Talk:Donald Trump/Archive 162

Archive 155

←

Archive 160

Archive 161

Archive 162

Archive 163

Archive 164

Archive 165

Rapist?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hit Piece

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

---

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

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

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

Durham Report

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Lead length

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

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

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

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

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

Disregarding his own admissions and academic scandals:

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

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

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

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

References

Split suggested

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

Please use the proposed subsections for improved thread efficiency

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

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

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

Survey

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

1. Trim the "Covid-19" & "Investigations" sub-sections. They could be their own articles. GoodDay (talk) 19:08, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
2. Trim practically everything, especially the Investigations sections. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 21:13, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
3. do not trim solely for length reasons. it is no longer 2004, the majority of users aren't loading a Wikipedia article on dial-up. WP:SIZE should be deprecated. ValarianB (talk) 04:57, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
4. IMO, neither the tag you added to the Presidency section nor this general discussion is helpful. Consensus #37 says that Content related to Trump's presidency should be limited to summary-level about things that are likely to have a lasting impact on his life and/or long-term presidential legacy. If something is borderline or debatable, the resolution does not apply. (I interpret the second sentence to mean that content WITHOUT lasting impact on his life and/or long-term presidential legacy should be deleted.) If you or other editors have specific content in mind, go BOLD with an edit summary explaining your reasons or bring it to the Talk page. As always, be prepared to be reverted and defend your edit — this article, like its subject, is not for the faint of heart . Space4Time3Continuum2x ^(cowabunga) 12:29, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
5. Trim Covid-19 and Investigations subsections. This article is too long to navigate easily. Cessaune [talk] 12:13, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
6. Trim per the very last comment by WAID in the thread I linked above.
7. A word: we should be careful not to be overly nitpicky or conservative when trimming. If a section gets rewritten based on book sources, which highlight different facts and behaviours, let's not get too attached to our previous content. WP:BESTSOURCES will contradict us on their assessments of salience and relevance, and we should let them. DFlhb (talk) 12:56, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
8. Trim any information which is already elaborated on elsewhere on Wikipedia, per WP:SUMMARY. --Jayron32 16:56, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
9. Neutral. I'm not comfortable agreeing to the general removal of content without any specifications. If imposed, it seems ripe for disputes and potential edit warring down the line. The investigations section in particular is one area that does not need to be trimmed, as it is a vitally important part of his presidency, and is already limited to a high-level summary. The COVID-19 section is a better candidate for trimming, but I'd like to see proposals on how to trim it beforehand. ––FormalDude (talk) 03:47, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
10. Oppose Do not trim Anonymous8206 (talk) 14:42, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
11. Do not trim This thread is moot and should be closed. We craft NPOV, well sourced article content and gauge inclusion by its substance. Arguments against page length don't get us anywhere, especially when they're repetitive. SPECIFICO talk 15:36, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
12. No Decide on relevance based on the substance, not article size concerns. Zaathras (talk) 22:22, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
13. Trim - It would be good to purge less important info or kick it into the appropriate subs. PackMecEng (talk) 01:57, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
14. Oppose trim. Wiki is not paper. Andre🚐 04:07, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
15. Trim - Suggestion what about trimming out the business career stuff since that's covered in Business career of Donald Trump. 1keyhole (talk) 17:35, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
16. Trim - The fact that just about every section of this page has been heavily litigated in isolation has led to some weird formulations/inclusions. Riposte97 (talk) 02:23, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

Elaborate discussion

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 20 September 2023

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

NY liability for Fraud Judgment

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Rough consensus characterization of consensus item #60

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

---

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

Consensus item #60 reads:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

No.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Divestitures of distressed properties

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

The current wording isn't sufficient?

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

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

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

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

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

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

Fundamental NPOV issue with this article

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Lead and article are too long

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

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

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

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

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

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

could be converted into:

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

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

Something like this:

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

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

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

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

Ineligible for public office

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

Alright. Time for some late night analyzation.

Fourteenth Amendment, Section Three:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

They go on to state, quote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Reflist format

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

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

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

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

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 23 October 2023

Simple grammatical change: removal of an unnecessary comma.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"Donakd Trump" listed at Redirects for discussion

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

Xi Jinping and Vladimir Putin

A sentence in Donald Trump#Scholarly assessment and public approval surveys reads:

By mid-2020, only 16 percent of international respondents to a 13-nation Pew Research poll expressed confidence in Trump, a lower score than those historically accorded to Russia's Vladimir Putin and China's Xi Jinping.

In the source, it says:

Ratings for Russian President Vladimir Putin and Chinese President Xi Jinping are overwhelmingly negative, although not as negative as those for Trump.

I don't like this sentence. IMO, it assumes that the reader understands the context around why it would notable that Trump's score < Jinping or Putin. The source also assumes that the reader understands this context. I would change the sentence—"By mid-2020, only 16 percent of international respondents to a 13-nation Pew Research poll expressed confidence in Trump." Cessaune [talk] 15:48, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

Pinging FormalDude. Cessaune [talk] 04:16, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

I think the context is clear, but it doesn't really matter. The source portrays it as a valuable comparison, and I so no reason why we shouldn't too. ––FormalDude (talk) 04:34, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

It's only a valuable comparison in context; it isn't in context. Can you explain why you think that the context is clear? Thanks. Cessaune [talk] 16:48, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

The source provides it as a valuable comparison without context. It seems to be just your personal opinion that context is needed. ––FormalDude (talk) 07:17, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

The source does not give this specific statement any more weight than any other respective statement. It would be equally true to swap out Putin for Johnson and Jinping for Merkel.

The publics surveyed also see Trump more negatively than other world leaders. Among the six leaders included on the survey, Angela Merkel receives the highest marks: A median of 76% across the nations polled have confidence in the German chancellor. French President Emmanuel Macron also gets largely favorable reviews. Ratings for British Prime Minister Boris Johnson are roughly split. Ratings for Russian President Vladimir Putin and Chinese President Xi Jinping are overwhelmingly negative, although not as negative as those for Trump.

The source doesn't provide a valuable comparison, because there is no analysis or comparison here. The source isn't saying lookie here, Trump is rated lower than Xi Jinping or Vladimir Putin! Huh! It's literally stating data.

To single out a singular piece of data while ignoring the rest makes no sense. Unless you can demonstrate that the source is specifically trying to make a comparison, the sentence currently in the article is subpar. I would say something like By mid-2020, only 16 percent of international respondents to a 13-nation Pew Research poll expressed confidence in Trump, the lowest overall score among the six leaders surveyed.

Even if the source was explicitly making a point, without context or, at the very least, a link to the people in question, a reader who knows little about the people may be confused. Context is always helpful. Cessaune [talk] 09:55, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

... but the source did make a direct comparison between Putin, Xi and Trump, they're all in the same sentence. starship.paint (RUN) 15:11, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

I get the logic, but the mere fact that they're in the same sentence does not mean that an actual comparison was made. The source went in order from best to worst. Cessaune [talk] 17:51, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Mate, if not as negative is not a comparison, then what is? starship.paint (RUN) 23:17, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

I'll change what I said—the sentence in the body is definitely making a point, a point that I don't think the folks at Pew Research are trying to make.

The sentence in the Pew Research article reads like Trump's rating was lower than Jinping or Putin, who themselves ranked poorly. IMO, the sentence in the article is saying wow! Trump was rated lower than Putin and Jinping! Wonder what that means... The lack of justifying context (why does it matter that Trump is rated lower than Jinping and Putin) makes me think that the comparison itself is unjustified and should not stand in the article. Cessaune [talk] 01:37, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

Why does it matter that Trump is rated lower than Jinping and Putin? Because Jinping and Putin are other superpower leaders that are themselves ranked poorly. It provides context to just how low Trump's rating is. Honestly I don't get what you're missing. What would the source need to say for you to agree to include this? ––FormalDude (talk) 03:22, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

The source would have to directly compare Trump's score to Jinping and Putin's, in a similar vein to the Racial injustice and perceptions of the United States section. Otherwise, it's like saying I hate watermelon, though not as much as grapefruit. There is no comparison here.

Assuming that the sentences are comparing Trump to Jinping and Putin, I still take issue. When you say that It provides context to just how low Trump's rating is, you assume that the reader already understands the initial context—the fact that Jinping and Putin are other superpower leaders, and, more broadly, the tension between the countries. Does the reader know this? Maybe, maybe not. Cessaune [talk] 03:42, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

It is clearly a direct comparison, as starship.paint said, but I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree on that.

It should be rather obvious that they're superpower leaders, but even if readers don't know that, they can easily find out by clicking their wikilinks. Adding the information you so desire is outside the scope of this article, which isn't about Jinping and Putin, so going into a detailed background on them and the tension between the countries would be inappropriate. We provide wikilinks so readers can find applicable related content without having to mention everything about them. ––FormalDude (talk) 03:53, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

Well, the sentence doesn't even have wikilinks to either Xi Jinping or Vladimir Putin. Cessaune [talk] 04:22, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

Trump's role in The Apprentice

Well-sourced article text concerning the role Trump played in the fictionalized TV reality show has been removed with the edit summary WP:NPOV.

The description of Trump's television character needs to be restored. The show was not a documentary, it was a fictionalized reality show like so many others of the genre. SPECIFICO talk 00:16, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

I think the reason why it is being called NPOV is because, at least in my mind, portrayed a fictionalized version of himself as a wealthy and successful executive suggests that he wasn't a wealthy or successful executive, which, at least to the first adjective, is verifiably untrue. Cessaune [talk] 02:05, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

But that view is unsourced. SPECIFICO talk 02:27, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Personally I consider $2.6 billion wealthy... [8] You are welcome to disagree. Cessaune [talk] 02:32, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

I agree it should be removed as it is highly misleading.--Jack Upland (talk) 03:17, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Maybe cut it down to portrayed a fictionalized version of himself.--User:Khajidha (talk)

Aren't the $2.6 billion currently being questioned in court? Space4Time3Continuum2x (cowabunga) 11:38, 12 October 2023 (UTC) (contributions) 11:29, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

I reverted the removal. "Wealthy" is not the right adjective, though. The people I consider to be wealthy own a big house, a "cottage" on a beach, and his and hers Benzes, compared to the rented third-floor walk-up I call home and the 20-year old car I drive. Do the sources support gazillionaire? Or just remove "wealthy and". Space4Time3Continuum2x (cowabunga) 11:38, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

I would die to have a third floor! SPECIFICO talk 12:36, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Removing "wealthy" may be OK, maybe not, because his lies about $$$ is discussed elsewhere on the page. Here's RS that includes phony wealth as part of the joke: [9]

But it is uncontested that "successful businessman" was fiction by the time his nationwide TV persona was launched, and that part needs to be made clear. It is critical to how he charmed tens of millions of American voters in the 2016 election. See too this brief RS, [10]. That should not be controversial. It's no different than any of the fiction that succeeded it. SPECIFICO talk 12:36, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Well, if such a statement pertaining to the veracity of Trump being a successful businessman is going to be made, this is a egregiously backwards way to do so. Cessaune [talk] 14:31, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Please elaborate - that's not clear. The character that Trump played in The Apprentice convinced a mass American audience that real Trump was as presented by TV-Trump. Most New Yorkers and followers of mainstream scrutiny of his books and business failures knew that DT was not TV-DT, but the mass audience who would become his political base did not know. SPECIFICO talk 14:40, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

I'm suggesting that the statement portrayed a fictionalized version of himself as a wealthy and successful executive implicitly states that he isn't a successful businessman, as opposed to simply explicitly making the claim. Cessaune [talk] 14:55, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

But the article already discusses his financial reversals and the travails in other sections of the article. This section is about his having projected a different persona to the vast American public. SPECIFICO talk 16:00, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

My issue with it is that it doesn't explicitly say any of this in the lead. It leaves the reader to make a judgement based on an implicit statement. Cessaune [talk] 16:09, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

It's all in the article. The lead is a capsule. SPECIFICO talk 16:12, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Yes, it is in the article. My issue is with the fact that the way it is presented in the lead is subpar in my opinion. Cessaune [talk] 16:23, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Can you suggest an alternative wording that you think would better convey the same fact? Otherwise I am not seeing any way to improve on the current text. SPECIFICO talk 17:01, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

I don't like the phrase. The show is a fictionalized reality show designed to craft a persona and give him an aura of success and business savvy, spontaneously coming up with and shooting down business ideas on the fly. But the passage doesn't capture that well, and risks coming across as passive-aggressive and triggering readers' patellar reflexes. How about something like which became part of Trump's mythmaking (inspired by this) or rescuing/revitalizing/crafting Trump's brand as a shrewd businessman or burnishing his image as a successful businessman. Just ideas. See also this, this, and this for inspiration. DFlhb (talk) 20:14, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

LOLZ - "mythmaking" is about the most POV and triggering a way to say it, methinks. SPECIFICO talk 21:17, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Well; I tried! DFlhb (talk) 21:58, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

You're fired! 👩🏻‍🌾 SPECIFICO talk 22:06, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

It's just not necessary to make this point about Trump in the context of the TV show.Jack Upland (talk) 02:13, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Setoodeh’s book Unti on The Apprentice (unti?) is scheduled to be released in April 2024. It seems the world has two people to thank for building the Trump myth: Tony Schwartz, who wrote The Art of the Deal, and Mark Burnett, who "helped turn the Donald Trump of the late nineties—the disgraced huckster who had trashed Atlantic City; a tabloid pariah to whom no bank would lend—into a titan of industry, nationally admired for being, in his own words, 'the highest-quality brand'"(New Yorker, 2017). Nussbaum writes that "if 'The Apprentice' didn’t get Trump elected, it is surely what made him electable". And as president, Trump recreated Apprentice-style boardroom meetings. What with Trump’s Mussolini-on-the-balcony moments, I had forgotten about the 2017 televised North Korean-style cabinet meetings, with everybody from Pence on down thanking and praising the Dear Leader. I just don't know whether or how to integrate this into a BLP. Space4Time3Continuum2x (cowabunga) 10:58, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

I agree that it is unnecessary as it is undue weight and a disproportionate aspect for the lead section.DeathTrain (talk) 11:04, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Whether it should be could in this BLP could not be more clear. Creation and broadcast of The Apprenticeis the single event that enabled the coagulation of the American right wing to dominate the Republican party. Improved wording and expanded detail can always be discussed, but there can be no doubt as to whether this earthshaking event is central to the life and times of Donald Trump. This TV show sparked Trump's amazing resuscitation when his personal and business lives were on the brink of shambles. Few lives have such an unlikely, noteworthy, and transformative event. It's impeccably sourced by secondary and tertiary documentation and analysis. SPECIFICO talk 14:37, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

I agree..most people would have probably never heard of him if not for this show..it`s not like the people who watched it were reading the Daily News let alone Time or Newsweek Anonymous8206 (talk) 20:43, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

I wholeheartedly agree that The Apprentice was a key element of not only his media career but also his political career. However, I still believe that saying that he portrayed a "fictionalized version of himself as a wealthy and successful executive", even if it is citing a WP:RELIABLE source in this case is WP:UNDUE weight. This is because this article is very long, and that detail is only mentioned once. Per MOS:LEAD, the lead section is an introduction to an article and a summary of its most important contents. A detail that is only mentioned once to me does not seem like one of this article's most important contents. Also, the source itself does not even say that he portrayed a fictionalized version of himself as a wealthy and successful executive, but that the series introduced millions of viewers - and, later, voters - to a highly flattering, highly fictionalised version of Trump, more appealing than the real-life developer whose successes were tempered by bankruptcies and personal turmoil. Let us not misrepresent sources.--DeathTrain (talk) 00:49, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

@SPECIFICO:@Anonymous8206:@Space4Time3Continuum2x:@Jack Upland:@Cessaune:@Khajidha:@DFlhb: Any response? DeathTrain (talk) 17:54, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

With all due respect (and perhaps because I'm middle-aged), I've heard about & seen Trump in media, long before any reality show he was in. He's been a public figure since the 1980's. GoodDay (talk) 18:50, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

I`d heard of him too..I read the news..the show is what pushed him exponentially into the larger celebrity culture Anonymous8206 (talk) 20:55, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

He was just as well known, back in the 1980's. GoodDay (talk) 20:58, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

What is that supposed to mean ? Are you saying that the show did not introduce him to a wider audience or not ? Anonymous8206 (talk) 21:39, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

Trump was a public figure, long before The Apprentice. If we want to say it introduced him to a younger generation? that would likely be more accurate. GoodDay (talk) 21:46, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

I don`t think so..there`s a big difference between a relatively minor presence in the press and national TV..that show is what launched him into the mainstream..it`s reality and it`s obvious Anonymous8206 (talk) 22:09, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

It's apparent that we disagree. GoodDay (talk) 22:23, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

CC: DFlhb

Recently, this edit was made to the lead section. DeathTrain (talk) 00:38, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

He only got that show because he was a well-known public figure. It wouldn't have worked if he were just some random businessman. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 01:57, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

No one is arguing that he was some random business person..this TV program introduced him to a mass audience that he did not have before. Anonymous8206 (talk) 18:47, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, a guy who had been in multiple movies and television shows, had a board game and multiple video games based on him, had a NYT bestseller, been in the tabloids throughout the '80s and '90s, and served as the inspiration for the 1986 reboot of Lex Luthor needed this silly reality show to introduce him to the American public. No, he needed it to whitewash his reputation with the American public. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 10:20, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Had to look up the Lex Luthor reference - "a cross between Donald Trump, Ted Turner, Howard Hughes and maybe Satan". Space4Time3Continuum2x (cowabunga) 14:14, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

The current language in the lead is confusing and/or misleading because it suggests he wasn’t really wealthy or successful as a businessman, whereas the cited source doesn’t suggest that. I propose “He co-produced and hosted the reality television series The Apprentice, in which he portrayed a fictionalized business executive, a wealthier and more successful version of himself.” The cited source (NYT) said he portrayed “highly fictionalized version of Mr. Trump, more appealing than the real-life developer whose successes were tempered”. I also support all other proposed versions that would fix the current problem in the lead which currently says, “he portrayed a fictionalized version of himself as a wealthy and successful executive.” Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:35, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

I vote for DFlhb's bold-refined version, the one that was reverted recently. Cessaune [talk] 19:24, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

I support the DFlhb version too. Pretty much any version would be an improvement if it stops suggesting what the current version suggests. Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:04, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

The character he played in the show was fiction..it was not " reality " Anonymous8206 (talk) 22:47, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

I oppose that change. The original version: From 2004 to 2015, he co-produced and hosted the reality television series The Apprentice, in which he portrayed a fictionalized version of himself as a wealthy and successful executive. DFlhb's version: bolstering his personal brand. That's only one of the effects of the fictionalized Trump portrayal, enabling him to license his name on everything from hotels to pyramid schemes. It also changed a significant part of the public's conception of him from loud-mouth New York guy with tabloid-covered divorces and bankruptcies (or introduced people unfamiliar with local NY celebs) to the superrich, super-successful business executive he played on the show. Space4Time3Continuum2x (cowabunga) 11:44, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

User:Space4Time3Continuum2x, do you agree that this BLP shouldn’t imply that his success and wealth are fiction? The cited NYT source doesn’t, so neither should this BLP. Anythingyouwant (talk) 13:27, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

The story he, the tabloids, and the cameos "as himself" (and even some RS for a time before the first bankruptcies) told the public were part fiction and part embellishment. The sentence is just about how the Apprentice presented him and what that did for his public image (Khajidha used the term whitewash). His career had ups and downs, with first his father and then the banks giving him a lot of push for the ups. At the time Burnett cast him to "perform the facsimile of success on camera" he was down, kept afloat by suspicious Deutsche Bank loans and headed for his last two business bankruptcies. The sources use terms like titan of business, top of the world, "a genuine big-time mogul who knows business". I currently have no suggestions how to better word "wealthy and successful" (seems a bit weak to me). Space4Time3Continuum2x (cowabunga) 14:54, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Well, I see you opposed the proposal by DFlhb. Do you see any problem with my proposal? That is, “He co-produced and hosted the reality television series The Apprentice, in which he portrayed a fictionalized business executive, a wealthier and more successful version of himself.“ Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:19, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

His success and wealth weren't prominent before The Apprentice, numerous reliable sources verify this, and therefore your proposal is misleading.

New Yorker: Trump had been a celebrity since the eighties, his persona shaped by the best-selling book “The Art of the Deal.” But his business had foundered, and by 2003 he had become a garish figure of local interest—a punch line on Page Six.

New York Times: Mr. Trump had emerged from the early ’90s greatly diminished. And prior to The Apprentice, Mr. Trump’s actual financial comeback hadn’t happened yet.

New York Times: Divorced for the second time, and coming off the failure of his Atlantic City casinos, Mr. Trump faced escalating money problems and the prospect of another trip to bankruptcy court. On his income tax returns, he reported annual net losses throughout the 1990s, some of it carried forward year to year, a tide that would swell to $352.8 million at the end of 2002.

CNN: Before being approached to host “The Apprentice” nearly 20 years ago, Trump was not in an enviable position.

The Guardian: Tax documents obtained by the paper show how Trump squandered a $413m inheritance in a series of losing plays in real estate and casinos. On his tax return in 2004, he declared $89.9m in net losses from core businesses the previous year. ––FormalDude (talk) 07:14, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

I think the general point being made here is that the current wording merely suggests that he wasn't wealthy or successful, without a) explicitly stating such and b) being a little misleading to begin with.

Forbes says $2.5 billion in 2003, and any reasonable person agrees that $2,500,000,000 is not a minor amount. Or maybe it's just me.

The "succesful" wording is a bit better supported, but whether or not "successful" is verifiable isn't the issue. The issue is that the current wording implies the point it's trying to make instead of explicitly stating it, which comes across as biased IMO. Cessaune [talk] 10:07, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

$2.5 billion plus a starring role on a TV show add up to wealthy and successful, though not as wealthy and successful as the character he portrayed. Which is exactly what the language I proposed says. Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:26, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

Your proposal says that the show embellished Trump's wealth and success a little but there was no impact on his financial situation, public image, etc. Do you have any sources backing up that opinion? Also, "starring role on a TV show" — I hear Joe Exotic had one of those, too, and look where that got him. Future cellmates? Space4Time3Continuum2x (cowabunga) 17:47, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

My favorite proposal is still my original one: which became part of Trump's mythmaking. Or, even more simply: which helped Trump rebrand himself as a successful businessman, or which helped Trump establish create an aura of success. I'm not saying we wrongly downplay his pre-Apprentice financial success, I'm saying the current clause only really makes sense if you've read our sources; otherwise it's unclear what it tries to say. It's not plain-worded enough. DFlhb (talk) 18:38, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

Different readers will read unclear language different ways, so unclear language is just as bad as blatantly false language. This BLP currently says, “From 2004 to 2015, he co-produced and hosted the reality television series The Apprentice, in which he portrayed a fictionalized version of himself as a wealthy and successful executive.” At minimum we should change it to something like this: “From 2004 to 2015, he co-produced and hosted the reality television series The Apprentice, in which he portrayed a fictionalized version of himself as a but more wealthy and successful executive.” Or we could say, per DFlhb, which became part of Trump's mythmaking. I oppose which helped Trump rebrand himself as a successful businessman (Wikipedia should not be opining that he was not a successful businessman), and which helped Trump establish an aura of success (Wikipedia should not be opining that he lacked an aura of success). Let’s follow the cited NYT source, which is plenty anti-Trump already without augmentation by us. Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:58, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

Again, reliable sources say he wasn't a successful businessman.

New Yorker: On Tuesday evening, the Times dropped another story that delved into the President’s financial past. Written by Buettner and Craig, and based upon “printouts from Mr. Trump’s official Internal Revenue Service transcripts” that the reporters obtained, the story further undermined the assiduously promoted fiction that Trump, before he became a reality-television star and entered politics, was a highly successful self-made businessman. He was anything but.

MSNBC: By all appearances, Donald J. Trump was an unusually bad business man.

Viet Fact Check: Claim: Trump has repeatedly claimed that the reason he is qualified to be president is because he’s a successful businessman. Rating: This claim is MOSTLY FALSE. Although Trump has made considerable money from his entertainment and real estate career, his tax returns from the last two decades reveal that he has lost much more money than he has made.

Even the American populace doesn't agree that Trump was a successful businessman, per a survey.

The existing wording is more accurate than your wording because he indeed portrayed a fictionalized version of himself as a wealthy and successful executive, that is not disputed. This discussion appears to stem from the idea that the current wording implies he was not already a wealthy and successful business person, but there is no such implication–Trump can have seen moderate success in the past and still be displaying a fictionalized version of a highly successful businessman. Your proposed wording, however, directly implies that he was already successful, when that is absolutely not clear. ––FormalDude (talk) 23:28, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

If no one can agree on what this description on his role on The Apprentice should say, maybe there should be none at all. DeathTrain (talk) 02:28, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

Process discussion, which may continue within the collapse. ―Mandruss ☎ 10:44, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Disagree, although I have no particular position on the content issue. If "no one can agree", we stick with the status quo. For better or worse. And this status quo is a relatively long-standing one. Granted, it's theoretically possible that editors could agree to removal based on your reasoning, but that seems even less likely than the other kind of agreement. ―Mandruss ☎ 04:07, 22 October 2023 (UTC) Relatively long-standing? What? Maybe you and I define long-standing differently, or you're using the term in a different context than I am, but the edit was called into question, like, a week after it was made. I don't agree that the text currently in the lead is the status quo. Cessaune [talk] 05:13, 22 October 2023 (UTC) @Cessaune: You're absolutely right; I sit corrected; my memory has failed me again; thank you. That being the case, the long-standing status quo should be restored pending consensus to change. It's counterproductive to be lax about that for the sake of peace, as it merely confuses matters as evidenced by my confusion. Moreover, a contested addition should not be retained for days or weeks while discussion is underway, particularly in the lead of a high-profile article. Readers are reading that while you (plural) are discussing it, oblivious to the discussion. If no one else does the restore within a day or so, I will. ―Mandruss ☎ 06:10, 22 October 2023 (UTC) Mandruss, the below first two edits preceded this discussion. I reverted DeathTrain's revert before I saw that Specifico had started a discussion on the Talk page. Specifico adds clause, Oct 4 DeathTrain reverts, Oct 11. Edit summary WP:NPOV I revert, Oct 12. Edit summary: Because? I contest your contention, I think. DeathTrain reverted Specifico's edit seven days later, and a different editor challenged/contested their removal a day later. Which one is the contested version that should not be retained? Space4Time3Continuum2x (cowabunga) 12:00, 22 October 2023 (UTC) @Space4Time3Continuum2x: Well, none of those edits was in the article and uncontested long enough to acquire de facto consensus status. A respected admin, no longer active, once suggested 3-4 weeks and that seems about right to me. To my knowledge, no other admin has ever said otherwise; and we have used 3-4 weeks a number of times at this article. So we should restore the version that preceded the Oct 4 edit. ―Mandruss ☎ 17:50, 22 October 2023 (UTC) I have restored the 3 October version.[11] ―Mandruss ☎ 20:16, 23 October 2023 (UTC) @Space4Time3Continuum2x: Lest people be asked to take my word for it, I hunted down the admin comment.[12] Turns out it was 4-6, not 3-4. Interesting how this rarely becomes an issue. But never blindly trust Mandruss's memory on anything of importance; it's fading fast. At least my error was in the downward direction! ―Mandruss ☎ 09:20, 24 October 2023 (UTC) @Mandruss: I don't trust anyone's memory blindly, including my own. That was 26 days after my first edit on this page, and 18 days before this which I didn't remember five years later. Space4Time3Continuum2x (cowabunga) 10:54, 24 October 2023 (UTC) I'm waxing nostalgic. And his comment was more than a "suggestion". I had forgotten there was a time when there was an admin actively running process here. I haven't seen that elsewhere, either (not that I get around much), so maybe that's part of why he's "no longer active"? ―Mandruss ☎ 14:17, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

We should not keep in the lead an unclear statement that many readers will interpret as an assertion by Wikipedia that Trump was not a wealthy or successful businessman. There's nothing in the article body or cited sources that supports it. In this talk page discussion, a public opinion poll has been cited, but a poll of survey respondents is not a reliable source no matter what they say or what information they are fed (here they changed their opinion based on information they were fed). Likewise, some website called "Viet Fact Check" (cited above) is not reliable either. The NYT put it this way in 2021: "Before becoming president, Mr. Trump had cycled through many lines of business, including casinos, an airline and reality television. Some ventures were wildly successful, while others were colossal failures. But they revealed his ability to camouflage his wares and capitalize on opportunities, even when his name appeared irreparably tarnished." Also in 2021, Univision said, "Trump has spent most of his career making private financial deals, with mixed success...." Trump may not have been highly successful in business, but he was not unsuccessful either, AFAIK. And he is clearly still wealthy, contrary to our unclear lead. Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:06, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

As I said, the current wording makes no claim that Trump was not wealthy or successful before. We don't cater our content to the possibility of speculation by readers. We state the facts, they draw their own conclusions. If we based our content on what readers might assume, we'd hardly be able to say anything.

The public opinion survey was used as an argument for the contentiousness of the dispute. Surprise surprise, people's opinions change when they know more. And, on what basis do you call Viet Fact Check unreliable?

Trump may not have been highly successful in business, but he was not unsuccessful either, AFAIK. And he is clearly still wealthy, contrary to our unclear lead. – Our lede makes no claim about his current wealth, it is explicitly talking about the past. I also linked you numerous reliable sources that say he was unsuccessful, please let me know why you seem to be ignoring them as well as a report that shows an overall loss of $1.17 billion between 1985 and 1994. ––FormalDude (talk) 04:05, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

The present lead says, “he portrayed a fictionalized version of himself as a wealthy and successful executive.” Obviously many readers will understand that as a statement that his wealth and success are fictional. It’s very easily fixed by writing that “he portrayed a fictionalized version of himself, but more wealthy and successful.” I have seen no plausible reason at this talk page for not making this change. Anythingyouwant (talk) 10:06, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

I'll clarify that I agree with FormalDude, I just want us to make the point more explicitly, for clarity's sake. DFlhb (talk) 10:54, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

Sorta loss track of which way this 'discussion' is going. May help if editors would put forward proposals for their desired re-write. GoodDay (talk) 14:54, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

I'd prefer nothing. I don't think this is a point we need to make in the lead. Barring that, I have a few wordings:

• From 2004 to 2015, he co-produced and hosted the reality television series The Apprentice, in which he portrayed a fictionalized version of himself. Verifiably true, more concise, less controversial.
• From 2004 to 2015, he co-produced and hosted the reality television series The Apprentice, in which he portrayed a wealthier and more successful version of himself. Verifiably true, less controversial.
• Per DFlhb: From 2004 to 2015, he co-produced and hosted the reality television series The Apprentice, bolstering his personal brand. This gets the main point across well IMO.

If it counts for anything, I oppose the current wording. Cessaune [talk] 15:47, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

I also prefer nothing and oppose the current wording. DeathTrain (talk) 16:25, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

All of the options described by Cessaune are fine with me, and I also oppose the current wording. The current wording is misleading, not supported by our cited sources, and not longstanding. Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:55, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

We're just discussing wording for the lead, right? Not the main article text? All the lead needs to say is (as I proposed before) From 2004 to 2015, he co-produced and hosted the reality television series The Apprentice, in which he portrayed a fictionalized version of himself.. I would also not object to DFlhb's suggestion of From 2004 to 2015, he co-produced and hosted the reality television series The Apprentice, bolstering his personal brand. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 14:19, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Either of those would be fine. Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:19, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

For clarity, the "current wording" referred to in comments above this point is no longer current. Per the brief process discussion above, I have restored the 3 October version pending consensus to change it.[13] ―Mandruss ☎ 20:16, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Looks like you get the last word as always Anonymous8206 (talk) 23:27, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

If only. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:45, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

I support this change, and oppose the addition of any additional clauses to that sentence. If an addition really must be made, it ought to be sufficient to say '...in which he played an exaggerated version of himself'. The discussion above is choked with original research, and I cannot see any clear reason to add a contentious assessment of Trump's wealth or success. Riposte97 (talk) 23:36, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

24-hour BRD violation?

Timeline: bot edit suggested by Whoop whoop pull up, reverted by me, reinstated by Whoop 10 hours later. Do the active arbitration remedies apply to what appears to be an editor using a bot for a manual revert ("(Tag: Manual revert)")?

The bot always targets the Washington Post exclusively and now apparently has been set to find "cite web" as well as "cite news". At least 90% of our current 844 citations are web-based newspapers, news magazines, and TV and cable news stations, i.e., strictly speaking "cite news". I changed all of them to "cite web" to circumvent the bot — so much for that bright idea. Now we're back to WaPo being singled out as a "newspaper" and all others being "work". Could we establish a local consensus to use "work", per all examples at Template:Cite_news, for all news articles in print, video, audio or web? Space4Time3Continuum2x (cowabunga) 13:07, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

Not really seeing where the bot is incorrect here, as WaPo is "news" and is a "newspaper". What is the tangible difference between that and "web" and "work" ? Is this one of these weird wiki-wars, like dashes vs. hyphens, or the Infobox thing? Zaathras (talk) 13:48, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

Backstory: this page had been using "work" by the time I first started editing here. Since it's a member of about 1001 categories, every time the citation bot was sent to one of them, it changed "work" to "newspaper" in this article. Lots of categories, lots of times, and, for no reason I can think of, always just for the Washington Post and the one and only citation of the Economist. I eventually got fed up and added the "no citation bot" tag. Problem solved until this. The community consensus appears to be two or three editors who like "newspaper" because "more specific", never mind that many editors have problems selecting the correct parameter for news articles published in various media. The output in the list of references looks the same for all of them.

Per the examples given for news articles at citation template examples, work is an alternative for newspaper, magazine, journal, and periodical. All examples at template "cite news" use "work", so there’s really no reason other than "I don’t like it" to replace work with newspaper. For the current number of WaPo/Economist cites the five additional characters add around 580 bytes, for all news cites probably 2,000 to 3,000. Space4Time3Continuum2x (cowabunga) 15:19, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

Seems too minor to care about; if you really mind, contact the bot operator so it doesn't do that (your preference), or so it doesn't single out WaPo DFlhb (talk) 19:06, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

I am pretty sure that the "manual revert" tag gets applied to an edit where it restores the page to an identical revision without using undo/rollback/etc, regardless of why -- e.g. this doesn't mean they were actually making manual edits with the bot account. jp×g 09:35, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

I would suggest talking with the bot dev; it appears most editors don't the extra 600B (on a 22kb dial-up connection the difference in load time is 0.03 seconds). - AquilaFasciata (talk | contribs) 15:46, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Wikilinking Putin and Xi

FormalDude, they are both wikilinked in other sections, Donald_Trump#Russia and Donald_Trump#China, respectively. Do we need to link them again? Space4Time3Continuum2x (cowabunga) 16:55, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

Better question is, why wouldn't we link them again? Because of byte count? MOS:REPEATLINK suggests once, but it may be repeated if helpful for readers. Cessaune [talk] 00:28, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, it specifically says we can link them at the first occurrence in a section if helpful. ––FormalDude (talk) 00:37, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

If I'm a reader, I don't particularly care to go hunting for a link elsewhere in the article when I need one. The once-per-article concept is absurd, as it assumes that readers read the whole article top-down and follow every link they see. Twice-per-article is only a little less absurd. ―Mandruss ☎ 17:20, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Best to avoid a sea of blue. One link per Putin & Xi, should suffice. GoodDay (talk) 16:11, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Sea of blue is about adjacent links, not links repeated in different sections. ―Mandruss ☎ 16:21, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Clarifying - I was pointing at STC's revert, concerning sea of blue. But, I do also agree with them, that we need only one link to Putin & one link to Xi. GoodDay (talk) 16:26, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Here's the SEAOFBLUE revert, which had nothing to do with the links being discussed here. But your I just don't like it comment is noted. ―Mandruss ☎ 16:40, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Concerning your assessment of my position on the linking topic. If that's what you believe, so be it. GoodDay (talk) 17:26, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Is there a justification for this position? Cessaune [talk] 17:33, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Why would we need to link to Putin & Xi again? If we've already linked to them once each. GoodDay (talk) 17:35, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Already answered above, by multiple editors. ―Mandruss ☎ 17:37, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

I'm in disagreement, with those concerns. But, I'll go along with whatever the consensus will be. GoodDay (talk) 17:39, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

That's the point of WP:JDL. Why are you in disagreement? ―Mandruss ☎ 17:40, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

We've already linked to those names once. I see no need to repeat those links. Again, if the consensus is to do so? then so bet it. GoodDay (talk) 17:43, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Sigh. ―Mandruss ☎ 17:44, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

MOS is helpful cryptic once again, helpful being in the eye of the beholder. So far, we haven't used repeated links in this article 'though I just noticed a few in captions, e.g., Kim Jong-Un. Why make an exception for Putin and Xi? They're a bit better known than, e.g., Giuliani and Barr. Space4Time3Continuum2x (cowabunga) 17:59, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, well pretty much everything at WP is in the eye of the beholder. WP doesn't like bright lines, for better or worse. If Putin/Xi would be an exception to the "rule", I would oppose the "rule" for the reason I stated above. If such article consistency is important to you, get busy! :-) ―Mandruss ☎ 18:09, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

And maybe it would be useful to have a separate discussion about that larger issue. It could become a new consensus item. ―Mandruss ☎ 18:26, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Space4T, I have just one question: is this an unhelpful addition in your eyes? Cessaune [talk] 00:31, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

I support the rule (generally link only once). Editors supporting the exception (repeat link because helpful) need to explain why. Helpful to whom and why? I think singling out Putin and Xi is a tad SYNTHy-ish, anyway, so I'd support removal of the clause altogether, as discussed above. 16% speaks for itself. Space4Time3Continuum2x (cowabunga) 12:22, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

Who has the time to debate Helpful to whom and why? about all or even many such links? Is that a good use of limited editor time and brain power? Who can really predict when a reader will want to know more about a term or person mentioned in the prose? Not I. In my opinion, it's better to have too much blue (it's only a color) than to risk making readers hunt for links, and MOS:OVERLINK and MOS:SEAOFBLUE should be our only limiters. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:38, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

Anyway, MOS:REPEATLINK is somewhat ambiguous and open to interpretation. Generally, a link should appear only once in an article, but it may be repeated if helpful for readers, such as [...] at the first occurrence in a section. One could interpret that to mean that linking the first occurrence in a section can be seen as always "helpful for readers", depending on local consensus. Thus, my position is not necessarily inconsistent with REPEATLINK. It's one of many attempts to please everybody, which ultimately translates to "If it seems right to you, do it." Might as well remove the guideline, for all the good it does. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:01, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

"Trumpesque" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Trumpesque has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 November 2 § Trumpesque until a consensus is reached. Steel1943 (talk) 19:08, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

"D Trump" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect D Trump has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 November 2 § D Trump until a consensus is reached. Steel1943 (talk) 19:14, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

CARES Act and Operation Warp Speed

I was wondering if there is a consensus on whether or not there should be mention of the CARES Act and Operation Warp Speed within the Presidency Section of Donald Trump specifically relating to his handling of the Covid-19 Pandemic. I do think they fit the qualification of him personally lauding them as achievements as he did heavily campaign on the stimulus checks provided alongside vaccine production during his 2020 campaign (alongside general pandemic downplaying of course) even stating that "'The vaccines turn out to be a tremendous thing,' he said in the interview with Dan Bongino. 'It’s something I’m very proud of.". Given there is no current mention of it as of now should such a reference be present? LosPajaros (talk) 00:46, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

I'm not aware of consensus, but I also don't follow this page very closely. I would agree that it should definitely be included, though. - AquilaFasciata (talk | contribs) 15:18, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Given there seems to have been roughly 3 individuals on both sides supporting or opposing some mention of these actions, there does not appear to have been a consensus reached. I've provided additional citations relating to what I think is adequate enough notability of his involvement and relation to his presidency but I think there should be a consensus reached on this issue so that It can be settled and future discussion won't be necessary. LosPajaros (talk) 21:27, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Parajos, there would need to be affirmative consensus to include such content, so a mixed reaction does not support inclusion. SPECIFICO talk 22:51, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Ah, I see, my apologies. Although I do believe the citations provided support inclusion, I understand how the consensus feature works a bit more and am thankful for the consideration of them. LosPajaros (talk) 01:12, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

No apologies needed. That's what talk pages are for. You presented your view clearly. SPECIFICO talk 01:47, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Only that they were massive failures Anonymous8206 (talk) 19:35, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

??? Operation Warp Speed was not a massive failure... starship.paint (RUN) 06:09, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Considering that secretary of HHS at the time predicted 100 million doses available by the end of 2020, and then lowered the goal to 20 million doses, and by January only had 20 million, of which less than 6 million had actually been distributed... --OuroborosCobra (talk) 02:36, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

Regardless of any perceived successes or failures, the two do seem to be prominent enough actions under his direction to warrant mention. After all, The CARES Act was the largest stimulus bill in U.S. history at the time and Operation Warp Speed did end up helping to formulate the vaccine. Even if there emerges a consensus that they were failures they still remain pretty notable pieces of U.S. policy under his administration. LosPajaros (talk) 02:29, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

Neither one is mentioned in Presidency of Donald Trump, either. Megynkelly.com and the NY Post are not reliable sources, Business Insider doesn't mention Warp Speed or the CARES Act, and the WSJ is paywalled, so no idea what they say. Space4Time3Continuum2x (cowabunga) 15:16, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

To be fair, of course megynkelly.com and the new york post are not neutral sources for analysis but those citations were not given for their analytical reasoning. they were cited for the quotes of Donald Trump that they produced. Both quotes were by Donald Trump during interviews he gave. the New York Post citation quoting an interview he had with Dan Bongino and the megynkelly.com source from an intereview he had with Megyn Kelly on Megyn Kelly's interview platform that would obviously be mentioned on Megyn Kelly's website. Buisness insider mentions the stimulus checks which were some of the most prominent components of the CARES Act while the Wallstreet Journal Artiles (my apologies for the paywall) stipulates how the Trump Administration used the stimulus checks as a way to garner votes and boost his political chances in 2020 alongside other mentions of both the Act and the Program. Additionally, I think just because it's not mentioned in his Presidency of Donald Trump section doesn't mean that the decisions aren't notable. I mean, both of these in conjunction are basically half (the other being Joe Biden's policy) of the U.S. Government's response to the COVID-19 pandemic. That alone shows some level of notability and it might just be that the Presidency of Donald Trump section needs to be updated too to reflect that as well.

I have provided additional articles relating to the effects of both the Cares Act and Operation Warp Speed on their political and material impacts given there appears to be some hesitancy of its notability. LosPajaros (talk) 17:22, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

Sources

"Donald Trump." listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Donald Trump. has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 November 6 § Donald Trump. until a consensus is reached. Gonnym (talk) 12:15, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

OneClickArchiver

If anybody is wondering what happened to their OneClickArchiver links (this is a user-optional facility), the old script has been superseded by a new version. Your fix may vary depending on your method of installation, but I fixed mine with this edit. ―Mandruss ☎ 01:53, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I noticed the same thing. Thanks for letting me know. Mgasparin (talk) 19:32, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Article content

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.

---

After reading the complete article and checking your sources for your information, I'm very disappointed that you only used biased sources as reference material. It also explains the numerous errors and disproven misinformation on many sections as well perhaps as your own personal biased political views.

Whenever you write about a person keep your personal feelings about that person should never be used when researching the information. The truth is found between sources of opposite view points. Also, you should have extended your research to sources from all decades that cover your subject, not just a majority of sources from 2015 to present.

Overall this review is one of the most extreme, one sided, misinformation filled, severely biased and very badly researched articles that's more akin to propaganda than an actual unbiased, honest and neutral report.

I suggest, reworking the whole page and expanding your research to include more neutral sources and sources from same time period you're presenting in a particular sentence or paragraph.

Consider this particular page a rough draft with potential to be a good one after a few revisions. 2600:8807:2003:A200:6CCD:2C7B:F7E3:A314 (talk) 04:35, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

Hello. Please read WP:BIASED and Talk:Donald Trump/Response to claims of bias. ―Mandruss ☎ 08:04, 22 November 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.