthouse News (link) - the jury implicitly found, that Mr. Trump deliberately and forcibly penetrated Ms. Carroll’s vagina with his fingers
  14. Sydney Morning Herald (link) - the ‘truth’ — that Mr Trump forcibly digitally penetrated Ms Carroll
  15. UPI (link) he did, in fact, rape Carroll "digitally -- rather than with his penis."
As I stated above, this detail is UNDUE for this article and reads as salacious -- and frankly, pointless and disgusting -- content that adds nothing to the brief mention of the judge's finding. This is not the detailed article about the assault or of the trial. Such content could arguably be significant to the NPOV narrative of some other topcic, but not to the summary of Trump's life story on this page. The suit was about defamation and his ongoing defamation after the verdict in the lawsuit. SPECIFICO talk 01:11, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
This is a widely covered point in sources I provided above, ranging from news agencies, American newspapers, American news broadcasters and non-American media. Puzzling how you can claim that it is UNDUE in light of the evidence of 15 sources above. Carroll II lawsuit is clearly about sexual abuse, and the July ruling for Carroll II cited digital rape with fingers. starship.paint (exalt) 01:29, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
As I have said numerous times, and as experienced editors know, not all facts that are widely covered in news sources or that are verified by multiple sources, are DUE NPOV weight for every Wikipedia article. Just as we would not include that content in our page about rape, defamation, NY Courts, the judge, etc. etc. we do not need to include it in the life story of Potus 45. SPECIFICO talk 02:05, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
Bottom line is that editor SpaceX crafted good and sufficient, clear and concise, significant and complete text to add the new information about the court's finding of "rape". SPECIFICO talk 02:10, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
It seems that nothing would specific would satisfy you, since you reject the evidence. Good, sufficient, concise, complete, DUE is whatever you deem it. Again, the court finding on the verdict is that "Mr. Trump digitally raped Ms. Carroll." (Bloomberg). starship.paint (exalt) 02:37, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
We can word it differently: The judge rejected this in July and August, citing that the jury's verdict concluded that Trump digitally raped Carroll, so her rape allegations against him were "substantially true". starship.paint (exalt) 11:14, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

"It also avoids misleading readers into thinking penile rape occurred", "Trump digitally raped Carroll" — why is this distinction a BLP concern? The previous version is also WP:V and WP:DUE, IMO: Trump asked the court for a new trial or a reduction of the damage award, arguing that the jury had not found him liable for rape. In July, the judge denied the request, saying that Trump had misinterpreted the verdict. The appeal Trump filed separately with the federal appeals court is still pending.[1] In August, the judge dismissed Trump's countersuit for defamation, saying that the details of the jury’s findings showed that Carroll "having maintained that Trump raped her is 'substantially true'". Trump appealed the dismissal.[2] Space4Time3Continuum2x (cowabunga) 12:45, 16 August 2023 (UTC) Space4Time3Continuum2x (cowabunga) 14:10, 16 August 2023 (UTC) I'm OK with the current version, without any details. Space4Time3Continuum2x (cowabunga) 14:22, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

BLP concern is that simply stating rape is substantially true may mislead readers into thinking that penile rape / sexual intercourse was found to have happened. Britannica [6] rape … most often involving sexual intercourse, Merriam Webster [7] rape … usually sexual intercourse carried out forcibly, Law.com dictionary [8] Rape … the crime of sexual intercourse, From the case itself, New York law considers penile rape a more severe offence than digital rape (sexual abuse), so by avoiding the misunderstanding that he committed penile rape, we avoid WP:BLP issues. starship.paint (exalt) 15:07, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
this obsessive repetition of the details of a sexual assault is running afoul of multiple site-wide Contentious Topics, Now it appears to be second-guessing the judge whose opinion constitutes the only relevant fact and article content. These points have been answered many times. This is not about body parts. It's about a violent assault. That's what the jury and now the recent court ruling have found. If you do not accept editors' responses to your preferred narrative, you could take your views to a site-wide noticeboard where the larger issues can be fully addressed. SPECIFICO talk 15:18, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
How am I second guessing the judge when “digital rape” is literally the judge opinion of the jury verdict, a direct quote of the judge? It seems that you’re very happy if we label Trump as having committed rape, but once we state it is digital rape, it’s somehow so unacceptable! starship.paint (exalt) 23:18, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

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

Depends on what RS report at the time. It's not a common term, IMO (WP:IMPARTIAL), also judging by the results of a Google search. Why is it so important to make the distinction between "penile rape" and "digital rape"? You cited Britannica's article which goes on to say, In 2012 the U.S. Department of Justice adopted a new definition of rape, to be used in the FBI's Uniform Crime Reporting program, that better reflected state criminal codes and the experiences of rape victims. By that definition, rape is "the penetration, no matter how slight, of the vagina or anus with any body part or object, or oral penetration by a sex organ of another person, without the consent of the victim." Space4Time3Continuum2x (cowabunga) 11:08, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
Well, if digital rape is not a common term, we can use "forcible penetration with fingers". It's important to make the distinction between penile rape and digital rape because that literally affected the verdict in Carroll II, as New York law classified penile rape as "rape" and digital rape as "sexual abuse". The new definition of rape by the DOJ literally does not reflect the state criminal code, whereby the judge says: New York Penal Law definition of rape is limited to penile penetration. starship.paint (exalt) 02:00, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Orden, Erica (July 19, 2023). "Trump loses bid for new trial in E. Jean Carroll case". Politico. Retrieved August 13, 2023.
  2. ^ Reiss, Adam; Gregorian, Dareh (August 7, 2023). "Judge tosses Trump's counterclaim against E. Jean Carroll, finding rape claim is 'substantially true'". NBC News. Retrieved August 13, 2023.

I believe an inflection point has been reached

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

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

I thought we were trying to trim this page down. GoodDay (talk) 03:19, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
The lead section is hardly an area for size concern. ––FormalDude (talk) 03:26, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
sure, trim the bloated and buried lead, replace it with one succinct sentence: Trump was the only president to be twice impeached and later indicted on multiple criminal charges. Many have spent years dodging and dancing around this. No more. This defines him. Countless reliable sources support it. soibangla (talk) 04:04, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
I have no opinion on the underlying question but 1) the lead is the last place I would trim as it is the most visible and 2) condensing his impeachements and indictments into a single sentence is too much for me. Cessaune [talk] 12:22, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
Could you show what exactly you have in mind, maybe in a userspace draft with this new lead? DFlhb (talk) 13:23, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
  • It may be another inflection point but that remains to be seen. Is Trump, a former president, getting indicted on 4, 15, or 90 charges more remarkable/noteworthy/defining than Trump, the reality-TV actor and "Access Hollywood" video star, becoming president? WP:BLPCRIME applies to BLPs. Trump hasn’t been convicted of a crime. I support keeping the current order. Space4Time3Continuum2x (cowabunga) 16:50, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
    I think fine to give it some time, no rush. but I'm willing to bet that this time in his life will figure prominently by the time the book is written. Andre🚐 21:03, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
    The felony indictments are mentioned at the end of the lead, which is organized in chronological order, to the benefit of the reader. In my view, the indictments belong at the end of the chronological lead at this time. If Trump is convicted of any felony, I would favor a restructuring of the lead, but we can cross that bridge if and when one or more criminal convictions take place. At that time, we can re-evaluate. I do believe that the lead could be edited to retain all the main points but trimming and explaining the points more succinctly, summarizing more briefly the secondary points. I think that the lead content about the criminal charges can be condensed, emphasizing the main point that Trump has been crimininally indicted four times and that he has been charged with 91 felonies, with a far briefer summary of the charges. Those are the salient points, and the body of the article and the various spinoff articles can appropriately go into much greater detail about all of these very important things. Cullen328 (talk) 03:51, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

Birthplace City

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

Except that dude is from Queens -- it's important to his life story. Queens boy moves to Manhattan, makes it big. SPECIFICO talk 02:25, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
Queens is New York City. 67.82.74.5 (talk) 12:30, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
It's a borough of New York City but, as far as snooty Manhattanites were concerned (and in Trump's mind, it seems), he was a bridge-and-tunnel guy from Queens. Our current consensus, #2, is based on four discussions. Many people associate "New York City" with Manhattan. Space4Time3Continuum2x (cowabunga) 13:36, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
Which the infobox doesn't tell us and isn't fit to do so. All of that belongs in prose in the article. As a matter of simple vital statistics, all that belongs is "New York, New York, United States".--User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 21:29, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
See current consensus, item 2. Space4Time3Continuum2x (cowabunga) 10:37, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
How was that consensus reached? Banan14kab (talk) 05:26, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
Those links there next to the item will take you to the archived discussions. Linking NYC is a MOS:OVERLINK. Including Queens provides a lot more context than saying NYC alone. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:44, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
No objection to changing to "New York City, New York, U.S", for birthplace. Naming the entire city, would seem appropriate. GoodDay (talk) 21:47, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
GoodDay, you need to give reasons for your recommendations. We already know that is an option, but why? Have you ever seen that long string used to describe all or any part of NYC? Where? SPECIFICO talk 18:28, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
Having boroughs in place of city names, isn't something I support. If/when a discussion, in the proper place, concerning that topic should arise? I hope I'll be notified. On the question of why? It's personal choice. GoodDay (talk) 19:16, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
I live in NYC and have never heard it put: "New York City, New York, U.S". Besides, I heard he was born in Africa.O3000, Ret. (talk) 21:08, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
What about Richard Nixon, BORN: Yorba Linda, Orange County, California, USA, North America?
They left off Earth. O3000, Ret. (talk) 21:.49, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
He claimed to have grown up in Whittier, but many presidents were wittier than Nixon. SPECIFICO talk 22:45, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
Support keeping "Queens"; no reason to make it less precise and less concise. DFlhb (talk) 21:56, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
He is from Queens. Cant' you tell? SPECIFICO talk 22:52, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

False Claims

“Falsely claiming widespread electoral fraud” should be changed to “claiming widespread electoral fraud” in the second sentence of the second to last paragraph of the lead section. This is highly subjective, and people have conflicting opinions about whether the claims were false or not. It seems biased to report that they were. Wikipedia has a policy about keeping bias out of articles - regardless of whether you agree with the claim or not. PizzaManiac81 (talk) 21:07, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

 Not done The claims are false. There's nothing biased about reporting this fact as a fact. ser! (chat to me - see my edits) 21:13, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
Agreed...facts are facts...irrelevant request as PizzaManiac has already been booted for obvious reasons Anonymous8206 (talk) 02:51, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
@Anonymous8206: It is pointless to post in support of a "Not done" response to an edit request. The edit will not be performed unless there is a consensus against the "Not done", which is extremely rare since the responders generally know what they're doing. Moreover, at this article, an unnecessary follow-on comment such as yours complicates early archival of the thread per current consensus #13. Since your comment is pointless, we'll ignore it for the purposes of early archival. ―Mandruss ☎ 06:33, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
We being ? Anonymous8206 (talk) 16:44, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
The editors who visit the article almost every day, sometimes called its "regulars". ―Mandruss ☎ 17:45, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
Who are always going to get the last word..got it...I appreciated you not including me as I would never CONSENT to be included in a category of individuals who would practice rhetoric order to protect a known pedophile...the mugshot belongs in the article Anonymous8206 (talk) 19:18, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

Spelling mistake

Under Post-presidency (2021–present), at the very last line in the fourth paragraph, you will find this sentence:

Though there were exceptions, Trump's endorsement was seen as important for candidates in Republican primary elections.

the word *endorsement* should be plural, as *endorsements*. Torbslifre (talk) 23:00, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

But, it's one endorsement per candidate. GoodDay (talk) 23:08, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
I would change it to something like ...were exceptions, gaining Trump's endorsement... Cessaune [talk] 00:27, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
It's using the concept of endorsement, not as a countable noun, but as the general idea. It doesn't need a plural here. --Jayron32 12:27, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
I agree with Jayron32 here. It's not a spelling mistake in any way ("endorsement" isn't an incorrect spelling of "endorsements"), but there's also no subject-verb agreement issue. If using the possessive form for Trump is causing confusion for some, then I guess the sentence could be rewritten as "a Trump endorsement was seen (...)" (active voice) or as "an endorsement by Trump was seen (...)" (passive voice). -- Marchjuly (talk) 14:00, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

I've rephrased the sentence, forgot to add an edit summary. "Was seen as important" is true but not supported by the cited source. The source cites some of the better-known winners and losers and says in the subline that "candidates whom former President Donald J. Trump endorsed have racked up many wins and a handful of prominent losses". Space4Time3Continuum2x (cowabunga) 15:21, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

Scholarly ranking

This is just a minor suggestion, but on most other pages for presidents with notable ratings, the "Scholars and historians rank [name] as one of the [best/worst] presidents in American history" is usually at the end of the lede, even the last sentence. Andrew Johnson for example. Should that be the case here, or is it better to leave it be? I don't think it matters a tremendous amount either way, just figured I'd mention it. Delukiel (talk) 05:55, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

@Delukiel In my view, we tend to avoid placing that information in the lede unless someone is definitely retired from politics. Since Trump is running for at least one extra term, having a line like "Scholars generally rate him as one of the worst presidents" would break NPOV - also, I don't think enough studies have come out about his tenure to definitively make that conclusion. Couruu (talk) 09:18, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
@Couruu It's actually already on the article. My comment was just about its placement. Delukiel (talk) 12:16, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
@Delukiel Oh no, to be clear, it should 100% be in the article - just not in the lede until the politician retires. Couruu (talk) 13:23, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
It is in the lead though. Scholars and historians rank Trump as one of the worst presidents in American history. Cessaune [talk] 13:48, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
It's consensus #54, based on this September 2021 RfC, after his term in office had ended. Space4Time3Continuum2x (cowabunga) 14:17, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
@Cessaune Yeah I'm blind apparently. Ignore my comments, my bad. Couruu (talk) 16:24, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
Speaking of scholarly it`s spelled lead Anonymous8206 (talk) 23:17, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
Plenty of dictionaries have lede as a separate word. Delukiel (talk) 11:53, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
@Delukiel Well, Anonymous is *technically* correct - see WP:NOTLEDE. Very much picking hairs though. Couruu (talk) 15:01, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
  • Technically* WP:NOTLEDE only refers to the context of the first paragraph, not the term itself. Weirdly, "NOTLEDE" doesn't say "NOT to use LEDE"... Chaheel Riens (talk) 12:27, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
    To quote a footnote:
    "See WP:NOTALEDE for previous discussion of why "lede" is avoided in this guideline; in summary: it gives a false impression about the purpose, nature, and style of Wikipedia leads."
    Either way, we're getting horrendously off topic and bogging ourselves down in semantics. Everyone is gonna know what you mean by lede, even if its not 100% correct. Couruu (talk) 12:32, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
Yes, but for "the introductory section of a news story". WP is not a newspaper. Space4Time3Continuum2x (cowabunga) 15:06, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
That's fair, I just like spelling it that way. I don't know why, but I do.
Off topic regardless! Delukiel (talk) 11:57, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

Donald Trump booking photo Fulton County Georgia

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

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

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

Art Smart, see WP:FART.--Jack Upland (talk) 02:44, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
A triumph. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 02:47, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
I am not a lawyer, but am fairly familiar with copyright law and issues. Unless there is a Georgia law or standing policy by Georgia or the Fulton County Sheriff's Office on the issue, it's my belief that it's up to the Sheriff's Office whether the mugshot is copyrighted or in the public domain. I just submitted a media request to the Sheriff's Office, explaining my understanding and asking them for its copyright status. I wanted to make this known to hopefully reduce others from emailing them and adding to the pile. If and when I get a response, I'll post it. Note that I made clear my status as a (small time) volunteer editor, exactly what that means, and that I don't represent Wikipedia or Mediawiki, and am not employed, officially representing, chosen, reviewed, or endorsed by Wikipedia or the Mediawiki Foundation. That said, if they distributed the photo saying it can be used "in the normal course of business", I would strongly lean toward that at minimum Wikipedia is licensed to use the photo on this webpage. I also asked them if they can confirm the "in the normal course of business" language, and that it allows using the image in the article. Darlingm (talk) 10:08, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
GA Code § 35-1-19 (2022): "c. An arresting law enforcement agency shall not provide or make available a copy of a booking photograph in any format to a person requesting such photograph if:
  1. Such booking photograph may be placed in a publication or posted to a website or transferred to a person to be placed in a publication or posted to a website; and
  2. Removal or deletion of such booking photograph from such publication or website requires the payment of a fee or other consideration.
d. When a person requests a booking photograph, he or she shall submit a statement affirming that the use of such photograph is in compliance with subsection (c) of this Code section. Any person who knowingly makes a false statement in requesting a booking photograph shall be guilty of a violation of Code Section 16-10-20."
Do copyright and public domain even apply? Names, dates, charges, and mug shots of people arrested are government data available to the general public. In Georgia, the above restrictions apply. Who is authorized to sign a statement on WP's behalf that the photo will not be used commercially? Space4Time3Continuum2x (cowabunga) 15:15, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
Given that Wikipedia's "normal course of business" is the dissemination of images under free licenses, that's quite promising. Nevertheless, even if not, WP:NFCC still applies here. — The Anome (talk) 13:59, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

The Anome, why the large format? The image has the same nightmarish quality at 0.8. Space4Time3Continuum2x (cowabunga) 13:39, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

I've made it the same width as the other main images of Trump on the page. — The Anome (talk) 13:57, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
And that makes his head noticeably larger than that in the infobox. "The other main images of Trump on the page" are not close-cropped, which makes all the difference. I support 0.8. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:37, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
If the image can be used? then cool. Just don't have it as the infobox image. GoodDay (talk) 19:46, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
I agree..he`s been arrested and charged multiple times for multiple crimes..if it were anyone else it would already be in Anonymous8206 (talk) 02:42, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

Mugshot

A former president of the United States had his mugshot taken. That's historical. It needs to be added to the article. Chavando (talk) 06:26, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

100% agree 5.70.131.222 (talk) 13:17, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
Agreed! I vote to make it his official photo on wiki for the next year 2607:FB91:1129:6AD:85A:B08C:34FB:12FC (talk) 17:00, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
I second this. Luna <3 (She/Her) (talk) 17:46, 26 August 2023 (UTC)
I would love this. Do the silly, Wikipedia. George Mucus (talk) 08:36, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
I can't think of anything more petty, he should be treated no different from any other subject. Slatersteven (talk) 10:20, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
Of course, the photo should appear in the article. Of course, it should not replace his official photograph. Pecopteris (talk) 19:06, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

Seconded. It would be heinous, and I daresay a violationation of the NPOV to not include his historic and absolutely relevant mugshot onto his page. George Mucus

The booking photo keeps getting removed as non-free content. However, https://fcsoga.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/08/FCSO-Letter-of-Affirmation-Booking-Photos-8.21.23.pdf reads in part, "Such booking photographs may be broadcast, published, and/or posted to a website in the normal course of business." It further states that we cannot "remove or delete such booking photograph ... in return for the payment of a fee or other consideration." This booking photo belongs in this article, and it definitely is NOT non-free content. Art Smart Chart/Heart 09:13, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

@Arthur Smart That is not an indication that the booking photo is freely licensed content. Moreover, when we remove it as non-free content, we are not removing or deleting it in return for the payment of a fee or other consideration - no one is paying or bribing us to remove it, rather we are removing it pursuant to our internal policies. ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 17:10, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
That said, the image page does properly note that it is a non-free work and provides a non-free content rational for its use on this page, so discussion of including on this page should proceed and not be shut down on the basis of it being non-free. ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 17:16, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
That said, the rationales laid out on the image page are plain boilerplate text, and could be vastly improved. I'm sure someone who reads this page could pop over to the image page and write some compelling reasons for each use in each article, as there obviously are some. -- zzuuzz (talk) 18:40, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

Yoohoo, and sheesh! The booking photo has been glaring at readers of the article all day: Donald_Trump#Federal_and_state_criminal_cases_against_Trump. Space4Time3Continuum2x (cowabunga) 17:30, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

This photo appears on several other Wikipedia pages. I'll also note that I have seen other valid fair use photos removed with erroneous applications of our policies regarding such use. Some editors are highly knowlegeable about the applicable standard. Many more believe that they are highly knowledgeable but misinterpret it. Business as usual. SPECIFICO talk 18:12, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

In my opinion, use of this non-free mug shot image in this article violates the content guideline Wikipedia:Non-free content. That guideline disallows Pictures of people still alive, and the shortcut is WP:NFC#UUI. I believe that the only article where inclusion of the mug shot is appropriate is Mug shot of Donald Trump, which contains extensive critical commentary about the photo itself. Cullen328 (talk) 23:12, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
The guideline disallows pictures of people still alive provided that taking a new free picture as a replacement (which is almost always considered possible) would serve the same encyclopedic purpose as the non-free image. What would be a free substitute for a booking photo? I don't care one way or the other; it's just a visual for the historic event of a former U.S. president being processed under Georgia law like every other defendant. Space4Time3Continuum2x (cowabunga) 16:25, 26 August 2023 (UTC)
You have numerous free images of Trump. There is nothing special about the booking photo that needs illustration on a page about Trump. This is a strict policy under NFC. Masem (t) 20:40, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
Disagree, as I do not think it is "historical", when and if he is found guilty, that will be. Slatersteven (talk) 14:42, 26 August 2023 (UTC)
Image is already in the article, but it's seems to be of poor quality. Perhaps it's the lighting angle, but his left eye appears cartoonish. GoodDay (talk) 14:46, 26 August 2023 (UTC)
You're criticizing the lighting and quality of mug shots taken by Fulton County Jail staff? Will you accompany me to the DMV for my next license renewal? I always find my picture rather cartoonish — I'm much better looking. Space4Time3Continuum2x (cowabunga) 16:37, 26 August 2023 (UTC)
The actual guy in the photograph has "appeared cartoonish" for decades. You can't blame the photography for that.--User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 17:48, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

I've removed the image per WP:NFC#UUI #6. Our practices on this are crystal clear. The image has a dedicated article at Mug shot of Donald Trump, which is properly linked in this article. Please don't restore it. If you disagree with WP:NFC#UUI, you are welcome to start a discussion at WT:NFC to have it changed. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:31, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

I don't disagree with #6, IMO it doesn't apply in this case: An image to illustrate an article passage about the image, if the image has its own article (in which case the image may be described and a link provided to the article about the image). The subsection isn't about the photo, it's about the Georgia election interference case, main article Georgia election racketeering prosecution. It's the iconic image for the historic first of the criminal indictments. Also the LP part of BLP has published the image on his social media accounts and his campaign website, and he's commercializing this item of government property by selling T-shirts, mugs, koozies, bumper stickers and who knows what else. Space4Time3Continuum2x (cowabunga) 16:14, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
I've commented on this on your talk page. Bottom line, we've gone around on very similar issues many times before, and it always results in the image only being used on the article about the image. Please, let's not rehash this again. If anyone wants to overturn/change WP:NFC#UUI #6, WT:NFC is the place to start a discussion on it. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:29, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
All non-free content use is subject to WP:NFCC. Non-free content use isn't automatic and each time it's being used it needs to meet all ten non-free content use criteria given in WP:NFCCP. One of these criteria WP:NFCC#3, which encourages us to try and minimize non-free content use as possible and find alternatives to using it whenever possible. This is where item 6 of WP:NFC#UUI comes into play. Non-free content is not really in accordance with WP:COPY#Guidelines for images and other media files, but the WMF allows projects to use it if they want per the EDP of wmf:Resolution Licensing policy. One use of non-free content, therefore, is considered quite the exception which is why the requirements it needs to meet are quite restrictive. This means that additional uses of the same file tend to be seen as being even more exceptional and thus need even stronger justifications for the their non-free use. In this case, there is a stand-alone article about the mug shot itself where it can be seen and which includes all kinds of sourced critical commentary about it. So, unless the plan is to basically recreate that article here, which would be a bad idea per WP:SS, the most there's going to be about mug shot is going to be a brief sentence of two in the "Georgia election interference case" section which already contains a link Mug shot of Donald Trump. There's nothing else in that section which really justifies another use of the file per NFCC#3, WP:NFCC#1 and WP:NFCC#8. The link to the mug shot article is an acceptable alternative way to comply with NFCC#3 per WP:FREER, and all of the critical commentary generally required for non-free use per WP:NFC#CS can be found in the article about the mug shot. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:20, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
Marchjuly, thank you for the explanation - takes care of any further discussions of using the photo in the infobox, as well. Sheer curiosity: would a drawing be an acceptable alternative, or would it considered to be a work inspired by others, such as "a character from TV, comics, or the movies" per the Upload Wizard? Space4Time3Continuum2x (cowabunga) 10:57, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
I don't quite understand your question. Any attempt to recreate the much shot photo would either be considered a case of c:COM:2D copying or a WP:Derivative work. In either case, the copyright of the original mugshot still remains valid and the WP:CONSENT of that copyright holder would still be needed for any such file to be treated as anything other than non-free content by Wikipedia. If, for example, someone created a meme of the photo (which probably someone will do if they haven't done so already) and reliable sources started critically commenting on that meme, then a justification for such a file's non-free use might be possible. Whether that would be for non-free use in the article about the mugshot, this article or some other article depends on where such content best fits encyclopedically and where all ten WP:NFCCP are considered to be satisfied. If, on the other hand, you're asking about a new drawing of Trump (e.g. a courtroom sketch) that is not based upon the mugshot is any way at all, then the copyright status of that would first need to be assessed to figure out what Wikipedia policies apply and whether such policies can be satisfied. Just for reference, there would be pretty much zero chance of using anything like a mugshot in the main infobox per WP:BLPIMAGE regardless of its copyright status. A public domain or otherwise acceptable freely licensed image would certainly be much easier to use than any non-free one, but its use would still be subject to WP:CONSENUS and WP:BLP much in the same way textual content is subject to such things. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:35, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
I agree with @Space4Time3Continuum2x, I don't see how UUI #6 applies here whatsoever. If we are discussing the image (not simply using it for decoration) and otherwise meeting NFC, the image should be fine. —Locke Cole • t • c 07:43, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
Another photo not taken by WH photographers would have been nice. Space4Time3Continuum2x (cowabunga) 10:57, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
Since photos taken by US federal government employees as part of their official duties are considered to be within the public domain and US presidents tend to be mainly photographed by federal government employees during official events, these tend to be the photos that are easiest to upload and use when it comes to Wikipedia. If, on the otheer hand, you attend an event where Trump is present and you take his photograph, then you could, in principle, upload that photo since you would be it's copyright holder. There might be other things you would need seriously consider before doing so, but it should be OK from a copyright standpoint. Now, whether that image is going to be ultimately used on Wikipedia could depend on how encyclopecially relevant others consider it to be. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:44, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
As annoying as NFC#UUI #6 is, Hammersoft's reasoning (& Cullen's, and others) is correct. Best hope is to contact the sheriff's office and get a copyright release. DFlhb (talk) 11:50, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
We're not going to go against the reasoned policy objections of H and C, among others. But more than that, I'd say the mugshot is UNDUE and NOTNEWS and IMO is a personal promotional pose (PPP) created by Mr. Trump. SPECIFICO talk 12:02, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
Add it..he`s been arrested and charged multiple times for multiple crimes...if it were anyone else it would already be there Anonymous8206 (talk) 02:48, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

Health/weight

I had this added to the article but it was reverted. I believe this is relevant because it shows how much of a habitual liar he is:

In August 2023 prior to his booking at the Fulton County jail, Trump self-reported to authorities that he weighed 215lbs (pounds) and was six-foot, three inches tall. This came just months after he told New York authorities in April that he weighed 240lbs and was six-foot, two inches tall.[1]

Anyways, I guess the biggest liar in American history covering for his bruised ego isn't relevant. Thanks! conman33 (. . .talk) 01:33, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

It may be telling -- but as you say, considering his reputation; it's trivia. Also, not heavily covered by RS. O3000, Ret. (talk) 01:41, 26 August 2023 (UTC)
The article already addresses his credibility. That's better than listing various instances. SPECIFICO talk 02:04, 26 August 2023 (UTC)
@CNC33: Consider adding it to Public image of Donald Trump § Height and weight. ––FormalDude (talk) 02:07, 26 August 2023 (UTC)
The Anome beat you by 13 hours.[9] ―Mandruss ☎ 02:44, 26 August 2023 (UTC)
No need to mention his height or weight in this article. Iamreallygoodatcheckers talk 02:30, 26 August 2023 (UTC)
I disagree. As a politician, his credibility is important. This goes to show how lacking he is in credibility. George Mucus (talk) 02:49, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
If you want to talk about his credibility then talk about his credibility not his height and weight. We already have a subsection and multiple paragraphs about his falsities, conspiracies, etc. Iamreallygoodatcheckers talk 05:27, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
Turns out Trump didn't say he was 215 pounds, the information was provided by aides. TFD (talk) 18:14, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
Same thing. And still not worth adding. More sadly humorous than useful. O3000, Ret. (talk) 19:19, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
"Aides" -- Another RICO conspiracy? What difference does it make? SPECIFICO talk 20:06, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ "Tilting the scales of justice: Trump's height, weight raise eyebrows". Yahoo.com. AFP. 25 August 2023. Retrieved 25 August 2023.

His claims being false

While his claims about the presidential election in 2020 being invalid may be false many people believe in it so I wonder if it's a good idea to outright say they are false 173.30.85.91 (talk) 01:13, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

Protests

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

Note: Seeks to change or supersede current consensus item 20. ―Mandruss ☎ 03:35, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
What Mandruss said. Do you have any sources for anti-Trump rallies and pro-Trump protests and rallies? "Famous for rallies in his favor" - I believe they're called campaign rallies. He staged the first one for his 2020 campaign one month after the 2017 inauguration. Space4Time3Continuum2x (cowabunga) 14:23, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
My issue is that the proposal adds a sense of equivalency between protests and rallies; the protests were varied, from many different people and groups, and occurred in an uncoordinated way. The notable rallies were basically all coordinated by Trump to support his own policies. To put them in the same sentence without context makes it seem like they were of a similar nature; they were not. There is not a similarity between "Trump organizing a rally to drum up support for himself and his policies" and "Disparate and numerous protests of many sorts against various things that Trump did". This feels like a WP:FALSEBALANCE sort of thing. I'd be open to some other proposal perhaps, but this isn't it. --Jayron32 14:39, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
Whether a protest was organized by Teresa Shook or by Donald Trump doesn’t seem very important, each person who showed up was unpaid, and motivated instead by support or opposition to Trump. I don’t see why we should emphasize the opposers and overlook the supporters. Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:56, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
Per my edit summary reverting the pro-Trump protests text: This is so far off both RS and talk page consensus that it does not even warrant talk page discussion, absent an opening argument that is clearly worded, at least minimally compelling, and documented with reliable sources for V and NPOV. SPECIFICO talk 14:58, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
While I would agree that his rallies could warrant inclusion, I'm not sure that this would be the right spot for them. This is more focused on gatherings that weren't organized by the subject; to compare protests (for or against, though the former I would have to see some sources) that were organized by third parties and his own rallies is like comparing Wikipedia articles written by the subject vs. the rest of the community. - AquilaFasciata (talk | contribs) 15:06, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
I think this sentence has been problematic for a long time. It harks back to the early days after Trump’s election. It would probably best to delete it. Jack Upland (talk) 06:33, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
And there is no evidence that a "protest": got out of hand on 1/6. That suggests it was not as planned as evidence shows. O3000, Ret. (talk) 16:44, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
"...for and against" is surely a WP:FALSEBALANCE. Cessaune [talk] 13:02, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
According to this source, protests during Trump's first year were indeed atypically large compared to previous years. However, the authors exact word in the conclusions section said that "participation clustered in several large, coordinated events...", and in figure 3 it clearly is the case that the March for Science protest was much larger than the others in terms of number of attendants. So, we can provide a phrasing that reflects the fact that Trump anti science policies sparked atypically larger protests compared to previous presidents, and a brief mention that there were thousands of other protests during his term.Forich (talk) 21:14, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
Yes, "numerous" is the wrong word. There were "large" protests at the start of his term.Jack Upland (talk) 05:45, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

I don't think 'for or against' will work at this time. The evidence in this article supports the sentence as is - without change. I don't recall any significant protests specifically for Trump's policies. Also, the rallies are support for Trump and not his policies. I don't recall Trump discussing many policies during his rallies. So, I agree we need RS to support the proposed change. Also, the posted article is much appreciated. But I don't think changing the sentence under discussion is necessary because of the article. This sentence already broadly covers that, which is the function of a lead sentence. Maybe add a blurb in the body if it's needed. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 01:58, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

I think it does..there have been protest against Trump and there will continue to be..the sentence as written is unclear and misleading Anonymous8206 (talk) 14:48, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

Adding some more further detail regarding some of the more notable pieces of domestic policy that passed during his administration.

I have presented a template for some of notable pieces of bipartisan legislation that were passed during the Trump administration that are not currently noted on at all within the 'Presidency' section of his profile. I mentioned these two pieces of legislation because these two pieces of legislation are in fact notable enough to be mentioned underneath the presidency section of his profile. At the minimum these two pieces of legislation are roughly equivalent to the PACT Act which is mentioned underneath the Presidency section of Joe Biden.

The First Step Act, is in fact a pretty notable piece of legislation regarding criminal justice reform and the first piece of criminal justice reform that has been passed in decades on the federal level. regarding claims that it is "not a big change in U.S. criminal justice system (federal prisoners are a relatively small portion of U.S. prisoners)" I feel it's important to be reminded that, constitutionally speaking, the U.S. federal government can't pass major laws relating to how States can impact their federal guidelines. Just take a look at the Respect for Marriage Act or even DOMA. By using that same logic those two laws only relate to the Federal Governmental recognition of Gay Marriage which do not by any means make up a majority of same-sex marriages are not notable enough because very few people get married federally and it doesn't make a large impact regarding mandating Alabama to recognize gay marriage. Both pieces of legislation are still prominent because they are roughly the max (albeit in opposite directions) ways in which the Government can show approval over the issue and provide or prohibit protections. The Federal Prison system is ultimately the only prison system the Federal Government can make notable changes to. Not the states. The First Step Act was a notable piece of legislation as it was the first time in Decades that there had been any real domestic legislation regarding prison reform in this country. Especially being the first that wasn't explicitly pushing for the War on Drugs. Conversely, The Great American Outdoors Act is notable because it is, objectively speaking, the biggest increase in funding towards the National Park Services and Conservation in Decades. I even made sure the sources provided regarding this information were specifically non-profit environmental groups like the Property and Environment Research Center and the National Parks Conservation Association.

I understand there is some debate as to whether to include these pieces of legislation under his presidency over the question of whether or not he was "actively involved" in the passing of it but to be honest I think that's holding Trump to a higher standard than prior presidents. Looking specifically at Presidents Biden and Johnson, both of them get credit for pieces of legislation that were seen as notable without a lot of personal involvement on their end. For example, the Respect for Marriage Act was a notable piece of legislation regarding federal recognition of Gay marriages but that was a largely senator-led piece of legislation spearheaded by Tammy Baldwin and Kyrsten Sinema. While he did say he supported it, President Biden was not in the trenches lobbying for it. That is very much in line with Trump's handling of some of this legislation too. In addition, the Immigration and Nationalities Act signed under Lyndon Johnson specifically reference his lack of involvement within the drafting of the bill and even specifies his support for a weaker version. In both cases both presidents have it referenced under the 'Domestic Policy' section of their presidencies. I mean, Joe Biden has the Postal Service Reform Act listed under his presidency as a notable piece of domestic policy which, while I'm not denying in any way that it is not notable, does not necessarily have a presence within the public consciousness and isn't likely to be mentioned in any biographies when historians try to boost up their presidencies (think Nixon getting revision decades later by people lauding OSHA and the EPA). I don't really see how these two pieces of legislation are really any different. Especially when the Time and NPCA articles I referenced for the First Step Act and Great American Outdoors Act respectively both show that there was some personal involvement by Trump regarding them; even if those two forms of involvement were the result of heavy Celebrity Lobbying by Kim Kardashian or trying to stabilize Western Republicans reelection chances in 2020.

I'm by no means trying to give Trump a bunch of undue credit and proclaim him as some Conservationist Criminal Justice Reforming Icon, but there really should be some mention of these two more notable pieces of bipartisan legislation that were passed under his administration. Like, the reality is, these two pieces of legislation are of roughly equal weight to those such as the PACT Act or even the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act which passed underneath Biden and as such are mentioned under his article. Again, the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act being, once again, a *Federal Statute* that does not address "a big change" but is itself notable for being the first notable piece of legislation regarding the issue in decades. These additions are by no means meant to make Trump look like an angel or anything. There's a reason some of those minor pieces of legislation like that one animal cruelty bill people bring up sometimes isn't being mentioned here (because it's so incredibly minor and would be nothing but fluff). But these pieces of legislation are in line with others mentioned underneath prior and subsequent administrations and I do think they deserve some lines to be noted on with.

Proposed text

In December of 2018, Trump signed into law the First Step Act. The bipartisan bill was designed as a way to reduce recidivism rates and reduce the federal inmate population while maintaining public safety.[1][2][3] The bill received significant attention through the activism of celebrity Kim Kardashian who made heavy pushes for the Trump Administration to give support to the bill alongside the commutation of various individuals convicted of non-violent drug offenses.[4][5]

In August of 2020, Trump signed into law the Great American Outdoors Act.[6] The law would provide permanent funding of up to $1.9 Billion dollars per year for the Land and Water Conservation Fund while providing temporary funding over five years to address maintenance backlog issues and the repair of National Park services.[7][8]LosPajaros (talk) 20:25, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Haynes, Chrysse (August 30, 2018). "The First Step Act - A Pros and Cons List". Equal Justice Under Law. Retrieved September 3, 2023.
  2. ^ Lopez, German (May 22, 2018). "Congress's prison reform bill, explained". Vox. Retrieved September 3, 2023.
  3. ^ Bennett, Brian (December 21, 2018). "How Unlikely Allies Got Prison Reform Done—With an Assist From Kim Kardashian West". Time. Retrieved September 3, 2023.
  4. ^ Morin, Alyssa (June 13, 2019). "Kim Kardashian Returns to the White House to Discuss Prison Reform: I Wanted to Do the Right Thing". E! News. Retrieved September 3, 2023.
  5. ^ Caldwell, Leigh Ann (December 20, 2018). "How Trump unexpectedly garnered bipartisan support for criminal justice reform". NBC News. Retrieved September 3, 2023.
  6. ^ Vazquez, Maegan; Klein, Betsy (August 4, 2020). "Trump signs conservation funding law that will aid national parks". CNN. Retrieved September 3, 2023.
  7. ^ Downey, Hannah (August 4, 2020). "The Great American Outdoors Act, Explained". PERC. Retrieved September 3, 2023.
  8. ^ Brengel, Kristin (August 4, 2020). "'A Conservationist's Dream': Congress Passes Great American Outdoors Act". NPCA. Retrieved September 3, 2023.

Discussion

  • The proposed text is a bit too much. Each can have a sentence. In December 2018, Trump signed into law the bipartisan First Step Act, which aimed to reduce recidivism rates and the federal inmate population while maintaining public safety and In August 2020, Trump signed into law the bipartisan Great American Outdoors Act, which permanently funded the Land and Water Conservation Fund and provided five years of funding for maintenance issues of the National Park Service. starship.paint (RUN) 03:13, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
    Agree, in part that the sections put forth are too long. However given the nature of (prior and present) candidate Trump's focus on the justice department, I believe that we could include some more context around the first point. MicrobiologyMarcus (talk) 15:07, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
  • As has been documented in various books, Trump would sign things that were put in front of him, and he would forget to sign things that aides surreptitiously removed from his desk. His personal role in the passage of these measures is dubious. The Biden page is a red herring, not relevant. We need to consider the personal connection to Trump himself. Jared K. had a special interest in "justice reform" due to his dad's former residency at a NJ prison. SPECIFICO talk 12:48, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
  • Also we have Presidency of Donald Trump it exists for this stuff, this is about the man, not his time in office. Slatersteven (talk) 12:54, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
    The 'Presidency' Section under every prior and subsequent president makes note of pieces of notable domestic policy regardless of personal presence in the passage of legislation. I am not sure why me pointing that out is supposed to be a "red herring". Again, referring the article on the Immigration and Nationalities Act under Lyndon Johnson, it specifies that he was ambivalent towards the legislation and even supported a weaker version of the legislation. Despite this it is still mentioned under his presidency section because it is a notable piece of legislation passed underneath his presidency. The presidency section not only gives an overview of their personal character while president, but also gives an overview of any domestic or foreign policy "achievements" which occurred during a presidents respective presidency. Talk of Trump's reasoning behind supporting a piece of legislation should be mentioned in the Wikipedia article for the legislation itself. It is inconsistent as other presidents have pieces of legislation mentioned underneath their presidency section when they too had little involvement in its passage outside of saying "I support this piece of legislation".
    I am not denying that Trump is known for being frivolous and arbitrary but to leave out notable pieces of bipartisan legislation from the presidency section of his profile just because of his personal qualities is inconsistent with how all other presidents have legislation referenced within their personal articles. We can very well make that same argument that he wasn't super involved on a personal level with the passage of Tax Cuts and Jobs Act or even the attempted repeal of Obamacare (note the repeal was dubbed 'Ryancare' after Speaker Paul Ryan and the Tax cut bill largely driven by the Speaker and McConnell) yet those are rightfully presented as as notable aspects of his domestic policy in his 'Presidency' Section. To halt any mention of notable pieces of legislation just because the guy was frivolous doesn't take away from the fact that that legislation is in fact notable. Halting any mention only serves to make Trump's article further inconsistent with how every other president has their 'Presidency' section formatted. LosPajaros (talk) 00:10, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
  • I agree that these edits should be considered and are WP:DUE, though in a more concise format. I am also a bit surprised with how easily a considerable amount of work done by an editor with less experience is dismissed by several very experienced editors. @Starship.paint stating "Each can have a sentence." might give a false impression that you can unilaterally decide what should and should not be included. (For the record, I am not saying that was your intention.) @SPECIFICO Trump would sign things that were put in front of him, and he would forget to sign things that aides surreptitiously removed from his desk. I am afraid that this is a slippery slope and sets a dangerous precedent for other presidents. If a policy is notable and WP:DUE, then it does not matter how fast he signed the bill as it still belongs to his administration. I'd like to see if we can give more consideration to the policies mentioned by @LosPajaros and find a way of incorporating them. Ppt91talk 02:59, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
    • @Ppt91: - I was just expressing my opinion. I am of course not the boss here. I guess I didn’t explain it fully, the reason why I would trim it down is because this article is meant to be summary style. I would be surprised if you consider me as one of those who dismissed the work above. I actually read the giant wall of text before I paragraphed it. starship.paint (RUN) 00:56, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
  • LosPajaros added the texts in this edit, and I reverted the first section here and the second one here. Re Ppt91's comment on the considerable amount of work done by an editor with less experience: I tried to read that work but even with the paragraph breaks added by Starship it’s still a WP:WALLOFTEXT that is WP:TLDR. The question is whether the signing of the policies is notable and due for this article, Trump’s top bio. We should be comparing it to other content in this bio (based on amount and quality of coverage in RS), not to content in the bios of other presidents who do not have 1,001 Wikipedia articles on, well, everything, e.g. Proposed expungements of the impeachments of Donald Trump and Saturday Night Live parodies of Donald Trump. (The "editor with less experience" has themselves dismissed efforts by an experienced editor ([10], [11]) to trim their excessive description of the voice sample they recently added to the infobox with the bland summaries "description", "voice box specification", and "formatting" ([12], [13], [14]) instead of discussing the matter on the Talk page.) Space4Time3Continuum2x (cowabunga) 10:55, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
    my apologies regarding those prior editing actions. Again, I'm not super well-versed in the norms of Wikipedia editing so I wasn't sure whether or not reformatting a phrase counted as deserving of an entire discussion page but I'll try to be more cognizant of that in the future. Regarding the text wall, again, not super well versed in the how to properly format that but I'll try to makeit better to read if I ever make further discussions in the future. (thank you @Starship.paint for pointing that out btw).
    That being said, the reason why it was so long is that I felt as though prior arguments made in opposition to noting, basically any of the legislation that actually passed during his presidency excluding the Tax Cuts and Jobs act, were pretty weak and were not typical of how 'Presidency' sections are labeled on literally any other presidential article. I understand the mentality that his bio regarding the presidency section must be in line with those of the other sections. I am not disputing that their should probably be a tonal consistency throughout his Wikipedia article, but he, alongside all prior presidents, was a president of the United States and does deserve some mention of the legislation that was passed during his presidency. I think that to refuse to write his presidency section in a way similar to other presidents simply because he's Trump makes his section regarding the presidency inconsistent overall. The 'Presidency' Section of George W. Bush mentions notable domestic policy like No Child Left Behind despite their having been a whole lot of criticisms and controversies about the things he said or how he acted during his presidency too. Also, those two pieces of legislation I mentioned are notable. Again, this was the most notable piece of legislation regarding conservation in decades and the first positive direction on criminal justice reform in basically forever. These do deserve some mention in his section.. LosPajaros (talk) 04:46, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
The two pieces of legislation have their place in the "Presidency of DT" article. Most of the legislation passed during his presidency pales when compared to his actions during the pandemic, the BLM demonstrations, after his election loss, and when he refused to hand over the government documents he took with him to Mar-a-Lago. Add to that the unusual behavior for a president (falsehoods, publicly disparaging individuals, groups of citizens, countries), his 71 years of pre-presidency past (real and pretend), four indictments on 91 criminal charges, being sued for fraud — he's not similar to other presidents. Space4Time3Continuum2x (cowabunga) 12:20, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
But the reality was he was in fact a President of the United States. In that respect he *is* similar to other presidents. there is a template for all other presidents in how their presidency is presented within their 'presidency' section. I do not see a reason to completely disregard using that same format just because Trump is Trump. To write his presidency section entirely uniquely is simply choosing to make Trump inconsistently written. Lots of presidents have had notable careers outside of their presidency. Herbert Hoover for example was a very well respected humanitarian who helped millions of civilians during the WWI but that doesn't mean he is not credited with the policies that passed during his doomed presidency. I am not asking to remove mentions of his views on the BLM protests and definitely not his attempt to overthrow the government, that being said he was the president of the united states. that alone makes him similar to other presidents. to claim otherwise is holding him to a higher standard and runs the risk of a lack of neutrality. To say that regarding a former president, the only place to mention notable policy that passed during their presidency is under the "Presidency of Whoever" page is a weak notion in and of itself. That's like someone saying just because Bill Clinton is known in the public consciousness for his affair with Monica Lewinsky that DOMA shouldn't be mentioned on his 'Presidency' section at all just because "well it didn't have the same massive impact as NAFTA had and Gay people could still get married provided their state legalized it for the entire time DOMA was on the books until it was rendered unenforceable by Obergefell". LosPajaros (talk) 21:07, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

Are these really signature pieces of legislation he will be long remembered for, or is this just routine? Slatersteven (talk) 11:25, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

Other quotes from the Politico article you cited: "a 2018 law that ushered in modest changes to the criminal justice system" and "It was, for a time, one of the major achievements touted by Trump and his team." "Now Trump barely talks about the law even as his rivals for the 2024 GOP nomination attack it as a chief contributor to the rise in violent crime." I googled "Trump’s signature First Step Act", got two results for "signature act" (your Politico article and WaPo), two for "landmark law" (WaPo and Seattle Times), and all of them containing a big "but" (WaPo, Seattle Times, NYT, e.g. his Justice Department wanted them to stay in prison, Trump's 2020 budget had a measly $14 million to fund the act’s programs, etc). By 2022 "few Republicans — Trump included — seem not at all interested in talking about it" (Politico 2022). By comparison, the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act had huge financial impacts on the federal deficit, taxes for corporations and the rich, etc. Space4Time3Continuum2x (cowabunga) 11:42, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
Which unfortunately will probably only be remembered in passing..the Tax Cuts act should probably be expanded on Anonymous8206 (talk) 15:28, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
I thought we were trying to trim this BLP, rather then expand. GoodDay (talk) 18:44, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
I have no interest in trimming the article..I am opposed to removing relevant factual information from it Anonymous8206 (talk) 21:12, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

My recent trims

I've done some trimming in the social media and false and misleading statements sections. Bold means removed and green means tweaked or moved.

Before Social media:

Trump's social media presence attracted worldwide attention after he joined Twitter in 2009. He tweeted frequently during the 2016 election campaign and as president until Twitter banned him in the final days of his term. Over twelve years, Trump posted around 57,000 tweets, often using Twitter as a direct means of communication with the public and sidelining the press. In June 2017, a White House press secretary said that Trump's tweets were official presidential statements. Trump often announced terminations of administration officials and cabinet members over Twitter.

After years of criticism for allowing Trump to post misinformation and falsehoods, Twitter began to tag some of his tweets with fact-checking warnings in May 2020. In response, Trump tweeted that "Social Media Platforms totally silence conservative[] voices" and that he would "strongly regulate[] or close them down". In the days after the storming of the United States Capitol, Trump was banned from Facebook, Instagram, Twitter and other platforms. The loss of Trump's social media presence, including his 88.7 million Twitter followers, diminished his ability to shape events, and prompted a dramatic decrease in the volume of misinformation shared on Twitter. Trump's early attempts to re-establish a social media presence were unsuccessful. In February 2022, he launched social media platform Truth Social where he only attracted a fraction of his Twitter following.

On November 19, 2022, new Twitter owner Elon Musk reinstated Trump's account. Trump did not use the reinstated account until August 25, 2023, when he posted his booking photo from Fulton County Jail.

Before false statements:

As a candidate and as president, Trump frequently made false statements in public speeches and remarks to an extent unprecedented in American politics. His falsehoods became a distinctive part of his political identity.

Trump's false and misleading statements were documented by fact-checkers, including at The Washington Post, which tallied a total of 30,573 false or misleading statements made by Trump over his four-year term. Trump's falsehoods increased in frequency over time, rising from about six false or misleading claims per day in his first year as president to 16 per day in his second year, 22 per day in his third year, and 39 per day in his final year.He reached 10,000 false or misleading claims 27 months into his term; 20,000 false or misleading claims 14 months later, and 30,000 false or misleading claims five months later.

Some of Trump's falsehoods were inconsequential, such as his claim of the "biggest inaugural crowd ever". Others had more far-reaching effects, such as his promotion of unproven antimalarial drugs as a treatment for COVID-19 in a press conference and on Twitter. The claims had consequences worldwide, such as a shortage of these drugs in the United States and panic-buying in Africa and South Asia. Other misinformation, such as misattributing a rise in crime in England and Wales to the "spread of radical Islamic terror", served Trump's domestic political purposes. As a matter of principle, Trump does not apologize for his falsehoods.

Despite the frequency of Trump's falsehoods, the media rarely referred to them as lies. The first time The Washington Post did so was in August 2018, when it declared that some of Trump's misstatements, in particular those concerning hush money paid to Stormy Daniels and Playboy model Karen McDougal, were lies.

In 2020, Trump was a significant source of disinformation on mail-in voting and misinformation on the COVID-19 pandemic. His attacks on mail-in ballots and other election practices served to weaken public faith in the integrity of the 2020 presidential election, while his disinformation about the pandemic delayed and weakened the national response to it.

James Pfiffner, professor of policy and government at George Mason University, wrote in 2019 that Trump lies differently from previous presidents, because he offers "egregious false statements that are demonstrably contrary to well-known facts"; these lies are the "most important" of all Trump lies. By calling facts into question, people will be unable to properly evaluate their government, with beliefs or policy irrationally settled by "political power"; this erodes liberal democracy, wrote Pfiffner.

Iamreallygoodatcheckers talk 08:31, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

Oof! I guess "some" in "some trimming" is relative. I just reverted the removal of and prompted a dramatic decrease in the volume of misinformation shared on Twitter whose removal Specifico didn't challenge. Trump's absence leading to a dramatic decrease of misinformation seems more important to me than e.g. quoting Trump's response after Twitter had started to add fact-checks to his tweets. I haven't looked at other text you removed/changed and Specifico challenged. It would be much easier if you trimmed sentences or paragraphs individually, with edit summaries stating your reason(s). This is how I would trim:
Before: Trump's false and misleading statements were documented by fact-checkers, including at The Washington Post, which tallied a total of 30,573 false or misleading statements made by Trump over his four-year term.[1] Trump's falsehoods increased in frequency over time, rising from about six false or misleading claims per day in his first year as president to 16 per day in his second year, 22 per day in his third year, and 39 per day in his final year.[2] He reached 10,000 false or misleading claims 27 months into his term; 20,000 false or misleading claims 14 months later, and 30,000 false or misleading claims five months later.[2]
After: Trump's false and misleading statements were documented by fact-checkers, including at The Washington Post, which tallied a total of 30,573 false or misleading statements made by Trump over his four-year term.[1] Trump's falsehoods increased in frequency over time, rising from about six false or misleading claims per day in his first year to 39 per day in his final year as president.[3]
Summary: Trim totals for x months into his term. We're already mentioning the total of 30,573 and the increase in frequency from six per day/first year to 39/last year. Space4Time3Continuum2x (cowabunga) 12:04, 4 September 2023 (UTC) Space4Time3Continuum2x (cowabunga) 12:25, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
Support your proposed trim. DFlhb (talk) 12:49, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
I've removed the last sentence. I think we can keep the to 16 per day in his second year, 22 per day in his third year. Gives us a more complete picture. starship.paint (RUN) 14:47, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
Yes, I did here (and I actually proposed the removal of more text than Starship removed), although the edit summary I proposed to add to my proposed trim could have been clearer. IMO, the third sentence just presents the information of the second one in a different way, and the increase in number from 6 to 39 per day seems more illustrative to me than 10,000 falsehoods after the first 27 months, another 10,000 after the following 14 months, and another 10,000 after the following 5 months. Space4Time3Continuum2x (cowabunga) 18:24, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
@SPECIFICO: - no, because there appears to be consensus, with Checkers, Space, DFlhb, and myself, against you. Of course, this could change with more input. Also, yes, that statistics removal is done because it is redundant to the statistics in the previous sentence. starship.paint (RUN) 02:55, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
  • Oppose mass removal of complex content This is an intractable bundle of removals that cannot be parsed and evaluated from a single mass edit. I reverted part and I support SpaceX's revert of another part that I overlooked. Please present reasons, in detail, for each part of the sourced article content you feel should be removed. SPECIFICO talk 16:47, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ a b Cite error: The named reference database was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  2. ^ a b Kessler, Glenn; Kelly, Meg; Rizzo, Salvador; Shapiro, Leslie; Dominguez, Leo (January 23, 2021). "A term of untruths: The longer Trump was president, the more frequently he made false or misleading claims". The Washington Post. Retrieved October 11, 2021.
  3. ^ Kessler, Glenn; Kelly, Meg; Rizzo, Salvador; Shapiro, Leslie; Dominguez, Leo (January 23, 2021). "A term of untruths: The longer Trump was president, the more frequently he made false or misleading claims". The Washington Post. Retrieved October 11, 2021.
  • When approaching these trims it's best to consider that this article is supposed to be at summary level. Detail can, and is, included in fork articles. Firstly, the statistics regarding his falsehoods. I stand by that it it's superfluous to include 76 words (that is what I counted) to give perspective of the rate at which his falsehoods increased. This is not summary level. If a reader wants to know these numbers they can go to Veracity of statements by Donald Trump; for this article we only need to get across to the reader that the falsehoods increased over time. Also, it should be noted that in my revision the total number of falsehoods over his presidency remained. Second, the examples of his inconsequential, consequential, and domestic-policy promotion examples. Any given example of a falsehood is undue, with the exception of some of the election ones. That's why I removed them. However, I understand the arguments for including them because otherwise it's vague. But, at the very least, "The claims had consequences worldwide, such as a shortage of these drugs in the United States and panic-buying in Africa and South Asia." can be removed. The thing about how the media doesn't call them lies; ok? This distinction is more to do with the media than Trump and should not be included in this summary level detail; furthermore, the Stormy Daniel's thing is undue. Iamreallygoodatcheckers talk 21:01, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
    I am fine with all the trims that I didn't object to above. starship.paint (RUN) 02:58, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
    I`m not Anonymous8206 (talk) 16:54, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
    Checkers, that is not the point at all. We understand that in general articles need to be maintained concise and summary. We also understand that you may have put some thought into what you think are valid cuts. That does not mean that you should edit the article in one massive removal that editors can barely parse, and then start piecemeal reinstating, creating even further duress and disfunction to the consensus-generating process. SPECIFICO talk 18:06, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
    I agree..I disagree that Stormy Daniel`s thing is irrelevant Anonymous8206 (talk) 18:08, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
  • Oppose I`ve been informed I am obligated to elaborate on my opinion which I `m not anymore then I am obligated to consider or edit this article or the talk page or even read either..I do have a right to express my opinion which you can take for what it`s worth..just this once I`ll say it..I`m opposed to deleting factual relevant information from the Trump article under the pretext of brevity...inquiring minds want to know Anonymous8206 (talk) 19:57, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
  • I don't agree with the removal of After years of criticism for allowing Trump to post misinformation and falsehoods... on the Twitter paragraph. It provides vital context for both why and when Twitter acted, in terms of the overall timeline, and gives context for everything below that in the section. --Aquillion (talk) 17:20, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Donald_Trump/Archive_161&oldid=1177182922"