Jump to content

Talk:Donald Trump/Archive 171

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 165←Archive 169Archive 170Archive 171Archive 172Archive 173→Archive 175

Erroneous date for hush money jury conviction

I don't have extend protection privileges but the date on the article currently says June 30, 2024 instead of May. SeizureSaladdd (talk) 21:17, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

Lead tags excessive detail

Jury of 12 peers convicted him on all 34 counts of felony and he finally won the popular vote. :p AP news report on 'hush money' trial jury verdict

I reverted the deletion of the Trump rollback of environmental policies and of the number of felony counts, among other changes to the lead. Now the sentences have been tagged as excessive details. Are the tags justified?

  • Environment. Sentenced proposed for removal: He weakened environmental protections, rolling back more than 100 environmental policies and regulations.
  • Felony counts. Current version:

    He is on trial in New York on 34 felony counts of falsifying business records, and was indicted in Florida on 40 felony counts related to his mishandling of classified documents; in Washington, D.C., on four felony counts of conspiracy and obstruction for efforts to overturn the 2020 presidential election; and in Georgia on ten charges of racketeering and other felonies committed in an effort to overturn the state's 2020 election results.

    Proposed version:

    He is on trial in New York for falsifying business records, and was indicted in Florida for mishandling of classified documents, in Washington, D.C., for conspiracy and obstruction for efforts to overturn the 2020 presidential election, and in Georgia for racketeering and other felonies committed in an effort to overturn the state's 2020 election results.

Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 17:30, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

Survey: Lead tags excessive detail

  • Remove both tags. Environment: Keep the sentence. The NYT lists 100 environmental rules that were officially reversed, revoked or otherwise rolled back and more than a dozen other potential rollbacks in progress but were not finalized by the end of his term. Felony counts: Keep the numbers. That's an astonishing number of felony counts for anyone, let alone a former president currently running for another term. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 17:42, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Keep tags
    In the first one, I would keep part of it: He weakened environmental protections.
    In the second one, I would reduce it to: He is currently on trial in several criminal courts for activities related to his presidency and business.
    Bob K31416 (talk) 20:08, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
    That misstates the crux of the crimes. SPECIFICO talk 02:22, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
    Could you explain? Thanks. Bob K31416 (talk) 15:37, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
    I’m with Bob. Explain, please. 2600:100F:B128:E671:FD74:13F0:D870:3184 (talk) 05:41, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
  • The tags are currently appropriate, but I would support Bob's resolution. The purpose of the lead is not to collect things that are astonishing, but to present a balanced and proportionate summary of the article. Given the length of this content in the article body relative to the article as a whole, Bob's version is much closer to proportional than the tagged version. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:33, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
    I agree. Bob's version is an improvement. Riposte97 (talk) 21:46, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
    I agree with Bob’s version. Convictions are more serious than accusations, so mere accusations should not be detailed in the lead. Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:05, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
  • No tags, retain current version of text A few editors exhibit a zeal to trim this article in a belief that sacrificing detail in exchange for some nebulous, ill-defined goal of "readability" is a desirable goal. It is not. The subject of this article is a complex and extensively, extensively-written about individual. There's a lot to say, and we do the readers a disservice if incomplete coverage is presented to them. Zaathras (talk) 13:07, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
    Readers would not be ill-served by having to go to linked Trump sub-articles for much of the detail currently in this article. It's less about readability than proper hierarchical structure and reduction of redundant detail that has to be coordinated between articles. Many editors find it difficult to grasp that this article is merely the trunk of a large Trump tree, and the sub-articles are there to be read by interested readers.
    And who knows how many readers want that level of detail? I probably would not, preferring the executive summary. I'm solidly uninterested that Trump withdrew the U.S. from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (multiply by ~200 in the Foreign policy section alone), but I might want a four-sentence summary of Trump's foreign policy vis-a-vis Iran (which I can't get at any other article). The "disservice" is in not giving me the kind of information I seek. If a reader doesn't want that much detail, yes, it does get in the way and readability does become an issue.
    "Summary" does not mean redundantly duplicating the most important details, which is what this article currently does; rather, it means substantially reducing the level of detail—providing an overview. No doubt, it requires a skill not possessed by many editors, certainly including me. But it is not un-doable. We've got some smart and talented people around here. All it takes is a change in mind set, which is years overdue. (Inserted 21:06, 12 May 2024 (UTC) after replies.)
    Otherwise, no opinion on this specific issue. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:20, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
    FYI, it's about items in the lead. Bob K31416 (talk) 12:23, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
    I think Zaathras is too competent to refer to "incomplete coverage" in the context of the lead alone. That's a newbie mistake approaching absurdity. If I rambled into an off-topic tangent, apologies, but Zaathras opened the door. ―Mandruss ☎ 01:36, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
    It was about everything, Bobs. You know what they say about assumptions. Zaathras (talk) 02:40, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
  • No tags, no further trimming needed. The subject is possibly the most-covered politician of recent years, and as such the level of detail is justified. Cortador (talk) 09:05, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
    The level of detail in these particular statements is disproportionate. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:37, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Remove tags to prevent misleading omissions in trimming. SPECIFICO talk 02:22, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
    Is there a version that is more proportional that would not, in your view, result in "misleading omissions"? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:30, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
    @SPECIFICO: ↑? Nikkimaria (talk) 00:18, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Keep the environment sentence the same, but enact the proposed version (not Bob's version) of the felony sentence. The lead should be a less-detailed summary of the article, explaining the important bits. The important bits to the section about felony charges are why he is being prosecuted, not the exact list of charges. This should be obvious. @Cortador: This level of detail may be justified in the body, but the lead should be a quick, short summary of the whole article. We would still mention all of this in detail in the body. QuicoleJR (talk) 14:44, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
    "Obvious" is just about the worst argument one can make. Here, it is both self-contradictory and incorrect. SPECIFICO talk 17:28, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
  • @Firefangledfeathers: work for you? Nikkimaria (talk) 01:23, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
    The current version (starting at "He is on trial" and ending with "all charges" at the end of the paragraph) comes in at 79 words. Your proposal gets it down to 27, but we lose all description of the charges. I'd prefer a 50ish-word summary along the lines of

    He is on trial in New York on 34 felony counts, and has been indicted on 54 additional felony counts in other jurisdictions—he is charged with falsifying business records, mishandling classified documents, and multiple offenses related to his efforts to overturn the 2020 election results. Trump pleaded not guilty.

    Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 03:17, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
  • I have no opinion on the tags for now, but I do hope we can agree to removal when this discussion is concluded (even if the conclusion is a petering out). I think the environmental line is fine as is, but I would like to see the criminal case content trimmed down. I think we can present the indicted charges in aggregate (is "state-level" too imprecise a descriptor if DC is included?) and I don't think we need to mention which states are associated with which charges. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 19:25, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Looks like we have consensus for some case trimming, though not sure if recent events may have changed folks' perspectives on what that should look like. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:28, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Please add a missing Oxford comma

First sentence: "Donald John Trump (born June 14, 1946) is an American politician, media personality and businessman" should have a comma after "personality". Oxford commas are great for reducing confusion. For example:

"I'd like to thank my parents, Jesus and Debby."

"I'd like to thank my parents, Jesus, and Debby."

I don't have enough edits on this wiki to do it myself. ThistleChaser (talk) 03:02, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

 Done Good idea! Thank you. -- RockstoneSend me a message! 03:05, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
Not only because I prefer the Oxford comma, not only because this article uses the Oxford comma throughout, but because the Oxford comma is present in our current consensus item 50. Correct move, settled issue. ―Mandruss ☎ 03:07, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
During the editing frenzy of editors adding and removing "convicted felon" to the first sentence the serial comma survived until this edit. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 11:29, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

PP

Are we going to need full protection? Slatersteven (talk) 11:33, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

Travel ban in 38 countries

https://www.newsweek.com/donald-trump-travel-ban-1906686 Victor Grigas (talk) 19:20, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

"Former President Donald Trump, now a convicted felon, could face significant travel restrictions as many countries around the world enforce strict immigration policies against individuals with criminal records". Hypothetical at present! Pincrete (talk) 07:32, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
Agree, lets wait until someone says no. Slatersteven (talk) 12:51, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

Redunancies and subjectively agressive

I think I will make a couple small changes today or tomorrow in the redundancies of words on the page such as "comments regarded as racially charged, misogynistic, and racist." There are also a couple places of wording that seems to be implying meaning other than their initial value, like "putting travel banned on Muslim-majority countries" instead of "middle eastern countries"- seems to indict him of doing it because it's Islamic religion and not because of obvious geopolitical reasons. LunarEcho87 (talk) 13:29, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

The heading "Travel Ban" suggests an original target of Muslims, later revised to countries with terrorism. The body does not use "Muslim-majority" like in the lede, and The Gaurdian article cited also does not use the phrase. The corresponding Trump travel ban does use the phrase, however (majority-Muslim). Sr Desayuno (talk) 15:42, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
You must be an extended confirmed editor (the account must have existed for at least 30 days and made at least 500 edits) to be able to edit this page. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 16:01, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

Trump will likely be convicted but not yet

According to the chief legal correspondent for Politico, Trump has not officially been convicted yet: “Technically, it occurs when the court enters judgment of conviction at or shortly after sentencing. Until then, there is still the possibility the judge could set aside the verdicts.”. Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:59, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Yes, and officially the US presidential election isn't determined until Congress votes to accept the electoral votes. But in both cases, there's no real expectation that things will change between now and then. --Carnildo (talk) 01:11, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
Concur with Carnildo Iamreallygoodatcheckers talk 03:35, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
From the US guidelines for sentencing, specific to determining criminal history: "IMPORTANT NOTE: WHERE DEFENDANT IS CONVICTED VIA TRIAL OR PLEA AFTER ARREST BUT PRIOR TO PLEA OR SENTENCING ON THE INSTANT OFFENSE - THAT CONVICTION IS COUNTABLE FOR CRIMINAL HISTORY DETERMINATION."
Source: https://www.ussc.gov/sites/default/files/pdf/training/annual-national-training-seminar/2011/004c_Calc_Criminal_History_Outline.pdf (Page 1) 2600:8800:2500:453:907B:141F:6A53:7669 (talk) 04:33, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
Reliable sources I'm reading are saying that he's been convicted of 34 felony counts. TarnishedPathtalk 04:43, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
The Judge already denied the motion to set the jury verdict aside. It would be highly irregular to reverse that. Outcast95 (talk) 21:25, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
He was convicted and the judge rejected the nearly automatic motion to reverse the jury. Could it be overturned in future? Of course. But until then, he is considered guilty, even in all appeals. Presumption of innocence ends with conviction. O3000, Ret. (talk) 00:43, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
Creating sections like this leads to others just not taking seriously what you have to say going forward. Zaathras (talk) 01:03, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

Inclusion of criminal convictions in the infobox

His criminal convictions were added to the infobox yesterday and I reverted them, but they were re-added. (1) They should be removed until a consensus is met in the spirit of the BRD. (2) Similar to the RfC on "convicted felon" in the first line, these parameters in the infobox should only be included when DUE, and they are not considering the RECENTISM of the convictions and the relative WEIGTHT of the massive amount of RS coverage of Trump and his life. He is not a someone primarily known as a criminal. Iamreallygoodatcheckers talk 15:29, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Agree but I've reached my limit of 3 reverts for today. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 15:41, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
I hadn't. minus Removed – Muboshgu (talk) 15:50, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
@Muboshgu, please refer to Talk:Donald_Trump#What_we_do_after_conviction where there is obvious consensus formed for the inclusion in the infobox. TarnishedPathtalk 15:56, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
User:TarnishedPath, FYI [1]. Bob K31416 (talk) 10:11, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
@Bob K31416 thanks for that although I'm unsure why you pinged me. Special:Diff/1226595859 and then Special:Diff/1226631131 are where the changes occurred. TarnishedPathtalk 10:32, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
You're welcome. Just trying to let you know that there was a problem, in case you didn't know, and that the link was now working. Bob K31416 (talk) 11:00, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
Good stuff. Thanks for that in any case because I'd used that link a few times when closing EC-protected edit requests. TarnishedPathtalk 11:21, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
The comments of the two editors in this section indicate there is no consensus, and I make it three against. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:16, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
Incorrect, there is existing discussion that I pointed to. TarnishedPathtalk 16:22, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
As one of the opposing editors pointed out in #What_we_do_after_conviction, "Infobox criminal is rarely used where notability is not due primarily to the person being a convicted criminal". BLP issue, and WP is not a democracy. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 16:27, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
WP:BLPPUBLIC clearly applies here as if I even need to say that because he's clearly been convicted. I fail to see what BLP argument you have. Again discussion is clearly happening in another thread where there is clear consensus. If you think that editors are misguided in their discussions, perhaps you should contribute there. TarnishedPathtalk 16:37, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
@Iamreallygoodatcheckers My two cents: in the American legal system, convictions are not considered final until at least the sentencing phase and until direct appeals have been exhausted. Scorch (talk | ctrb) 19:53, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
Actually, he is primarily known as a criminal now. He's in fact the *best known criminal in the world* precisely because of his previous public career. 176.94.78.33 (talk) 18:43, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

BLPPUBLIC doesn't mention the infobox. The lead mentions the conviction, with the wording currently being discussed in an RfC, so it's not as if we're making readers read the whole article. (I might have contributed to that discussion but I somehow failed to connect "What we do after conviction" to the infobox. As it is, I would have had to say, "if we're the convict, we go to jail, or we pay a fine. If we're not, we're either crying into our beer or celebrating". Speaking just for myself: yay!) Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 16:50, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

@Space4Time3Continuum2x how do you suggest noting the conviction in the infobox is a BLP violation then? TarnishedPathtalk 17:20, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Notifying @Iamreallygoodatcheckers:. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 17:09, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

@Space4Time3Continuum2x tagging only one editor who you know will go along with you is WP:CANVASSING. I suggest you tag all involved editors from the discussion I referenced. TarnishedPathtalk 17:17, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
@TarnishedPath: I notified Checkers as an editor in this discussion of the infobox who is probably not aware that the inaptly named other discussion is also about the infobox. That's not canvassing. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 17:33, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
@Space4Time3Continuum2x you have selectively pinged an editor, while at the same time not pinging other editors already involved in the discussing the topic. That is clearly WP:CANVASSING. Are you going to rectify that? TarnishedPathtalk 18:23, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
What's to rectify? We don't need two discussions on the same subject. The other three editors in this discussion (you, me, and Muboshgu) are already aware of the other discussion and have now contributed there, and the editors involved in the other discussion don't need to be pinged to that discussion. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 19:01, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

RfC: Do we add infobox criminal after conviction?

There is consensus here to not add {{Infobox criminal}} to this article per that template's instructions quoted by Mandruss, Muboshgu, Space4Time3Continuum2x, and Iamreallygoodatcheckers, and cited by several other editors. The question of whether to add the conviction to the current infobox (as suggested by ARandomName123 and Sr Desayuno) is not answered in this RfC. ~Awilley (talk) 04:00, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

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

Now that he’s been convicted of a crime (in this case 34 counts of falsifying business records), would it be appropriate to add the criminal infobox? I’m not saying to convert from officeholder to criminal, but rather add criminal which would list the charges he was convicted of, his sentence (he hasn’t been sentenced yet, so that’s a moot point right now), and so on.

Now, if this hasn’t already been done, I had been thinking that the category American criminals could be changed to 21st century American criminals since he was convicted of crimes during the 21st century. If you would prefer to retain the current category, that’s fine by me. Unknown0124 (talk) 21:29, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

Collapse off-topic: Not about putting "convicted felon" in opening sentence. It's about the infobox, which is in the upper right corner of the article. Thanks.
  • I think his charges should be shown in the infobox so that the reader has easy access, yes. Justarandomamerican (talk) Have a good day! 21:54, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
    Yeah, that’s why I proposed it in the first place. Unknown0124 (talk) 21:56, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
    Yes.. and I support your idea. Justarandomamerican (talk) Have a good day! 22:10, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Strong Support I agree completely, I think we should add the criminal infobox to the article because it's useful information that any reader of the article should know. Death Editor 2 (talk) 21:59, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Strong Support to add the criminal infobox to the article. --150.143.27.147 (talk) 22:22, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Strong support the addition of criminal_charges field, which can read something like "First-degree falsifying business records". The criminal_penalty field can be updated once the sentencing goes through. Bgregz (talk) 22:40, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Strong support adding a criminal infobox. He's been convicted just as every other criminal with an infobox. Should probably go at the bottom beneath his existing infoboxes. Guninvalid (talk) 22:51, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Strong Oppose. Template:infobox criminal: "This template is generally reserved for convicted serial killers, gangsters, mass murderers, old west outlaws, murderers, mafia members, fugitives, FBI 10 Most Wanted, serial rapists, mobsters, and other notorious criminals. [...] Infobox criminal is rarely used where notability is not due primarily to the person being a convicted criminal." ―Mandruss ☎ 23:19, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
    "Infobox criminal is rarely used where notability is not due primarily to the person being a convicted criminal" -- the person in question is highly notable for his status as former president of the United States, which as of late and going forward, will be intertwined with his reputation as a criminal. Therefore, I believe this to be one of the edge cases in which Template:Infobox criminal can be used.
    However, I agree with the sentiment, and I would prefer criminal fields to be added to the Template:Infobox officeholder instead (there's a fair amount of precedent in terms of politicians-turned-criminal). Bgregz (talk) 00:20, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
    I would point to notorious criminal. His conviction is international news. I'm not sure how much more notorious one gets. Outcast95 (talk) 19:43, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
    John Dillinger, Al Capone, Ted Bundy, John Christie. One felony conviction—for falsifying documents!—does not make one a notorious criminal, international news or not.
    Trump was already notorious, already in international news on a regular basis. So you can't say he's in international news because of this conviction. He's in international news because he's Trump. If one conviction makes one a criminal, there are likely a number of criminals participating in these discussions, including me (I would take offense to the label). Wouldn't it be rich if some of us are hypocritically saying Trump is a criminal as of this conviction, while denying they are? Regardless, you can't put the two debatably true words together and form a whole new concept, "notorious criminal". That is not how language works. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:22, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
    Yes but he's also been in the news for years for his litigious and criminal activity. It's also tied into his presidency because this was part of his campaign. I would agree if this had come out of left field. But it really didn't. Outcast95 (talk) 06:07, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
    34 felony convictions, NOT 1, singular, uno, felony conviction. Death Editor 2 (talk) 00:50, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
    Thank you for the irrelevant correction. Thirty-four counts on what is essentially one crime—for falsifying documents!—still does not make one a notorious criminal. "Notorious criminal" has historically been applied to people who aren't known for much besides their crimes. No matter how much we hate Trump, we can't reasonably say that about him. Key word "reasonably". ―Mandruss ☎ 01:17, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
  • Comment - Editors are advised that consensus is not democratic voting. Any consensus assessment should ignore votes without arguments. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:23, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Support - No reason why not. Donald Trump has a history of criminal controversies, extending before his mainstream notability, and now is convicted, I would say that is reason enough. - R9tgokunks ⭕ 23:21, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose to the infobox per Mandruss. We can mention that he's a convicted felon in the lead without acting like that's what he is primarily notable for, which is not the case and opens a huge can of BLP worms. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 23:45, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
    Oh man, totally forgot about the BLP issue… RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 00:36, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
  • Light support - While the criminal infobox clearly suits the article well at this point in time, the current info box honestly does its’ job. A criminal box would still work, though. WxTrinity (talk to me!) 23:47, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
    For clarity, the original proposal is to add the criminal infobox, not replace the current infobox. Justarandomamerican (talk) Have a good day! 01:53, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Strong support Donald Trump is, at his core , a criminal. Criminal activities made up the main of his activities throughout his life. Given the present verdict and the recent holding that Trump’s business empire was fraudulent, it would be more appropriate to view him as a criminal than a businessman going forward. Trump is no more a businessman than Al Capone or Tony Soprano.67.82.74.5 (talk) 00:45, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
    Donald Trump is, at his core , a criminal. Please learn to separate your personal biases and opinions from Wikipedia editing. We all have 'em, but good editors do our best to check 'em at the door. ―Mandruss ☎ 01:30, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Strong Support He has been found guilty Wilmanman77 (talk) 11:18, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Mandruss. DocZach (talk) 16:20, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Strong Support The template has a use case for notorious criminal. Outcast95 (talk) 19:49, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Oppose on the criminal infobox per Mandruss. Applying an equal standard to this proposal would also require editing other biographies such as that of Nicolas Sarkozy and Dennis Hastert. DemocracyDeprivationDisorder (talk) 14:54, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
  • Comment - We currently have broken Criminal parameters on a Politician infobox. I'd fix it, but I'm on mobile til tomorrow. Somebody please do something! –dlthewave ☎ 00:49, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
    Thank you for the info. Unknown0124 (talk) 01:03, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Strong support. It's exactly the sort of useful information would be in the infobox, so that readers don't have to read the whole article searching for it. TarnishedPathtalk 09:56, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Support use of convicted felon in as many places as possible pbp 16:25, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
    No that is not what we do, we should over-egg the cake. Slatersteven (talk) 16:45, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
    @Purplebackpack89: That sounds like POV pushing. Obviously we should mention it, but mentioning it as much as possible is absurdly excessive. QuicoleJR (talk) 21:49, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Comment Muboshgu please refer to this discussion in relation to your revert of me at Special:Diff/1226584526. TarnishedPathtalk 16:42, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
    I see a discussion in progress, not a consensus. There is WP:NORUSH wrt BLP issues. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:58, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
    Furthermore, the deliberate misuse of the child parameter is a dead giveaway that the edit was made with non-neutral intentions. RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 00:43, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
  • Oppose Template:Infobox criminal: Choose this template judiciously. Unwarranted or improper use of this template may violate the Biographies of living persons, Neutral point of view and Privacy policies. This template is generally reserved for convicted serial killers, gangsters, mass murderers, old west outlaws, murderers, mafia members, fugitives, FBI 10 Most Wanted, serial rapists, mobsters, and other notorious criminals. It is also appropriately used in Nolle prosequi cases of perpetrators dying during the commission of the act or shortly thereafter, common in a suicide attack or murder–suicide. Infobox criminal is rarely used where notability is not due primarily to the person being a convicted criminal. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:58, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Oppose adding another infobox. A mention could be made in the current infobox, like George Santos, but adding another infobox would make the page more clunky, along with Muboshgu's point above. ARandomName123 (talk)Ping me! 17:19, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
    This is off-topic here, but IMO the Santos infobox is wrong. Santos wasn't convicted in Brazil. He plea-bargained, and the case didn't go to trial. The terms of the plea-bargain were restitution, and payment of a fine. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 17:47, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
    Refer to Special:Diff/1226581781 which had the criminal infobox integrated as a child infobox into the officeholder infobox. There's no need to add a whole full infobox when they can be integrated into each other. TarnishedPathtalk 03:47, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
    This is similar also to how convicted Illinois governer Rod Blagojevich's infobox is done. However, Blagojevich's Criminal Information is perhaps his most notable aspect in the modern day, which perhaps differs from Trump. Also convicted governer George Ryan does not recieve the infobox treatment (although perhaps it should).
    The lede with the criminal information suggests it should get a place in the (current) infobox though. Sr Desayuno (talk) 15:20, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
  • Oppose THis was not his main claim to fame, and it has only been a claim to fame for less than a day (at the time of posting). This should be reserved for people whose notably mainly comes from being a criminal, his does not. It may do, but that is for the future to decide, not ours. Slatersteven (talk) 17:22, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
    This is tied directly to his election. Meaning his notoriety from being elected president is intertwined with his notoriety for being a criminal. Outcast95 (talk) 19:52, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Template:Infobox criminal says the template is "rarely used where notability is not due primarily to the person being a convicted criminal". Trump was pretty notable before his indictments and this trial and conviction. The conviction currently is headline news, and the sentencing and any future trials will make headline news again, but WP is not a newspaper. It's not as if the article was suppressing mention of the conviction. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 17:27, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Space4Time, and good catch on Template:Infobox criminal saying "rarely used where notability is not due primarily to the person being a convicted criminal." The same arguments against including in the first sentence flow to this dispute. Donald Trump is not primarily known for his criminal convictions and his notability is in no way derived from his criminal convictions. To include this in the infobox would amount to undue emphasis and recentism because his criminal conviction in New York being in the infobox would not be proportional to the reliable source coverage of Trump or to their proportional coverage in this very article. Iamreallygoodatcheckers talk 20:46, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Oppose for now but this shouldn't be being discussed separately from the lead. If it's determined by that RFC that his criminality (convicted felon) is a large part of his notability... then yes, it should be added, since infoboxes are intended to condense and display key elements of the lead/info that could be in the lead in a "easy to read format". That said, he is not notable for being a convicted felon, and as others have said, while it may merit mention later in the lead, I do not think it is so much of his notability now to make that infobox a legitimate placement at the top of the page. I support the infobox being included in his criminal conduct/trials sections as appropriate, since I support the addition of infoboxes on pages to summarize the key info of the prose whether they're at the top of the page or not. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 21:53, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Neutral It's going to be appealed, however, that process might not take long. In the meantime, faith dictates it is technically a conviction at the very least. I don't envy the closer(s), best of luck. DN (talk) 22:13, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Strong Support It is a defining moment in American history and Donald trumps life. He is the first and only president that is a convicted felon. Catagris (talk) 22:23, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Strong Support, due to Trump's status as both a former President of the United States and a convicted felon being completely unique in history. While Template:Infobox criminal is rarely used except for the articles of people who are primarily known for being a criminal, it's not by accident that the template description says "rarely" and not "never". It was recognized all along that there will be exceptional cases in which somebody is highly notable for some other reason but whose crimes are also notable enough to merit the infobox being used in their article. And what could be more exceptional that a President of the United States being a convicted felon? — Red XIV (talk) 03:38, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Muboshgu, Mandruss and, Space4Time. Those who argue the contrary don't seem to realise that the "first US President to be found guilty" are - without seemingly realising it - actually saying the DT is known for being a "US president (who committed a crime)" not for being a criminal (who just happened to be ex-president). The call to use this infobox seems more motivated by the wish to 'make a point' rather than neutrally impart info, which can be communicated in text more efficiently. His conviction is clearly noteworthy, it doesn't remotely approach being the primary cause of his notability, certainly not divorced from his political career, which he broke the law to support. Pincrete (talk) 05:33, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
  • Mild support I have previously opposed adding "convicted criminal" to the lede sentence of Jeanine Áñez but never had any issue adding criminal convictions in the infobox. My only thought would be to perhaps make it a collapsed section for the sake of length. At the same time, Trump's infobox isn't nearly as long as other politicians, such as Joe Biden. Krisgabwoosh (talk) 07:58, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose per Mandruss. His crime is only notable (to the level that template:infobox criminal requires) due to his presidency. His presidency is notable regardless. Cessaune [talk] 03:27, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
  • Strong Support. I was surprised to find that felony details was not mentioned until the 6th paragraph. This type of information is usually mentioned in the opening paragraph for other criminals. Regardless of the individual, this is basic and defining information that should not be hidden. Bendono (talk) 16:29, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
  • Oppose for now as the subject's current status does not jibe with the Wikipedia's guideline on the application of the criminal infobox. Honestly, every call to support is invalidated unless they can provide a reasonable explanation as to why Template:Infobox_criminal#Usage should be set aside. Zaathras (talk) 01:29, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
  • Oppose Per template:infobox criminal, it is pretty obvious that Trump is not primarily known for this conviction.LM2000 (talk) 09:36, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
  • Embed into Indobox officeholder: Trump is well-known as a criminal especially after January 6 where it is blindingly obvious, but his criminality is not his primary notoriety. If it was not for his term as the 45th US President, his primary infobox would eventually be Infobox criminal due to his lifetime of crimes and eventual conviction on them. I say that Infobox criminal should be embedded into Infobox officeholder. Anyways, we need the Infobox criminal to be embedded to add highly-relevant information about his charges, convictions, and trials since Infobox officeholder does not have fields for those. Jesse Viviano (talk) 23:46, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
    That’s what I thought initially but I toyed around with it and came to the premature conclusion that two separate infoboxes would be better than one. No idea why. I think, if we can get it to work, we can embed it within Infobox officeholder. Unknown0124 (talk) 00:44, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
  • Support embedding criminal information into existing infobox. --Woko Sapien (talk) 15:22, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose and procedural close as malformed Self-evidently not WP:DUE and per MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE and common usage. It wouldn’t be particularly egregious if it was snuck into some subsection far down, but to put it in the lead, this article being an extremely high profile barometer of WP’s overall quality and adherence to the Pillars, should be an intrinsically concerning suggestion to anyone who cares about WP’s reputation.
Furthermore, the question was stated in a way that’s arguably malformed and could have easily been rephrased as a plain yes-or-no question with no background. Also, I don’t see a WP:RFCBEFORE discussion in the section list. @Unknown0124, can you link to where one was conducted?
If this was not a top-tier CT, or if I had WP:SUPERMARIO license to be BOLD, I would have made a procedural close myself. Take a look at the DRN process of drafting RfCs and you’ll see how things are ideally supposed to be done.
RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 00:34, 10 June 2024 (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.

Expanding the "Criminal conviction...." section

Since the conviction in the hush money case four days ago, many things have changed. I will be expanding the "Criminal conviction..." section unless anyone can provide a good reason not to.
Thanks,
Lighthumormonger (talk) 18:54, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

Lighthumormonger, please see WP:ONUS. The burden for demonstrating it should be expanded is on you. There is no burden for us to suggest that it shouldn't be. How about telling us what you think should be added? – Muboshgu (talk) 20:36, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

convicted felon is back in the first sentence again

please would someone remove it, as I will not edit war soibangla (talk) 19:51, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

I’ve got it, there’s like one guy who keeps adding it back WxTrinity (talk to me!) 19:58, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Also, do we really need the extra note underneath the note? It just got vandalized and now says, "EXTRA NOTE: Do not remove "convicted felon" to the introductory sentence until the relevant RfC is sorted out." I've done 3 reverts today and prefer to err on the side of caution. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 20:27, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

If it continues, please point me to whoever is edit warring it back in and I can partial block them. ~Awilley (talk) 21:38, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
Nevermind, I found them. ~Awilley (talk) 21:55, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

Some people need to read wp:brd and WP:ONUS. Slatersteven (talk) 12:50, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

Amend current consensus item 10

current consensus item 10 should be amended, since the article Barron Trump now exists, and no longer redirects to "his section in Family of Donald Trump". Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 21:59, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

Sounds fair to me. I'm tempted to just do it, but we need a little more agreement to cancel an existing consensus. (And it would be a cancel, not an amendment. This discussion would be linked at the end of the canceled item. The difference is that a canceled item is hidden, while an amended item is not. Thus the consensus list would appear essentially as if Barron's BLP had always existed—while preserving the history of the issue.) ―Mandruss ☎ 23:59, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
This is a bit more complicated than I thought at first glance.
It looks like Barron Trump became an article in June 2019,[2] a couple of years after consensus 10 was established. Since the redirect was removed, and this article's link was not piped to the Family article, this article has been linking to the BLP since then anyway. And lo and behold, that's what the OP said.
Since there is no case for piping our link to target the Family article again, I don't see any choice but to cancel 10. To hopefully save some time, I will go ahead with that and I'm revertable if I'm missing something. ―Mandruss ☎ 04:58, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
American royalty, apparently, offspring of . Well, Trump's abode as a toddler had an article, too, so ... (They play the national anthem at the Easter egg roll?) Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 13:30, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
With #10 no longer in the way, Nikkimaria promptly removed all children links from the infobox.[3] ―Mandruss ☎ 05:17, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
Let's see how long it will take before they reappear. Oddly, that's one thing I don't care about. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 13:38, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

Media use of the word "lies"

Until 2018, the media rarely referred to Trump's falsehoods as lies, including when he repeated demonstrably false statements.

This has more to do with the media than Trump "the man" or whatever the standard is for inclusion here. Iamreallygoodatcheckers talk 06:52, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

Referring to Donald Trump#False or misleading statements: I believe the standard was that Trump the man got a pass from the media for a long time. Quoting the AP source: President Donald Trump has been accused of dishonesty, spreading falsehoods, misrepresenting facts, distorting news, passing on inaccuracies and being loose with the truth. But does he lie? Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 11:44, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
Yeah this seems like a consensus 22 vio. Riposte97 (talk) 13:02, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
It's not. We're not calling Trump a "liar" in Wikipedia voice. The question is whether the media referring to Trump's falsehoods as lies is a viewpoint in proportion to its prominence in reliable sources. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 13:40, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
On the contrary, we are implying two things: 1) that he lies, and 2) that since 2018, the media have called his false statements lies. Neither of those things is justifiable. Riposte97 (talk) 04:26, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
Even if what you say is correct, it still doesn't violate 22. Wikivoice isn't about (subjectively) "implying" something, it's about saying something. Anyway, it's false to say we are implying that he lies. We're simply observing and reporting media behavior (supported by sources, so no OR). As for the precise year, I don't know how verifiable that is, and we could maybe reword to eliminate that. (Unless sources actually say 2018 was the year of the sea change, that is OR.) The essential point is that media avoided the word for some number of years; then they stopped avoiding it. There's little room for dispute about that. ―Mandruss ☎ 06:47, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
Rip, we need to reflect the current mainstream view, not an average over the past six years. Current mainstream RS have indeed gotten comfortable dropping the euphemistic framing he enjoyed for most of his charmed life. SPECIFICO talk 19:38, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
Riposte97, we are not "implying" "that he lies". Rather, we are documenting that RS say "that he lies". That is a fact, and it is our duty to report what RS say. Also, when backed by RS (and we have myriad of them), it is totally "justifiable" to write that "the media have called his false statements lies." It is not only "justifiable", we must do it. That's our job. Whitewashing violates NPOV. (Frankly, IRL, it would be dishonest for anyone to imply that he doesn't lie, but that's another matter. This is about editing here.) -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 19:52, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
Gotta say you're overstating the case. WP:ONUS: "While information must be verifiable for inclusion in an article, not all verifiable information must be included. Consensus may determine that certain information does not improve an article." Thus, choosing to omit something doesn't constitute whitewashing. You might as well claim that consensus 22 is whitewashing. Even while media uses the word "lies", we have decided not to do so in wikivoice. I think that shows a healthy degree of restraint. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:33, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
Of course we don't include literally "everything". We leave out trivia. This happens to be pretty important, and that's what I'm talking about. We may not use wikivoice in this article for that particular word, but we still document that RS show he lies an awful lot. We can use the word when cited. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 00:58, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
Other examples: consensuses 14, 26, 31, 39, and 59 (some decidedly NOT "trivia"). This list excludes a number of consensuses where Trump-negative things are omitted from the lead alone. ―Mandruss ☎ 01:02, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
We can use the word when cited. Not in wikivoice, per 22. And the sentence under discussion here is sufficient; we're not going to report that on Junetember 33, 2021, the Washington Post said Trump lies (etc., etc.). ―Mandruss ☎ 01:14, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
Mandruss, we're talking about #22, so I am obviously not suggesting we can say it in wikivoice. #22 does not forbid the existence of the word(s) when quoting RS. It just forbids the use of the word(s) in wikivoice.
BTW, you're supplying good evidence that some of these items likely seriously violate NPOV and BLP by giving preferential and protective treatment, far beyond BLP's WP:PUBLICFIGURE, to Trump that we do not extend to other subjects. Editorial neutrality, the core of NPOV, is being suspended just to protect Trump. That's so wrong. The existence of a "Trump exemption" giving him favorable treatment is long practice here, and it needs to stop. By 2018, mainstream RS finally had had enough and stopped protecting him, and we are supposed to use RS as our guiding star here. We should not ignore what they are doing. The whitewashing must stop. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 15:24, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
22 is based on a 2017 RfC. That's quite a while ago now. If there are indeed a significant number of RS either stating that Trump has lied (more likely) or that Trump is a liar (less likely), it seems a new RfC is in order to establish whether sourcing is strong enough to state that in wikivoice. Cortador (talk) 10:44, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
Cortador, per my reply to Mandruss, I think you're right. Editorial neutrality is being suspended just to protect Trump. That's so wrong. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 15:24, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
We should review all of the items on that list that reflect RS' early reluctance to use straightforward language about people and things MAGA. SPECIFICO talk 15:31, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
Agree. This is not about trivia, which rightfully should not clutter a lead. It's about Trump's primary modus operandi, the foundation of his business and political careers, the Kool-Aid that is the primary nourishment of his MAGA cult, and his overarching and dominant character trait. Its due weight is enormous, so rather than minimize it, it should be profiled as prominently as RS do it, which is how the body should also treat it, and then the lead reflect the body. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 15:36, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
it seems a new RfC is in order to establish whether sourcing is strong enough to state that in wikivoice. No objection from a process standpoint, although I would probably oppose. It does appear to meet the "situation has changed" standard that we have historically required for revisitation of a consensus. It's also a very dramatic change, the most dramatic in my memory, and I think it should require not only an RfC but an RfC with high participation. I.e., if we don't have, say, 30 editors by the time it's de-listed, it should be kept open and re-listed, continuing to re-list until we do. Even if it's trending strongly one way or the other.
The election year timing is unfortunate. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:07, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
Whether or not it's an election year is entirely irrelevant. The sole relevant factor here is whether the number of reliable sources calling Trump a liar or someone who lies is sufficient to state so in wikivoice. Cortador (talk) 19:20, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
I didn't say it's relevant; I said it's unfortunate. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:24, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
Off-topic about what's wrong with Wikipedia in general. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:36, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
issue comes from RS being left wing, that’s what’s wrong with Wikipedia in general 2A04:4A43:529F:D394:7008:E480:EA06:1920 (talk) 11:31, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
You mean that RS present ACTUAL facts, instead of "alternative facts". --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 13:13, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

Source assessment: I check which sources actually stated in their voice that Trump lied or is a liar. I excluded opinion pieces and only went with sources that are not marked as unreliable as per Wikipedia's list of perennial sources. I did not exclude sources considered to be opinionated by some editors. Pieces that exclusively cite someone else stating that Trump lied were excluded as well. However, if those sources additionally called Trump a liar or claimed he lied in their own voice, I included them. This list is not exhaustive.


CBS News: Donald Trump lied about gaming and Florida casinos

Mother Jones: Trump Lied More Than 30,000 Times During His Presidency. No Wonder We’re Exhausted

CNN: Numerous articles e.g. 1 2 3 4 5

Mediaite: Reporter Fact-Checks Trump’s Claim Cops Are Keeping Out Crowds of MAGA Protestors: ‘There is One Pro-Trump Person Here’

Forbes: Numerous articles e.g. 1 2 3

Business Insider: Trump lied during his big abortion announcement and said Democrats want to be able to execute babies and Trump lied about the 2020 election and recycled conspiracy theories in a letter to the Jan. 6 committee after it voted to subpoena him

Daily Beast: Donald Trump Lied, and Mike Pence Could Have Died

The Wrap: Old Tweet Proves Donald Trump Lied About Global Warming

Vogue: Donald Trump Lied About Stormy Daniels. Why Should We Believe He Isn’t Still Lying?

Fortune: Why Donald Trump’s Lies During the Presidential Debate Don’t Matter

Vox: Donald Trump just lied again about opposing the Iraq War before it started. Here’s proof

Slate: Trump Lied About COVID to Protect the Markets, Not Human Beings

Vanity Fair: Surprise: Donald Trump Lied About His Nasty Little Toilet-Clogging Habit


Here's some non-American sources as well:

CBC: How Donald Trump lied his way onto the Forbes 400 richest people list

Hindustan Times: New Hampshire Primary: All the things Donald Trump lied about in the Primary

The Guardian: Trump’s CNN town hall was a mess of lies – and it was utterly predictable

Frankfurter Rundschau: Donald Trump lügt am laufenden Band - Ex-Präsident im Faktencheck

Tagesspiegel: Donald Trump und seine Lügen

Aftnonbladet: Experten: Här är klippet som avslöjar Trumps lögn

Sveska Dagbladet: Så ska vi tänka när Trump ljuger världen i ansiktet

Göteborgs-Posten: Forskare: Trumps lögner liknar en diktators

El País: Trump miente cuatro veces más que al comienzo de su presidencia

Tagesschau: Herr der Lügen and Lügen, Spott und große Versprechen Cortador (talk) 22:12, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

Hmm. Seems like prima Davie evidence that not only should the media paragraph be stronger, but potentially, 22 should be revisited. Riposte97 (talk) 22:35, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
There's little disagreement that the situation has changed, in fact the article already states that. That's all we need to justify revisitation. We're certainly not going to cancel 22 in this thread, and any source assessments should be saved for the RfC, if any. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:41, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
Speaking of which: That's how any RfC should be framed, in my opinion... canceling 22 rather than superseding it. We don't need a consensus item to allow something: if it's not banned, it's allowed by default. The link to the RfC would be placed at the end of the canceled item 22, identified as e.g. "Canceled: RfC July 2024".
If there were subsequent disputes about specific content using the L-word, they might warrant new consensus items; but that's different. That probably should be "when", not "if". ―Mandruss ☎ 00:12, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
Mainstream media appear to continue calling Trump's lies mostly falsehoods, misleading claims, false statements, etc., so our wording still reflects the majority viewpoint, I think. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 19:09, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
Are you basing this on a single NYT article? Cortador (talk) 22:04, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
So who's going to start the RfC? It should be someone who supports the change, which ain't me. Are we waiting for the convicted felon issue to be put to bed? Not a terribly bad idea; on the other hand, the convicted felon issue won't be the last highly controversial and time-consuming one as we approach the election. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:41, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

Mention of businessman in first paragraph of lede

Since Trump was proven to have commited fraud, it is biased to highlight his business ventures without mentioning the fraud he has committed. Portraying some one as a businessman lends credibility to someone who has been proven to act in illegal capacities rather than just legitimate business. Editing-dude144 (talk) 23:03, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

 Not done See Talk:Donald Trump#Current consensus, item 50. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:48, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
Fixing the consensus list for mobile. ―Mandruss ☎ 15:14, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
how do you view the current consensus items? I honestly can't find them Editing-dude144 (talk) 00:22, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
You were just provided a helpful link. Try clicking it. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:24, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
Your link doesn't work. This one does Editing-dude144 (talk) 01:39, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
It works for me. It has always worked for me and, presumably, everybody else (no complaints until yours). I don't know why it doesn't work for you. It's merely a section link, like Talk:Donald Trump#Home at birth. While one can link to the subpage, we usually link to the transcluded section on this page. It's also the first entry in the table of contents on this page. ―Mandruss ☎ 01:46, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
None of this is visible/usable on a mobile device. This is the only link that has worked: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Donald_Trump/Current_consensus Editing-dude144 (talk) 01:49, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
I did not know that, being mobile-ignorant. I wonder how mobile users have gotten by for so long, and this should be taken up with the developers, whoever they are. We do section links all the time, and not just for the consensus list. ―Mandruss ☎ 01:56, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
@Mandruss: As a mobile editor, we can use section links, but we have to press an extra button to see talk page banners, like the consensus list. Section links therefore do not work for those banners. QuicoleJR (talk) 18:47, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
@QuicoleJR: But our consensus list is not a banner. The transclusion is the only thing that makes it different from any other section on this page. I don't see why this would make a difference. Anyway, your comment seems to contradict Editing-dude144. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:20, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
As a user who only ever edits on mobile, the mobile version of the site hides everything above the first level-2 section behind an extra click. QuicoleJR (talk) 20:24, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
@QuicoleJR: I've moved the section heading from the subpage to this page. Can you see the consensus list now? ―Mandruss ☎ 20:32, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
@Mandruss: Yup, that fixes the section link. QuicoleJR (talk) 20:55, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
yes, ty! Editing-dude144 (talk) 14:06, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
Well I'm glad we could get that fixed, some 6 or 7 years late (I've forgotten when the list became a subpage). Amazing this never came up. ―Mandruss ☎ 14:40, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
why can't we propose an addendum change to item 50 just as 50 did to #17 and just as rfc: convicted felon is attempting to do? Editing-dude144 (talk) 14:11, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
Every major company in America has convictions on record. Do you think that doesn't make them real businesses? That's just how business is conducted in the U.S. at least. TFD (talk) 01:43, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
Businesses and individuals are not treated the same way in journalism, so I fail to see how treatment of businesses is relevant to discussions about a single businessman Editing-dude144 (talk) 14:14, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
I think the point is being a crook does not stop him from being a businessman, in fact that if anything it is a given. Slatersteven (talk) 14:18, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
I agree with that point, but that doesnt conflict with my argument that mentioning one without the other is a source of bias.
The case of a business vs business man is key here b/c businesses can be reformed, leadership can be changed, and a certain amount of legal fighting is a given in the business world.
Personally commiting fraud is a different story. There is no internal restructuring, policy reform, or leadership changes to rebuild an individuals credibility.commiting fraud in your own personal capacity is a permanent blemish on one's credibility as a businessman. Note that many convicted of fraud, state it early in the lede and use terms such as "ceo" and "entrepeneur" Mehmet Aydın (fraudster) Sam Bankman-Fried. Others such Kenneth Lay refer to the person as a businessman and allude to the fraud before the info box. Trump does not deserve special treatment in comparison to other notable fraudsters Editing-dude144 (talk) 14:52, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
Ahh then I misunderstood your point, you would be OK with a mention in the second line like" and had been convicted of fraud"? Slatersteven (talk) 14:59, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
yes, 100% on board with a second line mention (although that may fall under the currently open rfc). As long as it comes before the infobox.
That being said, while the rfc on convicted felon resolves, I think we are obligated to remove mention of him being a businessman in the lede Editing-dude144 (talk) 15:10, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
Why? Even if EVERYTHING he ever did in business turned out to be illegal and corrupt, he would still have been a businessman. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 15:15, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
no one is saying he's not a businessman. I am arguing that the current description is misleading b/c it briefly touches on only the legitimate aspects of his buisiness ventures however his fraudulent business activity is not even alluded to (even though it is at least as significant if not more so.)
To eliminate bias/misinformation while the rfc resolves, we should either remove "businessman" or replace it with entrepeneur or more suitable language for cons. Editing-dude144 (talk) 16:00, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
"Businessman" says nothing about whether the business was legitimate or fraudulent, so how can it be misleading? He has businesses, he is famous because of those businesses. Whatever his criminal activity, he would still be famous just by running those businesses. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 21:06, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
No we are not, his fraud does not stop him from being a businessman. Slatersteven (talk) 15:17, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
As with convicted felon, the first sentence is not the place for such analyses. We keep it dry, bland, boring, and uncontroversial. ―Mandruss ☎ 15:27, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

Burying the Lede

This edit is nonsense. Current consensus #50 regards the first sentence. Nothing about current consensus is violated by adding a second sentence to the first paragraph, and it is grossly irresponsible to bury something as historically significant and currently notable as the felony conviction of a former President. Rogue 9 (talk) 17:02, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

You ain't kidding, the sheer anal retentiveness is staggering Gold2040 (talk) 17:07, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
For clarity, how about a link to a diff instead of to a revision. ―Mandruss ☎ 17:11, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
Done, sorry about that. Rogue 9 (talk) 17:14, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
Granted, consensus 50 does not preclude a second sentence. So the editsum could have been better. But I can guarantee you that no BOLD edit regarding this conviction is going to be accepted without prior consensus, so it doesn't really matter. If I had seen that second sentence added, I would have reverted with the editsum "under discussion, no consensus". At this article, we don't trample on process because we feel it's "grossly irresponsible". This may differ from what you're used to elsewhere. ―Mandruss ☎ 17:31, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
We are talking about notable, verifiable facts of historic importance. If the consensus is to not include said facts, the consensus runs counter to the purpose of an encyclopedia. Rogue 9 (talk) 17:45, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
We do mention the notable, verifiable facts of historic importance in the lead. We're discussing whether and, if so, how to mention them in the first sentence or paragraph. Patience, he's going to be a convicted felon for a long time. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 17:55, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
Will he though? Considering the court case? Slamforeman (talk) 18:43, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
The signing of Trump Organization checks by a sitting president and colluding with Weisselberg to book them as business expenses as official acts? Hm — food for thought. I must have a flag around here somewhere I can fly upside down. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 19:00, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
Was it Cal Coolidge who said the business of America is business? Similarly, the business of Wikipedia is consensus. Not what individual editors claim is the purpose of an encyclopedia. That will never be seen as a legitimate argument around here, and there aren't any such trump cards in Wikipedia editing. You want to do something controversial, you get consensus for it. Period. ―Mandruss ☎ 18:17, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
Please define what is controversial about the fact that Trump is the first former President convicted of a felony. Is there a reliable source stating that some other former President was convicted first, or that the verdict read out in the Manhattan courthouse was fabricated? Rogue 9 (talk) 18:20, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
What's controversial is placing this in the first sentence, and, to a slightly lesser extent, in a second sentence. That is what you propose to do because it's the purpose of an encyclopedia. Placing it lower in the lead wouldn't be so much controversial in itself, but the exact placement and wording would likely need consensus anyway. The wheels of justice Wikipedia editing turn slowly. ―Mandruss ☎ 18:30, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
Well, you'd better hop on over to Richard Nixon and remove the statement that he's the only U.S. President to resign from the first paragraph there, then. This isn't different. Rogue 9 (talk) 18:33, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
He resigned in 1974, not two days ago. Also, he's dead, so BLP doesn't apply to him. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 18:41, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
With more experience, I think you'll find that one can find such comparisons to support pretty much anything—with interminable debates about apples and oranges (see preceding). It's a pointless waste of mental energy. ―Mandruss ☎ 18:44, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
I think the removal of the note was due to a misunderstanding — I didn't get it at first either. The editor was right in removing your bold edit since mention of the conviction in whatever shape or form to the first sentence or the first paragraph of the lead is under discussion right now. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 17:48, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
The RfC is specifically about the first sentence. Rogue 9 (talk) 18:18, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
I think you're right. Although it's not in the first sentence, I think the two editors think it's close enough to wait for a decision about the first sentence before proceeding with a discussion about putting it in the second sentence. That seems reasonable, or is there some urgency? You might try making your case at the RFC, even though it is about the first sentence. For example make the comment that you think it should be in the second sentence and why. I don't expect you'll get a consensus over there but you might get some ideas about it. In any case good luck and happy editing. Bob K31416 (talk) 18:50, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
If the closer saw a consensus for a new second sentence, I don't think they would have a problem with declaring it in their closure, regardless of the original framing of the RfC question. It's pretty common to have editors step outside the defined scope of an RfC. I'm known for saying that Wikipedia editors are cats that refuse to be herded. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:06, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
I made my position quite clear in the RfC before ever starting on this. We're here doing this because I am following Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle as directed in the notes in the edit field of the article. Rogue 9 (talk) 05:34, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
Thanks for clarifying. I would recommend that you wait to see what happens with the RfC, especially since there does not seem to be any support here for your edit at this time. Bob K31416 (talk) 11:39, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
Did you really think you were being clever by adding "convicted felon" in a super-short second sentence, that this would bypass the consensus required for the opening? I mean, you really truly thought you found a silver bullet? Zaathras (talk) 18:52, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
Who said anything about a silver bullet? The consensus dictates the structure of the first sentence, not anything after it; if you want it to say something else, then it should say something else. This information belongs at the head of the article because the conviction of a former President is a notable and historic event. Rogue 9 (talk) 05:00, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
You're WP:GAMING. Let the discussion take place rather than trying to bypass it. — Czello (music) 19:03, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
I am most certainly not. The discussion is taking place and I have done nothing to prevent it. If it comes to the manifestly correct conclusion that Trump's singular status as a convicted former President should go in the first sentence, then great, that would be even better. Rogue 9 (talk) 05:02, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
This is gaming. By putting it into the second sentence you're simply bypassing the discussion above; it ignores the spirit of the discussion. — Czello (music) 08:30, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
But in that very same rfc, you have people arguing that its "only about the first sentence". the title of the rfc should be edited to reflect that Editing-dude144 (talk) 22:05, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
The presence of convicted felon/the jury's verdict in the lead is already under discussion. Yes, that discussion started as whether it should be in the first sentence or not, but it's clear from reading even the first dozen or two responses that the discussion is also over whether it should be in the second sentence, the first paragraph, a later paragraph, or not at all. Making an controversial edit while discussion is ongoing on the talk page is textbook edit warring. (ec resolved) -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 19:03, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

Remove the St. John's photo-op?

I think we should remove it, or at least shorten it. It currently gets just as much coverage here as it does at the presidency article, which makes no sense since the presidency section should be summarizing the presidency article. Since it only gets a paragraph or two there, we don't really need to mention it in the summary here. I could potentially understand giving it a sentence in a section somewhere, but we currently give way too much weight to it. This article will need to cut a few things to make room for the impending election and the impending verdicts in his cases, and it is already very large. This seems like it is something that can go, and it can stay at the presidency article. QuicoleJR (talk) 20:38, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

Agreed. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:00, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
Remove.--Jack Upland (talk) 01:06, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
Yeah I concur. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:30, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
One, maybe two sentences, with a piped section link to Presidency of Donald Trump#Photo-op at St. John's Episcopal Church. If they want even more detail, that section links to Donald Trump photo op at St. John's Church. One click for each successive level of detail. ―Mandruss ☎ 02:02, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
Disagree. It's only four sentences now, with one of the iconic images of his presidency, autocracy on the march for the purpose of a photo-op with a Bible, straight line to January 6 when the Pentagon dithered and dawdled so as not to create similar optics. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 12:06, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
User:Space4Time3Continuum2x, Re "...straight line to January 6 when the Pentagon dithered and dawdled so as not to create similar optics." — That's an interesting point that the Capitol was not properly protected Jan 6 because of the St. Johns photo op. Why isn't that point in the Trump article's St. Johns photo op section, Jan 6 section, or the Jan 6 article? Is that point made in any source? Thanks. Bob K31416 (talk) 16:43, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
It may not have been the only reason, the other being, "patriots, supporting our president, they wouldn't attack Congress, would they"? Online sources: NYT, HuffPo, Politico 2023, The Week, Politico 2021, Newsweek (William Arkin), Bloomberg, CNN, Bulwark, VF, Rollcall. Plus various books, some having been mentioned in previous discussions but both the discussions and the passages in the books would take me much longer to dig up. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 17:57, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
Good work. I looked at just the first two sources but that was enough to convince me that the idea was out there. Bob K31416 (talk) 20:05, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
the presidency section should be summarizing the presidency article: according to which WP policy? Seems we've had similar discussions before, as in "let's just use the lead of the 'Presidency' article". Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 12:39, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
@Space4Time3Continuum2x: According to the guideline WP:SYNC, which provides good guidance for writing this section. We can't follow it to the letter in this situation, but we should follow the general principles. QuicoleJR (talk) 15:13, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
The people who wrote WP:SYNC haven't met Donald Trump. A "high-level or conceptual article" this definitely ain't, it's the story of grandfather's old ram, except it's not funny, and Grandpa may nap a lot, but he keeps waking up and adding to the story. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 15:28, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

We should remove highly significant content because why? Because an editor speculates about what might happen months from now? At least wait until there actually is such cause. There are many less significant nuggets for any future trims. SPECIFICO talk 02:17, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

Which less significant nuggets are you referring to? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:25, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
For example, the whole Religion section could be cut. Most of the blow by blow of his purported business career could be summarized in 3 sentences. Etc. If future need be. SPECIFICO talk 02:26, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
Okay, made a start on that. Do you have a summary in mind for the business career piece? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:00, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
It isn't speculation to note that we will need to add things to this page on the 2024 election, such as who wins and whether or not the loser accepts the results. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:36, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
It's speculation to predetermine what might be triimed for any reason in the future. But its also jumping the gun. If the church bit were UNDUE, we wouldn't need to trade it for a player to be named later. SPECIFICO talk 03:03, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
I'm proposing two candidates for trimming. #1: As I mentioned before, this sentence in Donald_Trump#2024_presidential_campaign mentions a mere blip on the 2024 campaign radar that is forgotten by now: In December 2023, the Colorado Supreme Court ruled that Trump was disqualified from holding office due to his role in the Capitol attack until the U.S. Supreme Court reversed the decision via Trump v. Anderson in March 2024. #2: In two weeks or so, when the verdict is in, we should be able to update and shorten the section on the Manhattan criminal case considerably. Lafayette Square will keep cropping up as long as Trump is running for office. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 12:20, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
I gather you don't support my suggestion, either. The philosophical difference rears its ugly head again. Where something is covered in a sub-article, that article should be the main go-to for readers. The function of this article should be to provide an easy path to the sub-article content, and it should do so in the form of a high-level summary/overview containing a link: substantially higher-level than we currently use for this topic in this article. Side benefit: Any subjective article length issues vanish forever. ―Mandruss ☎ 02:38, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
Let's apply that to all the business deals. Keep just the core: 1) Commodore Hotel, 2) went broke, 3) pivot to The Apprentice. SPECIFICO talk 03:08, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
Remove, unsure. Reduce sure. Slatersteven (talk) 09:33, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
This section has already been reduced to the detriment of our readers. The page is indexed so that readers are not burdened by length nearly as much as by omission and cryptic framing that omits significant detail. Once we send a reader to a subpage, and maybe to a secondary sub-subpage, they are off the track of the main page. It is far easier to navigate the main page table of contents than to blow up one's browser with a fog forest of detail pages. SPECIFICO talk 11:22, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
It's only four sentences, and the picture. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 12:07, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
We should remove highly significant content because why? Because WP:SUMMARY is a guideline, and it says that we should make the presidency section summarize the important parts of the presidency article. Giving this one controversy as many words here as at that article is not compatible with the guideline. I will agree with Space4 that some of the post-presidency stuff should also be trimmed. QuicoleJR (talk) 12:33, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
"Also??" What? There is no guideline that requires us to remove or further weaken this short section. SPECIFICO talk 13:45, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
I think giving an entire section to this one controversy, with as much information about it here as at the more specific presidency page, violates SUMMARY. It also arguably violates UNDUE by giving more weight to this one incident than most sources do. It hasn't received much attention since it happened, and is not one of the controversies that I have seen any source bring up as a point against Trump, and they have brought up a lot of his old controversies from his presidency. I see no reason for this one incident to get an entire section. QuicoleJR (talk) 14:44, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
For more specific examples, we have one paragraph about his opinions on the ACA. We have one sentence about his thoughts on NATO. We have one sentence about his stance on abortion. All three of those get much more weight in the media than the photo-op. In light of that, per UNDUE, we should either increase how much room those three topics get or decrease the amount of room the photo-op gets. The first one is not feasible and would lead to serious size issues, so that leaves the second option, which is to remove most or all of the information about the photo-op. QuicoleJR (talk) 14:52, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
NATO and Abortion should indeed be expanded.Good catch. SPECIFICO talk 16:23, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
It hasn't received much attention - you probably didn't notice it when it was mentioned in some other context. Quoting myself from another discussion: Baker/Glasser's The Divider devotes an entire chapter to The Battle of Lafayette Square, where "Trump had staged what would become the most infamous photo-op of his presidency".[1]
Work cited
  • Baker, Peter; Glasser, Susan (2023) [2022]. The Divider. Anchor Books. ISBN 978-0-593-08296-6.
The event was notable and iconic — using federal law enforcement to break up a lawful demonstration for the purpose of staging a show of strength/dominance, with the Bible and the highest-ranking military officer as a prop. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 16:03, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
Baker/Glasser are journalists who didn't write a biography, and didn't write a summary of Trump's presidency; they focused on one aspect of Trump's presidency: the division. DFlhb (talk) 05:45, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
I just checked Google News, it would appear that you are correct about it remaining relevant. I still feel like it should be trimmed, but count me neutral on removing it entirely. QuicoleJR (talk) 16:16, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
I googled the keywords, Lafayette Square trump. As one can see from the hits, a year after the incident there were a lot of mainstream articles saying that Trump's photo-op was not the reason the park was cleared. The section seems to be misleading. Bob K31416 (talk) 20:07, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
You can't just look at the headlines popping up in Google searches. This was similar to Barr spinning Mueller's report into "total exoneration" for Trump, and some mainstream media fell for it. Some, e.g. NBC, reported that "Attorney General William Barr urged officials to speed up the clearing process once Trump had decided to walk through the area that evening". See Donald Trump photo op at St. John's Church#Inspectors General. See also WaPo, Vox, Salon. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 11:12, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
I looked at what you presented and it doesn't show that the park was cleared because Trump wanted a photo-op. Thanks for the effort, but our article section is misleading on that point. Bob K31416 (talk) 12:03, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
No, it isn't. We merely say that federal law-enforcement officials cleared the park, and then he walked and posed. The fence was scheduled to be erected later that evening, after the curfew set to begin at 7 p.m., and it actually was put up later that evening. The Trump-appointed IG at DHS refused to initiate any audit, investigation, or even review of the actions taken by DHS personnel, the DOJ IG’s report is still pending as of this month, and the Interior Department’s IG conducted a limited review , according to their own report. See WaPO, Vox, Salon. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 17:06, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
"We merely say..."? It's a false implication supported by obsolete references that were contradicted a year later. Just the raising of questions by the sources that you just presented isn't enough compared to the many mainstream reliable sources. Those many sources didn't seem to come out to support theories and analysis that the park was cleared for the photo-op, after it was shown that it wasn't. I'll wait and see what others think and let the chips fall where they may. Again, thanks for your efforts. Bob K31416 (talk) 17:55, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
Agreed. The section clearly conveys a false implication. It needs to change. Riposte97 (talk) 01:03, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

Bob. The purpose and function of search engines is to show you that which you seek. Unfortunately in this case, it appears you searched for and found one of the many thousands of deflections. equivocations, and revisions of events covered in the NPOV content of our Trump pages. SPECIFICO talk 19:58, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

It seems to be an incident that gathered a lot of attention at the time, but on investigation wasn't that earth-shattering. It has its own article and doesn't need to be discussed here.--Jack Upland (talk) 03:18, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
  • It should be like 1 sentence (2 max) tucked somewhere in this article. Not in it's own subsection. I've long supported the need for a general BLM/protest subsection where it could be, but I'm to lazy to write it right now and it probably wouldn't be accepted anyway. Iamreallygoodatcheckers talk 06:45, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

Don't confuse Bill Barr with Smokey the Bear. If anything, we should be more explicit to debunk the various denials. SPECIFICO talk 06:57, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

@Space4Time3Continuum2x, SPECIFICO, Iamreallygoodatcheckers, Jack Upland, Mandruss, Riposte97, Bob K31416, Slatersteven, Muboshgu, and Nikkimaria: I'm seeing a general agreement to, if not remove it, reduce it to a sentence or two. I am not currently seeing enough support to remove all mention of it. The only ones supporting the status quo are SPECIFICO and Space4. Pinging everyone to make sure I am correct in that assessment. Where do people think that the sentence should be placed in the article? QuicoleJR (talk) 18:01, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

It could go in Social issues. On balance, I'm unconcerned that it isn't covered in that section's linked "main article". It's covered in the grandparent section's main article.
Looking at the Presidency part of the table of contents, I'm struck by the glaring contrast between Lafayette Square and virtually all of the other subsections. They're all general in nature until you see section 5.5, then—BAM—a section about a single isolated event. UNDUE seems clear.
I'm inclined to change my support from 1–2 sentences to 2–3; one seems excessively low unless the sentence is made cumbersomely long. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:40, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
Yep I think reducing to a couple of sentences is appropriate. Riposte97 (talk) 21:45, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
Remove or 1-2 sentences. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:19, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
I think Mandruss makes a good point about Lafayette Square compared with other subsections.--Jack Upland (talk) 05:16, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
I support removing it altogether; it's undue and the wrong level of detail for this article. No subsection should be dedicated to individual events - DFlhb (talk) 06:03, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
I'm not saying a subsection, I'm saying a sentence or two somewhere in the article. QuicoleJR (talk) 18:28, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
And I'm saying it should be removed; that aspect of his presidency should be covered as a synthesis (by the dictionary definition; from a good recent source/sources) and it would deserve a brief mention (1 clause) as part of that - brought up as an example to illustrate a more general point, not mentioned in an isolated fashion. The latter isn't worth doing at all, since we can't expect readers to figure out that larger point all on their own - DFlhb (talk) 18:57, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
The former would be an example of moving it to another part of the article. I am simply trying to figure out where to put it. QuicoleJR (talk) 22:30, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
You didn't like my idea, I take it. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:54, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
Your idea is good. I am just making sure nobody else is opposed to that specific placement. QuicoleJR (talk) 23:08, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
Mandruss, autocratic behavior of the president as a social issue? I realize something needs to be done with the section; it doesn't reflect that this incident led or contributed to the poor preparations for and belated response to the Jan 6 rioters. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 10:51, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
Are you sure that is clear about the response when you take into account most of the discussion of causes in reliable sources, rather than just those that advance that theory? Bob K31416 (talk) 12:06, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
I think it'll do for now, unless and until there is an "Autocratic behavior" section. There are more important things at hand. ―Mandruss ☎ 16:50, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
Is this theory common among reliable sources? If so, how common. If it is only forwarded by a few reliable sources, and the majority have no mention of it, I doubt it would be DUE to mention here. QuicoleJR (talk) 16:56, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

I have performed the merge. We can work on the specific wording a bit more if needed. QuicoleJR (talk) 18:26, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

There was no consensus to do that. Please reverse your merge. SPECIFICO talk 19:48, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
Now I have looked at that edit and it is not merely a chang of section you called a merge. Key content - the content that explains the significance of Trump's role - was removed. Please yndo these edits. SPECIFICO talk 19:57, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
@SPECIFICO: There was a very clear consensus saying that only one or two sentences should be given to this incident. Only you and Space4 opposed. Consensus does not have to be unanimous. QuicoleJR (talk) 20:27, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
checkY Approve of QuicoleJR's merge. Iamreallygoodatcheckers talk 06:26, 5 June 2024 (UTC
It's not a "merge" when the significant paragraph that explained its significance was expunged. SPECIFICO talk 09:24, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
Welcome back. The place hasn't been the same without you. ―Mandruss ☎ 09:28, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
@SPECIFICO: The consensus was to reduce the amount of information given to the incident. A merge that trims out a bunch of information is still a merge. I will say it again, the vast majority of editors supported doing this. You are one of only two that did not. Consensus does not require every single person to agree. QuicoleJR (talk) 11:52, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
The before and after texts side-by-side - gone are: the image (its removal wasn’t discussed at all); mention of the Bible while leaving the cryptic text that seemingly for no apparent reason religious leaders condemned the photo-op. Added was "subsequently", implying that the violent removal of lawful demonstrators ("lawful" appears to have been removed sometime in the past) had nothing to do with Trump’s excursion to the church at that particular time. Before:
Trump and group of officials and advisors on the way from White House complex to St. John's Church



On June 1, 2020, during the George Floyd protests, federal law-enforcement officials used less lethal weapons to remove a largely peaceful crowd of protesters from Lafayette Square, outside the White House.[263][264] Trump then walked to St. John's Episcopal Church, where protesters had set a small fire the night before; he posed for photographs holding a Bible, with senior administration officials later joining him in photos.[263][265][266]

Religious leaders condemned the treatment of protesters and the photo opportunity itself.[267] Many retired military leaders and defense officials condemned Trump's proposal to use the U.S. military against anti-police-brutality protesters.[268

Post-merge:

In June 2020, during the George Floyd protests, federal law-enforcement officials controversially used less lethal weapons to remove a largely peaceful crowd of protesters from Lafayette Square, outside the White House.[258][259] Trump subsequently posed for a photo-op at the nearby St. John's Episcopal Church,[258][260][261] drawing condemnation from many religious leaders.[262]

Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 17:46, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
I replaced subsequently in the sentence and added mention of the Bible. However, the consensus was clear that we should only give this a sentence or two in this article. Most articles do not use an image to illustrate two sentences. Therefore, I think it makes sense to exclude the image. QuicoleJR (talk) 17:57, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
The more you repeat yourself as the one who should find consensus for your own proposal, the less credible it becomes. Your edit summary was inaccurate and misleading. You removed the co to t of the controversy that makes it both noteworthy and NOTABLE. Have you read the prior talk page discussions you claim to have overturned with this thinly-reasoned voting thread?. Patience is a virtue. This reversal of prior consensus is not supported at this time. SPECIFICO talk 18:17, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
@SPECIFICO: I looked through the most recent discussion I could find, being from a year ago. It seems to have had a similar dynamic, where only you and Space4 supported retaining the subsection. There are ten other users in this subsection who would disagree with that position, and the situation was similar a year ago, in that stalled discussion in archive 154. QuicoleJR (talk) 18:44, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
Did you notice I asked about the discussions - plural? On reason there's diminishing response to non-policy-framed trim requests is that the longstanding consensus was settled via nearly a dozen past discussions. Your only rationale is that some new future content won't "fit" in our virtual closet here. If the content were UNDUE, you could argue that -- but you haven't. In fact, you appear to have proposed removing this key content even before reviewing RS, which you later googled. And militarized civil law enforcement is not a "social issue" anyway. It is a constitutional issue. If you can cite the other 3 times presidents wanted to shoot civilians, etc. you would have a case that this was no big deal. SPECIFICO talk 23:30, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
Consensus can change, and that is still true if you do not agree with the consensus. QuicoleJR (talk) 00:01, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
Per WP:IDHT, you are repeatedly declining to respond to the points raised in favor of the status quo ante consensus. Your task is to refute those. "Consensus can change" is not in dispute here. It's one of several straw man deflections you have made. You may find it helpful also to see WP:NOTAVOTETo establish a new consensus, you or somebody, anybody, would need to provide policy- and RS-based arguments for an improved version. Have you now had a chance to review the many talk page discussions I referenced? To cut key context and reframe this event as a one at the bottom of a diverse "social issue" list, you would need to respond on the crux of the disagreement here. Otherwise, the status quo consensus will eventually be sustained. SPECIFICO talk 15:04, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
The guideline WP:SIZE says that articles over 15k words (like this one) should be trimmed or split. WP:SUMMARY, another guideline, says that we should summarize the most important parts of his presidency. We should not give as much detail to it here as in the presidency subarticle. That is my main policy argument, and has been since the beginning. QuicoleJR (talk) 15:37, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
Also, your response seems to imply that someone would have to satisfy you specifically to get this change passed, which is certainly not the case. QuicoleJR (talk) 15:39, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
Most articles do not use an image to illustrate two sentences. I'm unaware of a WP policy. Editors pretty much illustrate what they want. On Clarence Thomas's fan page, e.g., you'll find an example of a large image illustrating one sentence and another image of a building not mentioned in the body. This image illustrates that Trump "— furious about criticism that he has not done enough to stop the protests and violence that followed the death of George Floyd in Minneapolis — told senior advisers Monday that they had to show they could control the streets of Washington and the area around the White House". After his Rose Garden speech (As we speak, I am dispatching thousands and thousands of heavily armed soldiers, military personnel and law enforcement officers to stop the rioting, looting, vandalism, assaults and the wanton destruction of property. We will end it now.), he, senior cabinet members, and the U.S.'s highest military officer in combat uniform forayed across the square to the church. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 12:39, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

Here's a brief history of editors' positions in this thread:

QuicoleJR began the thread with suggesting removal from the article or shortening. Nikkimaria and Muboshgu agreed. Jack Upland suggested remove.
Mandruss suggested reducing it to 1–2 sentences.
Space4Time3Continuum2x and Specifico objected to these suggestions of removal or reduction.
Mandruss was willing to change his suggestion from 1–2 sentences to 2–3 sentences and moving it to the Social issues section.
Riposte97 agreed to reducing to 1–2 sentences.
Nikkimaria more specifically suggested remove or reduce to 1–2 sentences.
DFlhb suggested remove or have one clause elsewhere only if it adds to some other related material.
Slatersteven suggested reduce and was unsure about removal.
QuicoleJR reduced the material to two sentences and moved it to the Social issues section.
Iamreallygoodatcheckers supported QuicoleJR's edit.

I think QuicoleJR's edit is an improvement. Bob K31416 (talk) 02:13, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

I agree. Jack Upland (talk) 07:18, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
Yep. DUE applies to both text and images. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:40, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

Bypassing the Presidency article

I note that we currently link to Donald Trump photo op at St. John's Church, bypassing the far-less-detailed content in the Presidency article. That violates principles of hierarchical structure and deprives readers of the opportunity to be satisfied by the level of detail in the Presidency article. One click for each successive level of detail, without skipping any. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:52, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

Why? The hatnote says "main article", so it should logically lead to the main article. If it did not, we would be misleading readers. The Presidency article also has few details that aren't also contained in this article, while missing some that are. QuicoleJR (talk) 22:54, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
Why? Didn't I already answer that? {{Main}} allows section links; see examples there. Apparently the community is not concerned that the hatnote says "article". I'm certainly not. If this "misleads" readers, that's already happening in countless other places in the encyclopedia.
Let's not get too hung up on semantics. "Main article:" can be interpreted as "Next level of detail:" without costing me any sleep. I honestly doubt readers care.
But the semantics are not entirely unimportant. Any problem can be avoided by using {{Further}} instead of {{Main}}, creating the hatnote "Further information:". This also supports section links.
Anyway, your concern becomes moot if the topic is deprived of its own subsection; in that case, there is no hatnote but rather an inline piped section link. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:27, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
The Presidency article also has few details that aren't also contained in this article - Aren't we talking about dramatically reducing the details in this article? Similar levels of detail is precisely what should be avoided.
It goes to the system design principle that data redundancy is bad design: "Data redundancy leads to data anomalies and corruption and generally should be avoided by design [...]". Specific to our situation, we should avoid creating redundant levels of detail that have to be coordinated between articles. To some unknown degree, we surely fail to coordinate adequately, creating discrepancies ("corruption") across articles. An editor makes a change to this article and fails to look at one or more sub-articles to see if they also need changing. Cross-article coordination not being a priority for time-limited volunteers, the discrepancy no doubt often goes unnoticed for years, if not forever. Opportunities for that are to be minimized, and that's done by avoiding similar levels of detail. (It's still possible to create discrepancies, but less easy. You can make a change at the more-detailed level without affecting the less-detailed level, in which case no discrepancy is created.) ―Mandruss ☎ 02:28, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
Both the Trump article section and the Trump presidency article section refer to the same photo-op article, so there shouldn't be a problem. The interesting idea that you brought up about computer programming doesn't seem useful here. Both sections should depend on the photo-op article, which seems like the ultimate authority with regard to the subject in Wikipedia. Seems more likely that problems can occur if the Trump presidency article section is represented as the place for more information about the photo-op, e.g. an editor at the Trump presidency article may make a mistake in interpreting the photo-op article or make a mistake interpreting a source. Also, I agree with a previous point that essentially says that the link to the Trump presidency article section isn't very useful compared to the link to the photo-op article. Bob K31416 (talk) 14:59, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
Computer programming? Wikipedia is essentially a special-purpose database and most of the same concepts and principles apply here. It's about how we choose to structure and organize data. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:08, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
That would apply to every subsection and sub-subsection of the "Presidency" section. E.g., the main article for Economy is Economic policy of the Donald Trump administration, for Climate change, environment, and energy it's Environmental policy of the Donald Trump administration, etc. This is Trump's biography. It should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in those sources. We have differences of opinions on what's significant enough to be mentioned here. If there's a consensus to move content to a related article, then the editor who removes the content from this article should be the one to add it to the other article or make sure that it's already present, and then possibly discuss inclusion or not with the editors on that page. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 18:43, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
Disagree again. Conceptually, "Trump's biography" comprises a number of articles that are divided only because combining them would create an impossibly large article. If not for that, the content in the Presidency article would be in this article. Therefore it's part of "Trump's biography" (might as well be Donald Trump, Page 2), and that's very hard to dispute when a large part of this article, which you claim contains his entire biography, is about his presidency.
When you split part of this article into a new one (usually done only for size reasons), does that split content cease to be a part of his biography? I don't see how. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:21, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
You might want to clarify your position regarding the point, "That would apply to every subsection and sub-subsection of the "Presidency" section." In other words, do you want to change those links too? Thanks. Bob K31416 (talk) 20:22, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
Where we're bypassing intermediate levels of detail, that would be an "ultimately, yes". It wouldn't have to all be done now, and scope expansion is often counterproductive.
This goes hand-in-hand with reducing the level of detail in this article where there is a sub-article, which largely guarantees that we're bypassing intermediate levels of detail. The St. John's topic provides a "test case" that helps us think about the concept. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:42, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

Removal of small fire

@SPECIFICO: Please explain to me how the fact that the protestors started a small fire the night before the photo-op is relevant to our biography of Donald Trump. QuicoleJR (talk) 17:37, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

Please consult the cited sources and sub-article content. SPECIFICO talk 23:51, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
@SPECIFICO: The sub-article does not explain why it is important to include on the article for Donald Trump, only that it is relevant to the protests near the church. Like I said, please explain how the small fire that happened the day before is relevant to our biography of Donald Trump. QuicoleJR (talk) 00:24, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Baker & Glasser 2023, p. 468.

Investigations, criminal charges, civil lawsuits

This section could really be trimmed down, given that many of the cases have their own articles. For example, On March 30, 2023, a New York grand jury indicted Trump on 34 felony counts of falsifying business records. On April 4, he surrendered and was arrested and arraigned; he pleaded not guilty and was released. The trial began on April 15, 2024. tells us little about the case. Jack Upland (talk) 03:10, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

It tells us that there is a criminal trial of a former U.S. president underway which is a big deal, at least until there is a verdict. If you want to trim down s.th. that has its own article and was DOA, maybe you could take a whack at this sentence in Donald_Trump#2024_presidential_campaign: In December 2023, the Colorado Supreme Court ruled that Trump was disqualified from holding office due to his role in the Capitol attack until the U.S. Supreme Court reversed the decision via Trump v. Anderson in March 2024. I didn't get any anywhere due to this 2:1 low-participation discussion 🔨. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 12:32, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
Can someone please include DJ Trump's new official title as first convicted felon in American history..? Much appreciated.. Dynamic City (talk) 10:46, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
And in a twinkling of an eye the offending passage has vanished.--Jack Upland (talk) 01:59, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
why is reality offensive? He is the first convicted felon who was president. 162.142.106.251 (talk) 02:51, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

Political prisoner

Trump has self-identified as a political prisoner. :Biden was asked his opinion of Trump's "political prisoner" claim, to which he smirked. Should this rhetoric be added to the article?GobsPint (talk) 18:48, 6 June 2024 (UTC) Sources:

He says a lot of things so I don't think this is automatically a yes but if this becomes an significant and ongoing talking point for him, and it gets non-trivial coverage from Reliable Sources, then maybe. DanielRigal (talk) 22:13, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
Lol, no. The Wikipedia does not traffic in delusion. Zaathras (talk) 22:15, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
I don't think the OP is proposing wikivoice. If there is adequate RS support, we can report delusions. As always, one question is (1) this article and a sub-article, or (2) only a sub-article. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:26, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
Why did the OP add this article to Category:Political prisoners in the United States? – Muboshgu (talk) 04:14, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
Trump self-identified as a political prisoner per WP:RS to raise capital: [4], [5], [6], [7], [8]. GobsPint (talk) 06:03, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
He did self-identify that way, yes, but that doesn't make it so. WP:MANDY applies. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:21, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
Only if it receives sufficient on-going coverage. That would probably only happen if he became an actual prisoner. TFD (talk) 23:20, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
Perhaps we need a new article on delusional claims. O3000, Ret. (talk) 00:02, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
That's what annotations are for.GobsPint (talk) 04:07, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
I self-identify as someone who doesn't believe this should be in the article. (I'm trans, I can make that joke.) LilianaUwU (talk / contributions) 06:18, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
NO, as said he says a lot of things, many of them not true. Slatersteven (talk) 08:32, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
Following that logic, we'd best get rid of this section. And others. We shouldn't give him voice, but we should document his voice if DUE. The more partisan tack: If he's delusional, shouldn't our readers know that?
Sure, we've used your logic to omit lots of things Trump said, but only because they failed the DUE test (not because they weren't true). I'm not convinced that's the case here—and claiming that the entire American justice/legal system is corrupt, controlled by Democrats, and out to get him seems pretty significant to me—but I'll leave that to others. ―Mandruss ☎ 09:42, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
Not really as court cases were launched over those. This is just his opinion. By the way we can say "The entire American justice/legal system is corrupt, controlled by Democrats, and out to get him" using those very words, and not put in his claim he is a political prisoner. Slatersteven (talk) 10:41, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
Not that it matters for our purposes, but I don't think he's really delusional or paranoid. He's just shrewd enough to know that's his best strategy for re-election. The master at work. ―Mandruss ☎ 10:00, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
No. Seems to have been ignored by most RS. Politico mentions it in one sentence about the campaign fundraising page. Way down in a June 1 AP article I found one sentence mentioning that the Trump campaign had sent a fundraising text message calling him a "political prisoner" (AP’s quotation marks) and pointing out that he hasn’t been sentenced yet. PolitiFact appears to have fact-checked proactively, seeing as he’s currently missing the essential part of being a political prisoner, not having been sentenced to a prison term. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 11:47, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
Have you considered taking it to Donald_Trump_2024_presidential_campaign#Rhetoric or maybe a new Donald_Trump_2024_presidential_campaign#Platform subsection? Self-styled victim of deep-state persecution seems to be one of his recurring main talking points these days. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 15:52, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
Do any of those sources say any thing other than "he has said"? Slatersteven (talk) 09:59, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

Donald J Trump convicted rapist of E. Jean Carrol

Donald J Trump is a convicted rapist for the rape/sexual assault of E. Jean Carrol 87.49.45.83 (talk) 12:19, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

He was found liable in a civil trial, not a criminal one. Wikentromere (talk) 12:21, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
He is not a convicted rapist, he was found liable in a civil trial and was not convicted by a jury of his peers in that regard. CIN I&II (talk) 05:00, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
Would it be accurate to say that he's an "adjudicated sexual abuser" or "adjudicated rapist" in the commonly understood use of the term? Jwueller (talk) 16:36, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

I believe the trial determined that Trump was (and is) a "forcible digital penetrator". Buster Seven Talk (UTC) 13:53, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

"...hush money payments to Stormy Daniels..." - request for more accurate description!

The lead presently has the words: a jury in New York found Trump guilty on 34 felony counts of falsifying business records related to a hush-money payment to Stormy Daniels, and the section on this issue in the article has the title Criminal conviction in Stormy Daniels hush money case. While the phrasing "hush money case" is popularly used, there are numerous citations that object to that depiction in the NY criminal case. The main issue, what made it a felony, was that the business records were falsified in an attempt to cover another crime - in this case, the crime was that $130,000 was "given" to the Trump campaign under the table, in violation of election law. The article at present does not describe this important aspect of the case. I would prefer a statement in the lead something like a jury in New York found Trump guilty on 34 felony counts of falsifying business records related an illegal contribution to the Trump campaign as a hush-money payment to Stormy Daniels. The Trump trial jury found that the payments violated election law, I believe; the payments to Daniels themselves were not illegal. This nuance is important given the extraordinary disinformation floating around! Bdushaw (talk) 01:54, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

I have personally heard multiple Trump supporters say things like "this is a made up case, because paying hush money isn't illegal!" - I've even heard non-supporters say things like that. It appears that some previous fence-sitters are now planning to vote for Trump, because they think this legal case is BS, and their misunderstanding is exactly as you describe, @Bdushaw. so I agree that some more clarity and specificity here would be good for our readers. Pecopteris (talk) 02:45, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
Well, the case is commonly referred to as the Stormy Daniels hush money case. If we call it something else, will readers find it?
  • Courtesy of the New York Times's annotation of the indictment: Trump made and caused a false entry in the business records of an enterprise "with intent to defraud and intent to commit another crime and aid and conceal the commission thereof", the other crime — unnamed unspecified in the this indictment and not mentioned on the verdict sheet — being the scheme to violate election laws and to mischaracterize the hush-money payments for tax purposes. Cohen went to jail for the "other crime"; Trump wasn't indicted for it, but the prosecution used it to bump up the charges, 34 x falsifying business records, from a misdemeanor to an E felony, the lowest class of felony in New York State law.
  • The verdict was commented by most media outlets as "34 felony counts of falsifying business records in his New York hush money criminal trial" or similar wording. Manhattan DA Bragg said at a press conference after the indictment that the alleged scheme was intended to cover up violations of New York election law, which makes it a crime to conspire to illegally promote a candidate and that the $130,000 payment exceeded the federal campaign contribution cap.[1]
We could add the gist of Bragg's statement to the second paragraph of Donald Trump#Criminal conviction in Stormy Daniels hush money case but I oppose adding more detail to the lead. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 09:54, 7 June 2024 (UTC) Bold content added for clarification. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 14:44, 7 June 2024 (UTC) Adding further clarification in bold italics. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 17:43, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Marimow, Ann E. (April 4, 2023). "Here are the 34 charges against Trump and what they mean". The Washington Post. Retrieved April 5, 2023.
Thanks for that extra clarification! It seems like an interesting situation regarding the other crime, if it's the one that is a violation of campaign finance law by Cohen. It appears that it is one of various crimes that Michael Cohen pled guilty to in a previous prosecution as part of a plea agreement. It's the one of paying hush money that was alleged at the time to be a violation of campaign finance law. So the crime was never proved, and was part of a plea deal with various other unrelated crimes of Michael Cohen that may have been accepted by Cohen to get the plea deal. So Trump's charge was upped to a felony, based on a crime that was never proved, but was stated by the prosecutor in another case and by the defendant as part of a plea deal that involved several other unrelated crimes. I think this is in a reliable source somewhere but I'm not sure. Maybe it will appear more prominently in reliable sources when the case is appealed. Bob K31416 (talk) 15:02, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
He was convicted. I hope we're not going to get in the situation we have at Ahmaud Arbery and George Floyd with years of editors claiming they weren't murdered. O3000, Ret. (talk) 15:30, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
Huh? You mean the plea bargain that excised Trump's name from the proceedings, proved that — deal-wise — Cohen was no match for Trump's Justice Department, and sent him into solitary confinement? Cohen pleaded guilty to "charges of tax evasion, making false statements to a federally-insured bank, and campaign finance violations", per the Southern District of NY. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 18:00, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
BTW, in New York, misdemeanors are criminal offenses that can get you up to one year in jail, not just a slap on the wrist. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 21:03, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

Felon

Duplicates existing discussion, which is not a vote in any case. ―Mandruss ☎ 15:03, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

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

I believe FELON should be added to his BIO McDNife (talk) 14:40, 21 June 2024 (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.

Article states conclusions about 2020 election results and some Trump claims when this information is unknown, and as records get unsealed, and states complete their audits, it is questionable that his claims were untrue. These conclusions represent a bias that should be taken out of the article. The actions he made should be kept in, but the conclusions about those actions should be removed. 24.151.34.20 (talk) 12:27, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

Well as many Stats have done audits, and found no wrongdoing (As have the courts) sorry, this is not gonna swim. Slatersteven (talk) 12:37, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 25 June 2024

Donald Trump is a convicted felon. This is missing from his bio. 2601:241:8D00:DF30:1D00:EB7F:C50B:489 (talk) 11:40, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: It is not missing. — Czello (music) 11:43, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

USMCA/Trade agreement section of lead

Currently the lead has a sentence related to trade and international agreements: 'Trump initiated a trade war with China and withdrew the U.S. from the proposed Trans-Pacific Partnership trade agreement, the Paris Agreement on climate change, and the Iran nuclear deal.'

Given that the question of withdrawing from or replacing NAFTA was an extremely prominent feature of the 2016 campaign and heavily featured in mainstream media sources that meet Wikipedia's criteria for reliability, I modified this sentence to 'Trump initiated a trade war with China, replaced NAFTA with the United States–Mexico–Canada Agreement, and withdrew the U.S. from the proposed Trans-Pacific Partnership trade agreement, the Paris Agreement on climate change, and the Iran nuclear deal.'

This edit was reverted on the grounds that the USMCA/replacement of NAFTA is not leadworthy. It seems as notable if not more notable than the decision to withdraw from the Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement, which is mentioned in the lead. If the lead is going to have a sentence on trade agreements, the trade agreement that was most prominent throughout Trump's presidency should likely be included. Onyxqk (talk) 19:46, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

Of course this is notable and leadworthy. No brainer. I liked your edit and I'm surprised it was reverted. Pecopteris (talk) 19:50, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
As did I. I thought it added important information. Riposte97 (talk) 00:03, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
Considering that USMCA "largely maintains or updates the provisions of its predecessor", I don't see the point. Little has changed, whether NAFTA or USMCA. This is not the large-scale change that the other things mentioned were. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 12:54, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
This exactly. Even the article on the USMCA states in it's opening that it's largely just NAFTA again, just with a different name. It's not nearly as impactful as the trade war with China. Cortador (talk) 11:50, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
The impact of USMCA seems larger than some of the other items included in the lead that only existed for brief periods of time/had limited actual impact (such as the withdrawal from the Paris Agreement, which was only in effect for a period of a few months before being reversed by President Biden). It was one of the main topics pertaining to trade discussed in reliable sources during the presidential campaign and Trump's presidency, and still is in place impacting trade relations across North America.
From the Wikipedia page on the Paris agreement: 'The U.S. government deposited the notification with the Secretary General of the United Nations and officially withdrew one year later on 4 November 2020. President Joe Biden signed an executive order on his first day in office, 20 January 2021, to re-admit the United States into the Paris Agreement. Following the 30-day period set by Article 21.3, the U.S. was readmitted to the agreement.' Onyxqk (talk) 21:02, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
Trump made a big noise about renegotiating or cancelling NAFTA, but the outcome was basically NAFTA-with-streamers-on-the-handlebars. Yawn. Trump withdrew from the Paris Agreement, sending shockwaves throughout the international community. Rejoining was part of Biden's strategy to reassure the world that the US was back to normal. User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 18:33, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
Trump's involvement in this was minimal. It's UNDUE. See previous talk page discussions. SPECIFICO talk 14:11, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
From the Wikipedia page on USMCA, Trump's involvement in the agreement at a high level does not appear to be minimal (presumably Trump's personal involvement in the specific details of the final trade agreement was limited, as is fairly typical for trade agreements): 'The present agreement was the result of more than a year of negotiations including possible tariffs by the United States against Canada in addition to the possibility of separate bilateral deals instead. During the 2016 U.S. presidential election, Donald Trump's campaign included the promise to renegotiate NAFTA, or cancel it if re-negotiations were to fail. Upon election, Trump proceeded to make a number of changes affecting trade relations with other countries — withdrawing from the Paris Agreement, ceasing to be part of negotiations for the Trans-Pacific Partnership, and significantly increasing tariffs with China — reinforcing that he was serious about seeking changes to NAFTA, while drawing wide criticism as well.' Onyxqk (talk) 20:49, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

NPOV

Please read Talk:Donald Trump/Response to claims of bias. Closing per current consensus item 61. Eligible for manual archival after this time tomorrow. ―Mandruss ☎ 06:08, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

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

Disclaimer, I'm not American and despise this bloke and everything he represents, but this article is not at all neutral. The lede genuinely reads like a hit job, solely from a single POV. The body suffers from this as well. All this does is widen the political divide. Alexanderkowal (talk) 01:03, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia relies on mainstream sources that are generally reliable. Unfortunately, these sources have obvious biases which affects the quality of political articles. I'm not sure how this issue should be fixed. Maurnxiao (talk) 01:27, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
There must be a plethora of sources that mention at least one positive thing, this article seems to only include negative points. I'm not talking about making this article read positive or include populist lies, but there at least needs to be a bit of balance, at the moment the see saw is touching the floor. This article is currently over the 15,000 word limit at 15,671, so we have no room to work with. I think we've got to work the body a little bit but have no idea what to trim. Imo the lede needs to be rewritten, but it's better we first focus on the body, if people agree. Alexanderkowal (talk) 01:46, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
It sounds like you want WP:FALSEBALANCE. This is RS coverage. We've beaten this dead horse over and over again; I assume you checked through the archives of discussions on this topic before starting yet another one. It would be more helpful if you brought up specific points and not general statements like "the lead genuinely reads like a hit job". – Muboshgu (talk) 01:52, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
  • He was the only U.S. president without prior military or government experience. is very undue
  • As president, Trump ordered a travel ban on citizens from several Muslim-majority countries, diverted military funding toward building a wall on the U.S.–Mexico border, and implemented a family separation policy. He weakened environmental protections, rolling back more than 100 environmental policies and regulations. He signed the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017, which cut taxes and eliminated the individual health insurance mandate penalty of the Affordable Care Act. He appointed Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett to the U.S. Supreme Court. He reacted slowly to the COVID-19 pandemic, ignored or contradicted many recommendations from health officials, used political pressure to interfere with testing efforts, and spread misinformation about unproven treatments. Trump initiated a trade war with China and withdrew the U.S. from the proposed Trans-Pacific Partnership trade agreement, the Paris Agreement on climate change, and the Iran nuclear deal. He met with North Korean leader Kim Jong Un three times but made no progress on denuclearization. Please tell me this is based on academic sources and not media? Very poorly structured imo. Appointing members to the Supreme court is also very undue, I suggest replacing it with a sentence on summarising the economy during his tenure.
Alexanderkowal (talk) 02:09, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
I think He was the only U.S. president without prior military or government experience is due, but I'm open to reconsidering that.
As for the second bit, it's based on the sources in the body. It could be structured better. Appointing SCOTUS justices is one of the most important parts of being POTUS and RS certainly establish its weight in this case given the Dobbs decision. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:18, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
On the first point, I appreciate it is notable but not lede worthy when compared to the other sentences. On the second point, if it is to be included, then it needs to not use names, various members would suffice. I think the lede also needs to explicitly say that immigration was lower, so readers can weigh ‘lower immigration’ with the humongous pile of shit that is the rest of his tenure. The body also only implies that, it needs to explicitly state it Alexanderkowal (talk) 02:28, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
The issue with the paragraph on his tenure is that it’s a series of talking points. It needs instead to be: summary/introductory sentence, sentence on economy, then on civil liberty, then immigration, then foreign policy, then personal conduct, then academic analysis, or something like that Alexanderkowal (talk) 02:34, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
You're offering nothing insightful or new here that hasn't been raised by dozens of new editors in the past, and dismissed. The "I despise him too" was a particularly cute touch, also one seen here many times. The article follows the sources, the preponderance of which are negative. Zaathras (talk) 04:25, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
It looks like you've given up on your point, "There must be a plethora of sources that mention at least one positive thing, this article seems to only include negative points." Over the years, editors have tried to correct that with items like expediting covid vaccine, but there was too much resistance here. Also, it may be that editors who don't like Trump but who think the article could be improved this way, don't have much motivation when it comes to saying anything positive about Trump, especially in an anti-Trump environment such as this talk page. So the way the article is, is the way the article will be, except possibly many years in the future when the strong feelings of these times have passed, along with the passing of the current generation of editors. But maybe this is too pessimistic an outlook. Who knows. Bob K31416 (talk) 04:56, 28 June 2024 (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.

Removal of motivation for hush-money payment

@Space4Time3Continuum2x, you've removed the sourced statement about that the payments involved an attempt to influence the 2016 presidential election. The reason it was previously removed was "this is unsourced beyond a statement from Michael Cohen", but to avoid edit warring would you mind explaining your reasoning here? It seems like a substantial and factual detail that stayed up for quite a long time and it was edited once in a week, so your edit summary wasn't particularly helpful in in explaining why it shouldn't be there. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 13:44, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

Trump was convicted on May 30, and Checkers challenged the sentence on June 4 because the body only mentions it as something Cohen said. We shouldn't say it in Wikivoice in the lead when the body doesn't. Cc Iamreallygoodatcheckers. With the RfC and other discussions about the "convicted felon" and bits and pieces in the lead getting edited, this got lost in the shuffle. Also, on this page, the sources should go in the body, and the press release you cited is a primary source, so we'd need secondary RS. I'm not sure that in an attempt to influence the 2016 presidential election belongs in the lead, not because I think it's controversial (I don't) but because the verdict doesn't specify the "other charge" that got the misdemeanor bumped up to an E felony, and the lead is already rather long. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 14:15, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
It's widely reported in RS, wrt both state and Federal election law. It's disappointing that the initial removal would be pinned on the Cohen source rather than a SOFIXIT. With all the non-RS narratives circulating to obscure this, it really should be made clear to our readers why this was a felony. SPECIFICO talk
Easier said than done. I'm dumb, I need the sources to spell it out for me. (How did you manage to publish without a time stamp? I checked to make sure I didn't unintentionally delete it.:) Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 19:12, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
For a secondary source, there's this:
"The prosecutors argued that Trump had falsified business records to hide a sexual affair from voters and corrupt the 2016 election."
and this is pretty clearly distinct from the "convicted felon" discussion. If it's not in the body that's probably something that should be remedied after the RfC above, but it's clearly an important detail. I think it belongs back in, not all article improvements/changes are pending the above RfC. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 15:04, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
The convicted felon RFC was closed and the closer made it clear that we achieved no consensus for that issue and that the rfc only applied to the first sentence. There are no other applicable rfcs to my knowledge.
I support adding this sentence in the body and then the lead. However, I do not have access rights to add it in. Editing-dude144 (talk) 17:15, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
From two WaPo articles:
  • May 29: In Trump’s case, prosecutors have offered three types of crimes that would make the state election-meddling charge come into play: federal election law crimes, tax crimes or false business records. The jury must be unanimous when it comes to determining whether Trump is guilty or not guilty of each specific falsifying business records count, and whether he did so in an effort to unlawfully impact an election, New York Supreme Court Justice Juan Merchan said. He added, however, that the panel did not have to be unanimous about which of those three types of crimes could serve as the underlying violation that brings the state election charge into play.
  • After the verdict: The jury in Manhattan was tasked with deciding whether Trump was guilty on each specific count of falsifying business records and whether he did so in an effort to unlawfully impact an election. Prosecutors offered three types of underlying crimes that could raise the unlawful election-meddling allegation; jurors did not have to be unanimous about which of those they felt was at play. ... Jurors looked solemn as they filed into the jury box to reveal their verdict. All eyes in the courtroom were on the jury foreman as he rose from his seat to deliver their findings count by count. After he repeated "guilty" 34 times, once for each count, the jurors were individually polled by the clerk to confirm they were unanimous.[1]
Suggestions for wording in the body? Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 19:12, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
Probably the same as before, secondary source cite? I really aimed for brevity and neutrality there. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 21:07, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
Body wording option:
In March 2023, a New York grand jury indicted Trump on 34 felony counts of falsifying business records to book the hush money payments to Daniels as business expenses, in an attempt to influence the 2016 election.
And cite the wapost article above as well as primary source. Editing-dude144 (talk) 17:11, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
 Done, also reinserted clause in lead sentence. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 13:35, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Berman, Mark; Jacobs, Shayna; Barrett, Devlin; Hawkins, Derek (May 30, 2024). "Donald Trump found guilty on all counts in New York hush money trial". The Washington Post. Retrieved May 31, 2024.

Mention of his conviction in second sentence?

This was a serious suggestion with a lot of support in the RfC. Just wondering what y'all think: if it's even warranted, and how it should read. Cessaune [talk] 19:20, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

Personally I think that it's fine the way it is. As the closer of the RfC duly noted, we shouldn't be in the business of predicting the future. If there is a serious proposal to rework the entire lead to make the first paragraph longer, I could support this being included potentially, but it'd be based on the wording proposed. I think it would be a good idea for anyone considering proposing changes (not saying you are Cessaune, this discussion is a good next step before proposing specific changes) to put specific wording up for debate - for the whole lead, not just a second sentence. Only then would I think it's a good idea to go to another RfC - because without specific wording to support or oppose with reasoning, any new RfC is likely to result in the same lack of consensus as the last one, as the reasons would be almost the same. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 19:41, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
Trump was convicted in arguably the most legally tenuous case of the 4 that were pending. I'd leave it where it is for now pending the outcome of the appeals, and the progress in the remaining cases (and possible future ones). The more convictions that stick, the higher the mention should go, going forward. Zaathras (talk) 21:14, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
Meh. I wouldn't mess with the current position. O3000, Ret. (talk) 00:08, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
  • No -- the current version of the WP:LEDE with the paragraph at the end works by describing his work chronologically. Please keep in mind that readers often read the first and last sentences or paragraph of an article. If you are trying to get attention to the conviction, it is there already.--David Tornheim (talk) 06:35, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
Second "meh". He'll be sentenced on July 11; it's pretty certain that there'll be another discussion on how and where to mention the conviction and sentence. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 12:36, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
  • No, and suggest a WP:SPEEDY close to this discussion, as it's likely to re-treat a lot of the same discussions as the very laborious discussion which only just closed. It's worth reminding that mention of Trump's conviction is already in the lead and has a whole paragraph dedicated to it. — Czello (music) 12:43, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
  • Lets wait till the RFC is closed, as that could make this a moot point. Slatersteven (talk) 13:09, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
It already closed, there was no consensus to add it[9]. — Czello (music) 13:13, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
Did not see it had been closed. I see no reason not to mention in in the second sentence, as it is very very notable. Slatersteven (talk) 13:48, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

As an observation here, the previous president with such a storied history would be Richard Nixon, who opted to resign from office rather than face impeachment over the Watergate scandal. Despite the fact that this scandal was a major aspect of his presidency, it is not mentioned until the third sentence of the lead paragraph, and not elaborated on until the fourth paragraph of the article. In a more recent example, Bill Clinton's sex scandal was a major defining moment of his presidency, yet the article we have for Bill does not mention the scandal at all until the fourth paragraph. Given this, I feel the closing summary was correct, we don;t need a mention of this right out of the gate. Let it lie, and you can try again once some history has passed between the event and the next thing we get attached to politically. TomStar81 (Talk) 20:05, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

It would be more informative to cite the 2020 election complaints and insurrection ahead of golf, etc in the first or better the second paragraph. SPECIFICO talk 20:23, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

I know we’ve had our disagreements before but this is a good summary of my view too. If the whole lead is being reworked, this is ripe for inclusion in an expanded first paragraph. But if the lead is to continue being chronological (mostly), then it’s fine where it is. I’m not against an earlier mention - I just want to see it proposed with a major rework of the lead to improve it overall, rather than shoehorn another “consensus has been made” sentence into the lead that continues to piecemeal the lead up. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 20:26, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
  • No - Putting it as the second sentence of the article would be placing it as more emphasized than every give action of his whole presidency, business career, or media career. And, without a crystal ball, it cannot know with any certainty how prominent this will be for Trump's legacy. The argument for having it as the second sentence will be "but this is historic and no president has been convicted as a felony" and so on and so forth. But Trump is also the first when it comes to having two impeachments, his unique rise to political power with no experience, etc. Trump is just too peculiar of a figure in American politics, with his ability to garner scandals and controversies, to know to what degree these convictions will be prominent in his legacy. For now, I can only see them as a brick in a giant wall of interesting bricks that make up Donald Trump. I think the way the convictions are handled in the article and lead now is appropriate, due weight. Also, I think TomStar81 makes good observations above. R. G. Checkers talk 01:06, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
    It seems like your point is that Trump may be worse than a convicted felon in other ways. Bob K31416 (talk) 05:03, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
    Doing a bit of crystal balling there yourself, aren't you? We're not talking legacy, we're talking current WP:WEIGHT. (Changed your name, Iamreallygoodatcheckers?) Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 13:47, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
    Yea I changed my name. The only argument for DUE weight of this recent event in Trump's life is just a judgment call on its significance, which I see as crystal balling. R. G. Checkers talk 21:07, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Donald_Trump/Archive_171&oldid=1255343694"