Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 13:38, 28 August 2023

Before requesting any edits to this protected article, please familiarise yourself with reliable sourcing requirements. Before posting an edit request on this talk page, please read the reliable sourcing and original research policies. These policies require that information in Misplaced Pages articles be supported by citations from reliable independent sources, and disallow your personal views, observations, interpretations, analyses, or anecdotes from being used. Only content verified by subject experts and other reliable sources may be included, and uncited material may be removed without notice. If your complaint is about an assertion made in the article, check first to see if your proposed change is supported by reliable sources. If it is not, it is highly unlikely that your request will be granted. Checking the archives for previous discussions may provide more information. Requests which do not provide citations from reliable sources, or rely on unreliable sources, may be subject to closure without any other response.

view · edit Frequently asked questions Q1: This page is biased towards/against Trump because it mentions/doesn't mention x. Why won't you fix it? A1: Having a neutral point of view does not mean giving equal weight to all viewpoints. Rather, it refers to Misplaced Pages's effort to discuss topics and viewpoints in a roughly equal proportion to the degree that they are discussed in reliable sources, which in political articles is mostly mainstream media, although academic works are also sometimes used. For further information, please read Talk:Donald Trump/Response to claims of bias. Q2: A recent request for comment had X votes for support and Y votes for oppose. Why was it closed as no consensus when one position had more support than the other? A2: Misplaced Pages is built on consensus, which means that editors and contributors here debate the merits of adding, subtracting, or rearranging the information. Consensus is not a vote, rather it is a discussion among community members over how best to interpret and apply information within the bounds of our policy and guideline infrastructure. Often, but not always, the community finds itself unable to obtain consensus for changes or inclusions to the article. In other cases, the community may decide that consensus exists to add or modify material based on the strength of the arguments made by members citing relevant policy and guideline related material here. This can create confusion for new comers or those unfamiliar with Misplaced Pages's consensus building processes, especial since consensus can change. While all are welcome to participate in consensus building, keep in mind that the best positions for or against including material are based on policy and guideline pages, so it may be in your best interest to read up on Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines before diving into the debates.

Warning: active arbitration remedies The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article is related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing this article: You must follow the bold-revert-discuss cycle if your change is reverted. You may not reinstate your edit until you post a talk page message discussing your edit and have waited 24 hours from the time of this talk page message Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. Further information Enforcement procedures: Violations of any of these restrictions should be reported immediately to the arbitration enforcement noticeboard. Editors who are aware of this topic being designated a contentious topic and who violate these restrictions may be sanctioned by any uninvolved administrator, even on a first offense. The contentious topics procedure can be used against any editor who repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process. Contentious topics sanctions can include blocks, topic-bans, or other restrictions. If you are unsure if your edit is appropriate, discuss it here on this talk page first. Remember: When in doubt, don't revert!

Want to add new information about Donald Trump? Please consider choosing the most appropriate article, for example: Indictment of Donald Trump Donald Trump 2024 presidential campaign ... or dozens of other places, as listed in {{Donald Trump series}}. Thanks!

Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute.

Other talk page banners

Donald Trump was a Social sciences and society good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake. Article milestones Date Process Result June 2, 2006 Good article nominee Not listed February 12, 2007 Good article nominee Not listed September 17, 2016 Good article nominee Not listed May 25, 2017 Good article nominee Not listed December 2, 2018 Good article nominee Not listed July 15, 2019 Good article nominee Not listed August 31, 2019 Featured article candidate Not promoted April 29, 2020 Peer review Reviewed Current status: Former good article nominee This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. This article is rated B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. Biography: Arts and Entertainment / Politics and Government This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography This article is supported by the arts and entertainment work group (assessed as Mid-importance). This article is supported by the politics and government work group (assessed as Top-importance). Business Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Business, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of business articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BusinessWikipedia:WikiProject BusinessTemplate:WikiProject BusinessWikiProject Business Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Template:WikiProject Donald Trump New York City High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject New York City, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of New York City-related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.New York CityWikipedia:WikiProject New York CityTemplate:WikiProject New York CityNew York City High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Conservatism High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Conservatism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of conservatism on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ConservatismWikipedia:WikiProject ConservatismTemplate:WikiProject ConservatismConservatism High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Politics: American / Political parties High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by American politics task force (assessed as Top-importance). This article is supported by Political parties task force (assessed as High-importance). United States: Television / Presidential elections / Presidents / Government Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by American television task force (assessed as Mid-importance). This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. presidential elections (assessed as Top-importance). This article is supported by WikiProject United States Presidents (assessed as Top-importance). This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. Government (assessed as High-importance). Template:WP1.0 Television Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to develop and improve Misplaced Pages articles about television programs. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join the discussion. To improve this article, please refer to the style guidelines for the type of work.TelevisionWikipedia:WikiProject TelevisionTemplate:WikiProject Televisiontelevision Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Template:Vital article This article has been viewed enough times to make it onto the all-time Top 100 list. It has had 233 million views since December 2007. This article has been viewed enough times in a single year to make it into the Top 50 Report annual list. This happened in 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020, and 2021. This article has been viewed enough times in a single week to appear in the Top 25 Report 126 times. The weeks in which this happened: June 14 to 20, 2015 June 28 to July 4, 2015 July 19 to 25, 2015 July 26 to August 1, 2015 August 2 to 8, 2015 August 9 to 15, 2015 August 16 to 22, 2015 August 23 to 29, 2015 August 30 to September 5, 2015 September 6 to 12, 2015 September 13 to 19, 2015 September 20 to 26, 2015 September 27 to October 3, 2015 December 6 to 12, 2015 December 13 to 19, 2015 January 3 to 9, 2016 January 10 to 16, 2016 January 17 to 23, 2016 January 24 to 30, 2016 January 31 to February 6, 2016 February 7 to 13, 2016 February 14 to 20, 2016 February 21 to 27, 2016 February 28 to March 5, 2016 March 6 to 12, 2016 March 13 to 19, 2016 March 20 to 26, 2016 March 27 to April 2, 2016 April 3 to 9, 2016 April 10 to 16, 2016 April 17 to 23, 2016 April 24 to 30, 2016 May 1 to 7, 2016 May 8 to 14, 2016 May 15 to 21, 2016 May 22 to 28, 2016 May 29 to June 4, 2016 June 5 to 11, 2016 June 12 to 18, 2016 July 3 to 9, 2016 July 10 to 16, 2016 July 17 to 23, 2016 July 24 to 30, 2016 July 31 to August 6, 2016 August 21 to 27, 2016 August 28 to September 3, 2016 September 4 to 10, 2016 September 11 to 17, 2016 September 18 to 24, 2016 September 25 to October 1, 2016 October 2 to 8, 2016 October 9 to 15, 2016 October 16 to 22, 2016 October 23 to 29, 2016 October 30 to November 5, 2016 November 6 to 12, 2016 November 13 to 19, 2016 November 20 to 26, 2016 November 27 to December 3, 2016 December 4 to 10, 2016 December 11 to 17, 2016 December 18 to 24, 2016 January 1 to 7, 2017 January 8 to 14, 2017 January 15 to 21, 2017 January 22 to 28, 2017 January 29 to February 4, 2017 February 5 to 11, 2017 February 12 to 18, 2017 February 19 to 25, 2017 February 26 to March 4, 2017 March 5 to 11, 2017 March 12 to 18, 2017 March 19 to 25, 2017 March 26 to April 1, 2017 April 2 to 8, 2017 April 23 to 29, 2017 May 14 to 20, 2017 May 21 to 27, 2017 May 28 to June 3, 2017 June 11 to 17, 2017 June 25 to July 1, 2017 October 8 to 14, 2017 October 22 to 28, 2017 November 26 to December 2, 2017 January 14 to 20, 2018 June 10 to 16, 2018 September 30 to October 6, 2018 October 28 to November 3, 2018 November 4 to 10, 2018 November 11 to 17, 2018 November 18 to 24, 2018 November 25 to December 1, 2018 December 9 to 15, 2018 September 22 to 28, 2019 December 15 to 21, 2019 January 5 to 11, 2020 February 23 to 29, 2020 March 1 to 7, 2020 April 12 to 18, 2020 May 31 to June 6, 2020 June 7 to 13, 2020 June 14 to 20, 2020 June 21 to 27, 2020 June 28 to July 4, 2020 August 9 to 15, 2020 August 16 to 22, 2020 August 23 to 29, 2020 September 27 to October 3, 2020 October 4 to 10, 2020 October 11 to 17, 2020 October 18 to 24, 2020 October 25 to 31, 2020 November 1 to 7, 2020 November 8 to 14, 2020 November 15 to 21, 2020 November 22 to 28, 2020 November 29 to December 5, 2020 December 6 to 12, 2020 December 13 to 19, 2020 January 3 to 9, 2021 January 10 to 16, 2021 January 17 to 23, 2021 January 24 to 30, 2021 January 31 to February 6, 2021 July 10 to 16, 2022 Health of Donald Trump was nominated for deletion. The discussion was closed on 13 June 2019 with a consensus to merge. Its contents were merged into Donald Trump. The original page is now a redirect to this page. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected article, please see its history; for its talk page, see here. This article has been mentioned by multiple media organizations: Cuozzo, Steve (November 16, 2013). "Don't Trust Anything on Misplaced Pages". New York Post. Popper, Ben (July 22, 2015). "Someone just deleted Donald Trump's entire Misplaced Pages page". The Verge. Merrill, Jeremy (February 1, 2016). "On Misplaced Pages, Donald Trump Reigns and Facts Are Open to Debate". New York Times. Germ, Erik (May 28, 2016). "5 Secretly Bizarre Sections Of Websites You Use Every Day". Cracked.com. Guo, Jeff (October 25, 2016). "Misplaced Pages is fixing one of the Internet's biggest flaws". The Washington Post. Alcantara, Chris (October 27, 2016). "The most challenging job of the 2016 race: Editing the candidates' Misplaced Pages pages". The Washington Post. Staff Writer (December 21, 2016). "Most-edited Misplaced Pages pages of 2016 revealed". BBC News. Gartenberg, Chaim (January 20, 2017). "Misplaced Pages editors can't decide if Trump is the president yet". The Verge. Wyrich, Andrew (June 5, 2017). "Someone is trying to get Trump's official portrait deleted from Misplaced Pages". The Daily Dot. Warren, Tom (22 November 2018). "Siri thinks Donald Trump is a penis". The Verge. Blumenthal, Eli (22 November 2018). "Misplaced Pages vandalizing causes Siri to show a lewd image when asked about Donald Trump". USA Today. Griffin, Andrew (23 November 2018). "Asking Siri for information about Donald Trump shows explicit image after Misplaced Pages edit". The Independent. Gander, Kashmira (23 November 2018). "Someone hacked Donald Trump's Misplaced Pages page, replaced photo with image of penis". Newsweek. Martin, Alan (26 November 2018). "The Trump penis Misplaced Pages war has kicked off again". The Inquirer. Brandom, Russell (December 3, 2018). "Misplaced Pages engages the 'nuclear option' after Trump penis hack". The Verge. Mak, Aaron (May 28, 2019). "Donald Trump's Misplaced Pages Entry Is a War Zone". Slate. Alex Pasternack (7 March 2020). "How Misplaced Pages's volunteers became the web's best weapon against misinformation". Fast Company. Retrieved 9 March 2020. Brian Flood (21 May 2020). "Misplaced Pages co-founder Larry Sanger says online encyclopedia scrapped neutrality, favors lefty politics". Fox News. Retrieved 22 May 2020. Dan Evon (11 November 2020). "Does Loser.com Redirect to Trump's Misplaced Pages Page?". Snopes. Retrieved 19 November 2020.

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

Section sizes Section size for Donald Trump (88 sections) Section name Byte count Section total (Top) 9,362 9,362 Early life and education 3,497 3,497 Personal life 19 5,044 Family 1,340 1,340 Health 3,685 3,685 Business career 149 35,772 Real estate 4,597 15,996 Manhattan and Chicago developments 6,168 6,168 Atlantic City casinos 3,610 3,610 Clubs 1,621 1,621 Licensing the Trump name 1,364 1,364 Side ventures 7,287 7,287 Foundation 5,025 5,025 Legal affairs and bankruptcies 2,315 2,315 Wealth 3,636 3,636 Media career 3,452 5,107 The Apprentice and the Celebrity Apprentice 1,655 1,655 Early political aspirations 4,690 4,690 2016 presidential election 18,430 18,430 First presidency (2017–2021) 139 177,231 Early actions 3,225 3,225 Conflicts of interest 3,367 3,367 Domestic policy 21,318 21,318 Race relations 6,232 6,232 Pardons and commutations 2,574 2,574 Immigration 3,086 20,394 Travel ban 4,347 4,347 Family separation at the border 6,269 6,269 Mexico–United States border wall and government shutdown 6,692 6,692 Foreign policy 2,859 35,965 Trade 2,517 2,517 Russia 4,221 4,221 East Asia 21 10,653 China, Hong Kong, Taiwan 4,914 4,914 North Korea 5,718 5,718 Middle East 23 15,715 Afghanistan 3,042 3,042 Israel 2,637 2,637 Saudi Arabia 2,229 2,229 Syria 3,797 3,797 Iran 3,987 3,987 Personnel 8,705 8,705 Judiciary 4,174 4,174 COVID-19 pandemic 291 31,456 Initial response 7,681 7,681 White House Coronavirus Task Force 5,253 5,253 World Health Organization 2,673 2,673 Pressure to abandon pandemic mitigation measures 7,799 7,799 Political pressure on health agencies 2,690 2,690 Outbreak at the White House 2,666 2,666 Effects on the 2020 presidential campaign 2,403 2,403 Investigations 1,079 26,084 Financial 3,111 3,111 Russian election interference 6,491 6,491 FBI Crossfire Hurricane and 2017 counterintelligence investigations 2,573 2,573 Mueller investigation 12,830 12,830 First impeachment 10,200 10,200 Second impeachment 3,398 3,398 2020 presidential election 34 24,158 Loss to Biden 6,902 15,669 Rejection of results 8,767 8,767 January 6 Capitol attack 8,455 8,455 First post-presidency (2021–2025) 5,018 34,695 Business activities 2,382 2,382 Investigations, criminal indictments and convictions, civil lawsuits 630 27,295 FBI investigations 5,703 5,703 Criminal referral by the House January 6 Committee 693 693 State criminal indictments 2,969 2,969 Federal criminal indictments 5,378 5,378 Criminal conviction in the 2016 campaign fraud case 6,135 6,135 Civil judgments 5,787 5,787 2024 presidential election 15,072 15,072 Political practice and rhetoric 8,048 47,246 Racial and gender views 9,377 9,377 Link to hate crimes 4,730 4,730 Conspiracy theories 3,318 3,318 Truthfulness 10,483 10,483 Social media 5,810 5,810 Relationship with the press 5,480 5,480 Assessments 18 6,969 Public image 4,525 4,525 Scholarly 2,426 2,426 Notes 136 136 References 30 30 Works cited 18 11,872 Books 3,256 3,256 Journals 8,598 8,598 External links 5,431 5,431 Total 404,742 404,742

• v
• e

NOTE: It is recommended to link to this list in your edit summary when reverting, as:
] item
To ensure you are viewing the current list, you may wish to purge this page.

01. Use the official White House portrait as the infobox image. (Dec 2016, Jan 2017, Oct 2017, March 2020) (temporarily suspended by #19 following copyright issues on the inauguration portrait, enforced when an official public-domain portrait was released on 31 October 2017)

02. Show birthplace as "Queens, New York City, U.S." in the infobox. (Nov 2016, Oct 2018, Feb 2021) "New York City" de-linked. (September 2020)

03. Omit reference to county-level election statistics. (Dec 2016)

05. Use Trump's annual net worth evaluation and matching ranking, from the Forbes list of billionaires, not from monthly or "live" estimates. (Oct 2016) In the lead section, just write: Forbes estimates his net worth to be billion. (July 2018, July 2018) Removed from the lead per #47.

06. Do not include allegations of sexual misconduct in the lead section. (June 2016, Feb 2018)

09. Include a link to Trump's Twitter account in the "External links" section. (Jan 2017) Include a link to an archive of Trump's Twitter account in the "External links" section. (Jan 2021)

12. The article title is Donald Trump, not Donald J. Trump. (RM Jan 2017, RM June 2019)

13. Auto-archival is set for discussions with no comments for 7 days. Manual archival is allowed for (1) closed discussions, 24 hours after the closure, provided the closure has not been challenged, and (2) "answered" edit requests, 24 hours after the "answer", provided there has been no follow-on discussion after the "answer". (Jan 2017) (amended with respect to manual archiving, to better reflect common practice at this article) (Nov 2019)

14. Omit mention of Trump's alleged bathmophobia/fear of slopes. (Feb 2017)

22. Do not call Trump a "liar" in Misplaced Pages's voice. Falsehoods he uttered can be mentioned, while being mindful of calling them "lies", which implies malicious intent. (RfC Aug 2017, upheld by RfC July 2024)

25. In citations, do not code the archive-related parameters for sources that are not dead. (Dec 2017, March 2018)

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

27. State that Trump falsely claimed that Hillary Clinton started the Barack Obama birther rumors. (April 2018, June 2018)

28. Include, in the Wealth section, a sentence on Jonathan Greenberg's allegation that Trump deceived him in order to get on the Forbes 400 list. (June 2018, June 2018)

29. Include material about the Trump administration family separation policy in the article. (June 2018)

30. Supersedes #24. The lead includes: "Many of his comments and actions have been characterized as racially charged or racist." (RfC Sep 2018, Oct 2018, RfC May 2019)

31. Do not mention Trump's office space donation to Jesse Jackson's Rainbow/Push Coalition in 1999. (Nov 2018)

32. Omit from the lead the fact that Trump is the first sitting U.S. president to meet with a North Korean supreme leader. (RfC July 2018, Nov 2018)

33. Do not mention "birtherism" in the lead section. (RfC Nov 2018)

34. Refer to Ivana Zelníčková as a Czech model, with a link to Czechs (people), not Czechoslovakia (country). (Jan 2019)

37. Resolved: Content related to Trump's presidency should be limited to summary-level about things that are likely to have a lasting impact on his life and/or long-term presidential legacy. If something is borderline or debatable, the resolution does not apply. (June 2019)

38. Do not state in the lead that Trump is the wealthiest U.S. president ever. (RfC June 2019)

39. Supersedes #21 and #36. Do not include any paragraph regarding Trump's mental health or mental fitness for office. Do not bring up for discussion again until an announced formal diagnosis or WP:MEDRS-level sources are provided. This does not prevent inclusion of content about temperamental fitness for office. (RfC Aug 2019, July 2021)

40. Include, when discussing Trump's exercise or the lack thereof: He has called golfing his "primary form of exercise", although he usually does not walk the course. He considers exercise a waste of energy, because he believes the body is "like a battery, with a finite amount of energy" which is depleted by exercise. (RfC Aug 2019)

41. Omit book authorship (or lack thereof) from the lead section. (RfC Nov 2019)

42. House and Senate outcomes of the impeachment process are separated by a full stop. For example: He was impeached by the House on December 18, 2019, for abuse of power and obstruction of Congress. He was acquitted of both charges by the Senate on February 5, 2020. (Feb 2020)

43. The rules for edits to the lead are no different from those for edits below the lead. For edits that do not conflict with existing consensus: Prior consensus is NOT required. BOLD edits are allowed, subject to normal BRD process. The mere fact that an edit has not been discussed is not a valid reason to revert it. (March 2020)

44. The lead section should mention North Korea, focusing on Trump's meetings with Kim and some degree of clarification that they haven't produced clear results. (RfC May 2020)

46. Use the caption "Official portrait, 2017" for the infobox image. (Aug 2020, Jan 2021)

47. Do not mention Trump's net worth or Forbes ranking (or equivalents from other publications) in the lead, nor in the infobox. (Sep 2020)

48. Supersedes #45. Trump's reaction to the COVID-19 pandemic should be mentioned in the lead section. There is no consensus on specific wording, but the status quo is Trump reacted slowly to the COVID-19 pandemic; he minimized the threat, ignored or contradicted many recommendations from health officials, and promoted false information about unproven treatments and the availability of testing. (Oct 2020, RfC Aug 2020)

49. Supersedes #35. Include in lead: Trump has made many false and misleading statements during his campaigns and presidency, to a degree unprecedented in American politics. (Dec 2020)

50. Supersedes #17. The lead sentence is: Donald John Trump (born June 14, 1946) is an American politician, media personality, and businessman who served as the 45th president of the United States from 2017 to 2021. (March 2021), amended (July 2021), inclusion of politician (RfC September 2021)

51. Include in the lead that many of Trump's comments and actions have been characterized as misogynistic. (Aug 2021 and Sep 2021)

52. Supersedes #23. The lead should contain a summary of Trump's actions on immigration, including the Muslim travel ban (cf. item 23), the wall, and the family separation policy. (September 2021)

53. The lead should mention that Trump promotes conspiracy theories. (RfC October 2021)

54. Include in the lead that, quote, Scholars and historians rank Trump as one of the worst presidents in U.S. history. (RfC October 2021) Amended after re-election: After his first term, scholars and historians ranked Trump as one of the worst presidents in American history. (November 2024)

55. Regarding Trump's comments on the 2017 far-right rally in Charlottesville, Virginia, do not wiki-link "Trump's comments" in this manner. (RfC December 2021)

56. Retain the content that Trump never confronted Putin over its alleged bounties against American soldiers in Afghanistan but add context. Current wording can be altered or contextualized; no consensus was achieved on alternate wordings. (RfC November 2021) Trump's expressions of doubt regarding the Russian Bounties Program should be included in some capacity, though there there is no consensus on a specific way to characterize these expressed doubts. (RfC March 2022)

57. Do not mention in the lead Gallup polling that states Trump's the only president to never reach 50% approval rating. (RfC January 2022)

58. Use inline citations in the lead for the more contentious and controversial statements. Editors should further discuss which sentences would benefit from having inline citations. (RfC May 2022, discussion on what to cite May 2022)

59. Do not label or categorize Trump as a far-right politician. (RfC August 2022)

60. Insert the links described in the RfC January 2023.

61. When a thread is started with a general assertion that the article is biased for or against Trump (i.e., without a specific, policy-based suggestion for a change to the article), it is to be handled as follows:

1. Reply briefly with a link to Talk:Donald Trump/Response to claims of bias, optionally using its shortcut, WP:TRUMPRCB.
2. Close the thread using {{archive top}} and {{archive bottom}}, referring to this consensus item.
3. Wait at least 24 hours per current consensus #13.
4. Manually archive the thread.

This does not apply to posts that are clearly in bad faith, which are to be removed on sight. (May 2023)

62. The article's description of the five people who died during and subsequent to the January 6 Capitol attack should avoid a) mentioning the causes of death and b) an explicit mention of the Capitol Police Officer who died. (RfC July 2023)

63. Supersedes #18. The alma mater field of the infobox reads: "University of Pennsylvania (BS)". (September 2023)

64. Omit the {{Very long}} tag. (January 2024)

65. Mention the Abraham Accords in the article; no consensus was achieved on specific wordings. (RfC February 2024)

66. Omit {{infobox criminal}}. (RfC June 2024)

67. The "Health habits" section includes: "Trump says he has never drunk alcohol, smoked cigarettes, or used drugs. He sleeps about four or five hours a night." (February 2021)

Rapist?

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

No. Not in Wikivoice, and any addition along those lines would need to be nuanced and explain the context. ~ ONUnicornproblem solving 04:13, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Birthplace City

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

Except that dude is from Queens -- it's important to his life story. Queens boy moves to Manhattan, makes it big. SPECIFICO talk 02:25, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

Queens is New York City. 67.82.74.5 (talk) 12:30, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

It's a borough of New York City but, as far as snooty Manhattanites were concerned (and in Trump's mind, it seems), he was a bridge-and-tunnel guy from Queens. Our current consensus, #2, is based on four discussions. Many people associate "New York City" with Manhattan. Space4Time3Continuum2x 13:36, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

Which the infobox doesn't tell us and isn't fit to do so. All of that belongs in prose in the article. As a matter of simple vital statistics, all that belongs is "New York, New York, United States".--User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 21:29, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

See current consensus, item 2. Space4Time3Continuum2x 10:37, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

How was that consensus reached? Banan14kab (talk) 05:26, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

Those links there next to the item will take you to the archived discussions. Linking NYC is a MOS:OVERLINK. Including Queens provides a lot more context than saying NYC alone. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:44, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

No objection to changing to "New York City, New York, U.S", for birthplace. Naming the entire city, would seem appropriate. GoodDay (talk) 21:47, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

GoodDay, you need to give reasons for your recommendations. We already know that is an option, but why? Have you ever seen that long string used to describe all or any part of NYC? Where? SPECIFICO talk 18:28, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

Having boroughs in place of city names, isn't something I support. If/when a discussion, in the proper place, concerning that topic should arise? I hope I'll be notified. On the question of why? It's personal choice. GoodDay (talk) 19:16, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

I live in NYC and have never heard it put: "New York City, New York, U.S". Besides, I heard he was born in Africa.O3000, Ret. (talk) 21:08, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

What about Richard Nixon, BORN: Yorba Linda, Orange County, California, USA, North America?

They left off Earth. O3000, Ret. (talk) 21:.49, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

He claimed to have grown up in Whittier, but many presidents were wittier than Nixon. SPECIFICO talk 22:45, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

Support keeping "Queens"; no reason to make it less precise and less concise. DFlhb (talk) 21:56, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

He is from Queens. Cant' you tell? SPECIFICO talk 22:52, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

Why are the charges against Trump buried in this article?

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

If you have specific suggestions as to improvement of the article, please present them. Otherwise, "disgrace. Sad!" is pointless. SPECIFICO talk 12:37, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

Why, he has not been found guilty yet. Slatersteven (talk) 12:38, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

They're not buried. Per our consensus #37 they're limited to summary-level in the body and in the last paragraph of the lead. Space4Time3Continuum2x 13:40, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

You and at least 2 other people who have brought this concern to the talk page seem to not realize that Misplaced Pages is not news and thus that the lead of a Misplaced Pages article is not meant to follow the inverted pyramid structure of a news article. The lead is meant to summarize the body, and the body is meant to tell the story of the man's life, and chronological order is important to that endeavor. ~ ONUnicornproblem solving 14:08, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

I mean, Trump tried to illegally overthrow the duly elected US Government and install himself as unelected dictator after losing the election. It's a pretty big deal. 67.82.74.5 (talk) 14:34, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

See wp:blp until he is found guilty of any of these, he is innocent of all of them. Slatersteven (talk) 14:44, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

Hmm, when did that happen? He tried to state the election was his, and he'd be PRESIDENT again. Not "dictator." If you want to be take seriously, stay within the realms of reality. HammerFilmFan (talk) 03:02, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

• Because it's a huge article about a topic where we have a ton of stuff to discuss, so it's hard to avoid things getting "buried." If you have a proposal for how it could be restructured, go ahead and offer it, but the charges do get nearly an entire paragraph at the end of the lead (and the two paragraphs above it, while not about them directly, discuss events that lead to them.) Currently the lead is mostly chronological because... imagine someone who knows little to nothing about Trump reading it. There's a lot of other biographical details we have to introduce before the charges even make sense - we have to talk about him being president and about the 2020 election before we can talk about his attempts to overturn the 2020 election, and we have to talk about his attempts to overturn the 2020 election before we can talk about charges stemming from that in particular. --Aquillion (talk) 14:42, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

14th Amendment

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

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

E Jean Carroll civil case finding sexual abuse

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

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

Should we include the following text?

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

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

References

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

Survey (Carroll)

• Support as proposer - the content is relevant, important, reliably cited, WP:DUE, and updated. Sources will be provided in green boxes in the Discussion section. starship.paint (exalt) 14:38, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
• Support - It's well sourced, neutral, certainly due. What's the problem? EDIT: Withdraw !vote until I look at Muboshgu's point. O3000, Ret. (talk) 14:55, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
• Support - This is brief and to the point, and unlike the other allegations, this one has been adjudicated. Frankly, 18:09, 14 August 2023 (UTC)I'm not sure an RfC is needed. I think a bold edit would not have been challenged. OP, please consider that instead of jumping to yet another time-consuming RfC. SPECIFICO talk 15:16, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose The recent text that had already been added after Judge Kaplan's dismissal of Trump's cross complaint is a better summary and more clearly articulates his court's point that Trump did rape her. -> Visitors, please see the post by Muboshgu in the comment section below. SPECIFICO talk 18:09, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
• Support, per above, but see also in the discussion section below, there is extant text than needs to be merged with this or replaced by it.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  16:29, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
• Not seeing a reason to add this - Forgive me if I am missing something, but Muboshgu has a good point that this content is already in the article. The only difference would be talking about "digital rape", and I'm not sure why this article needs that specific language. I would not protest such an addition, but it does not seem necessary. Ender and Peter 17:10, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose and maintain the status quo - The existing text is superior to the one proposed here. It's better at summarizing Trump's argument for defamation. The proposed text could be confusing to readers as it doesn't establish clearly why Trump thought he had any merit to accuse Carroll of defamation. Iamreallygoodatcheckers 17:22, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

  Surely you do not think that there are RS to establish that Trump believes any of his lifelong courtroom tactics have had "any merit". Strawperson, red herring, etc. SPECIFICO talk 17:31, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose. Starship.paint, I may be prejudiced but I also prefer the material I added yesterday and Muboshgu cited below. Notifying editor Objective3000 who !voted before Muboshgu's comment. Space4Time3Continuum2x 17:42, 14 August 2023 (UTC) I amended the material a few times, the current version is the one cited by Muboshgu below. Space4Time3Continuum2x 18:03, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose Text noted by Mobushgu which appears to already be in the article is better phrased and does a better job of representing the source text. --Jayron32 17:58, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose The status quo provides more up-to-date sources. Also, where is Muboshgu's comment? I can't seem to find it. Scorpions13256 (talk) 19:06, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

A question rather than a comment, in the "Discussion" section below. Space4Time3Continuum2x 19:13, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. Scorpions13256 (talk) 19:17, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

• Support this wording (or merge with the version that was added yesterday.) This proposal is overall more detailed in terms of the accusation and Trump's response. Some parts and sources could be merged from the two versions, but overall nobody has really given a good reason to omit anything present in either; even with both of them combined it'll still be one relatively small paragraph. --Aquillion (talk) 20:04, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

  I think merging the text could work. We should see this as a working text open to helpful revisions. Iamreallygoodatcheckers 20:25, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

  Now that we're all aware that this proposal ignored the current article text, I see no basis to start from this as a "working text". As is always the case, the status quo is the working text, and having read the RS reporting and commentary on the matter, while this version might have been OK as a first try, it is in no respect better than the revision that SpaceX volunteered the time and effort to create. The past several days' discussion of this matter has been a waste of the time and attention we need for other improvements. SPECIFICO talk 22:07, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

  "the status quo is the working text" - I agree. But, I don't want people to see the current revision as written in stone through talk page consensus. If somebody want's to alter it (including merging aspects of Starship's proposal), it's something I'm open to. That's all I'm saying. Iamreallygoodatcheckers 22:14, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

  Well, fine but that's the opposite of what you wrote above. Nothing is ever in stone on this site. No worries there. SPECIFICO talk 22:33, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

Discussion (Carroll)

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

• Regarding WP:DUE, see above. starship.paint (exalt) 14:45, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

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

SPECIFICO, did you see the text I added yesterday? See Muboshgo's comment below, I amended the text a few times. Space4Time3Continuum2x 17:59, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

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

• I'm a bit confused. Donald Trump#Civil lawsuits against Trump already includes the following:

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

• Is this new text a proposal to overwrite what is already in the article? – Muboshgu (talk) 15:44, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

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

Agreed. This appears to be unnecessary. Iamreallygoodatcheckers 18:20, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

@Starship.paint: (doesn't look like SPECIFICO's ping to you went through) Iamreallygoodatcheckers 18:21, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

References

1. Sullivan, Becky; Bernstein, Andrea; Marritz, Ilya; Lawrence, Quil. "A jury finds Trump liable for battery and defamation in E. Jean Carroll trial". NPR. Retrieved 10 May 2023.
2. Orden, Erica (July 19, 2023). "Trump loses bid for new trial in E. Jean Carroll case". Politico. Retrieved August 13, 2023.
3. Reiss, Adam; Gregorian, Dareh (August 7, 2023). "Judge tosses Trump's counterclaim against E. Jean Carroll, finding rape claim is 'substantially true'". NBC News. Retrieved August 13, 2023.

UNDUE rape detail added to article

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

E Jean Carroll lawsuits

When/Where/Carroll II defamation claim

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

Conflating Carroll I and Carroll II

• I renamed the section to keep the discussion of E. Jean Carroll v. Donald Trump in one place. I just noticed that our current text conflates the two cases. Trump countersued Carroll in the 2019 case that hasn't gone to trial yet because it was hampered by Trump being president and the DOJ mulling over whether he made the remarks in his official capacity. The trial is scheduled for January 2024. We have two separate cases, and Trump has filed appeals in both cases. Here's an overview of both cases:

Carroll v. Trump (1:20-cv-07311) (Carroll I) (docket). November 2019: Carroll sues Trump for defaming her while he was president (by saying she made it all up). June 27, 2023: Trump sues Carroll for defaming him by saying in an interview after the jury verdict in Carroll II that he raped her. August 7: Judge dismisses Trump’s countersuit. August 10: Trump appeals dismissal.

Carroll v. Trump (1:22-cv-10016) (Carroll II) (docket). November 2022: Carroll sues Trump for Bergdorf attack in mid-90s and defamation after New York passed the Adult Survivors Act. May 10, 2023: Jury verdict. May 11, 2023: Trump appeals to Court of Appeals, Second Circuit. June 8: Trump motion for new trial. June 15: appeal was stayed. July 19: Judge denies request for new trial, stay on appeal is lifted.

Ran out of time to draft something for main space. Summary-level! Space4Time3Continuum2x 15:11, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

Unless you want to explain everything, I simply noted that the counter-suit is in a different lawsuit: starship.paint (exalt) 23:09, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

Details of physical attack

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

As I stated above, this detail is UNDUE for this article and reads as salacious -- and frankly, pointless and disgusting -- content that adds nothing to the brief mention of the judge's finding. This is not the detailed article about the assault or of the trial. Such content could arguably be significant to the NPOV narrative of some other topcic, but not to the summary of Trump's life story on this page. The suit was about defamation and his ongoing defamation after the verdict in the lawsuit. SPECIFICO talk 01:11, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

This is a widely covered point in sources I provided above, ranging from news agencies, American newspapers, American news broadcasters and non-American media. Puzzling how you can claim that it is UNDUE in light of the evidence of 15 sources above. Carroll II lawsuit is clearly about sexual abuse, and the July ruling for Carroll II cited digital rape with fingers. starship.paint (exalt) 01:29, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

As I have said numerous times, and as experienced editors know, not all facts that are widely covered in news sources or that are verified by multiple sources, are DUE NPOV weight for every Misplaced Pages article. Just as we would not include that content in our page about rape, defamation, NY Courts, the judge, etc. etc. we do not need to include it in the life story of Potus 45. SPECIFICO talk 02:05, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

Bottom line is that editor SpaceX crafted good and sufficient, clear and concise, significant and complete text to add the new information about the court's finding of "rape". SPECIFICO talk 02:10, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

It seems that nothing would specific would satisfy you, since you reject the evidence. Good, sufficient, concise, complete, DUE is whatever you deem it. Again, the court finding on the verdict is that "Mr. Trump digitally raped Ms. Carroll." (Bloomberg). starship.paint (exalt) 02:37, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

We can word it differently: The judge rejected this in July and August, citing that the jury's verdict concluded that Trump digitally raped Carroll, so her rape allegations against him were "substantially true". starship.paint (exalt) 11:14, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

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

BLP concern is that simply stating rape is substantially true may mislead readers into thinking that penile rape / sexual intercourse was found to have happened. Britannica rape … most often involving sexual intercourse, Merriam Webster rape … usually sexual intercourse carried out forcibly, Law.com dictionary Rape … the crime of sexual intercourse, From the case itself, New York law considers penile rape a more severe offence than digital rape (sexual abuse), so by avoiding the misunderstanding that he committed penile rape, we avoid WP:BLP issues. starship.paint (exalt) 15:07, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

this obsessive repetition of the details of a sexual assault is running afoul of multiple site-wide Contentious Topics, Now it appears to be second-guessing the judge whose opinion constitutes the only relevant fact and article content. These points have been answered many times. This is not about body parts. It's about a violent assault. That's what the jury and now the recent court ruling have found. If you do not accept editors' responses to your preferred narrative, you could take your views to a site-wide noticeboard where the larger issues can be fully addressed. SPECIFICO talk 15:18, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

How am I second guessing the judge when “digital rape” is literally the judge opinion of the jury verdict, a direct quote of the judge? It seems that you’re very happy if we label Trump as having committed rape, but once we state it is digital rape, it’s somehow so unacceptable! starship.paint (exalt) 23:18, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

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

• Are you saying that if, Trump is ruled against in these instances, that you would accept mention of digital rape? starship.paint (exalt) 23:20, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

Depends on what RS report at the time. It's not a common term, IMO (WP:IMPARTIAL), also judging by the results of a Google search. Why is it so important to make the distinction between "penile rape" and "digital rape"? You cited Britannica's article which goes on to say, In 2012 the U.S. Department of Justice adopted a new definition of rape, to be used in the FBI's Uniform Crime Reporting program, that better reflected state criminal codes and the experiences of rape victims. By that definition, rape is "the penetration, no matter how slight, of the vagina or anus with any body part or object, or oral penetration by a sex organ of another person, without the consent of the victim." Space4Time3Continuum2x 11:08, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

Well, if digital rape is not a common term, we can use "forcible penetration with fingers". It's important to make the distinction between penile rape and digital rape because that literally affected the verdict in Carroll II, as New York law classified penile rape as "rape" and digital rape as "sexual abuse". The new definition of rape by the DOJ literally does not reflect the state criminal code, whereby the judge says: New York Penal Law definition of rape is limited to penile penetration. starship.paint (exalt) 02:00, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

References

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

Overlinking in the lead

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

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

Split suggested

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

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

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

Survey

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

• Trim the "Covid-19" & "Investigations" sub-sections. They could be their own articles. GoodDay (talk) 19:08, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
• Trim practically everything, especially the Investigations sections. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 21:13, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
• do not trim solely for length reasons. it is no longer 2004, the majority of users aren't loading a Misplaced Pages article on dial-up. WP:SIZE should be deprecated. ValarianB (talk) 04:57, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
• IMO, neither the tag you added to the Presidency section nor this general discussion is helpful. Consensus #37 says that Content related to Trump's presidency should be limited to summary-level about things that are likely to have a lasting impact on his life and/or long-term presidential legacy. If something is borderline or debatable, the resolution does not apply. (I interpret the second sentence to mean that content WITHOUT lasting impact on his life and/or long-term presidential legacy should be deleted.) If you or other editors have specific content in mind, go BOLD with an edit summary explaining your reasons or bring it to the Talk page. As always, be prepared to be reverted and defend your edit — this article, like its subject, is not for the faint of heart . Space4Time3Continuum2x 12:29, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

• Trim Covid-19 and Investigations subsections. This article is too long to navigate easily. Cessaune 12:13, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

• Trim per the very last comment by WAID in the thread I linked above.

A word: we should be careful not to be overly nitpicky or conservative when trimming. If a section gets rewritten based on book sources, which highlight different facts and behaviours, let's not get too attached to our previous content. WP:BESTSOURCES will contradict us on their assessments of salience and relevance, and we should let them. DFlhb (talk) 12:56, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

• Trim any information which is already elaborated on elsewhere on Misplaced Pages, per WP:SUMMARY. --Jayron32 16:56, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
• Neutral. I'm not comfortable agreeing to the general removal of content without any specifications. If imposed, it seems ripe for disputes and potential edit warring down the line. The investigations section in particular is one area that does not need to be trimmed, as it is a vitally important part of his presidency, and is already limited to a high-level summary. The COVID-19 section is a better candidate for trimming, but I'd like to see proposals on how to trim it beforehand. ––FormalDude (talk) 03:47, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

Elaborate discussion

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Daily news

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

• I would think so. He’s also in the news internationally due to four criminal cases and some lawsuits. starship.paint (exalt) 02:43, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

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

ok i see.....the article is just made up of news sources as to why I ask. Moxy- 11:52, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

News sources are widely available. starship.paint (exalt) 11:57, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

Got to be academic sources for older stuff by now. The article has very little research value.Moxy- 12:03, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

You are welcome to start adding them. Thanks! starship.paint (exalt) 12:06, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

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

Opening paragraph should not have the criminal indictments

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

I have removed the content. I see in the edit history that it was a WP:BOLD addition by an editor yesterday, so it did not have a consensus to include. Per BLP, I've removed it for now, at least. (On another note, I don't know what Michael Phelps has to do with anything here.) – Muboshgu (talk) 20:21, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

Michael Phelps has a history of legal issues and it was included in his opening paragraph as per Misplaced Pages's example of not being neutral, hence why I referenced it. It is not in the introduction anymore as it is inappropriate to include, as he is more known for his many achievements in Olympic swimming. The Financial Scribe (talk) 20:25, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

what policies and guidelines? why is the content "op-ed?" why is it "random stats?" just askin' is all. soibangla (talk) 20:35, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

On the left tab, there is a hyperlink that says "Learn to Edit". I am pretty sure you are supposed to go through the guidelines and policies before editing... As for why it is in op-ed, I am not sure. But his indictments are mentioned in the 5th paragraph and I think they are where it should be, if we are considering the chronological structure from the second paragraph onwards. The Financial Scribe (talk) 20:42, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

what PAGs did the edit contravene? does I think they are where it should be mean you just don't like the edit? soibangla (talk) 20:46, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

It seems like you obviously do not care for what reasoning I have as I have stated it in the comment you replied to. "considering the chronological structure from the second paragraph onwards". If you have anymore remarks, I will reply to them tomorrow at 9. I am done for the day :) The Financial Scribe (talk) 20:58, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

Soibangla, I believe you are referring to this edit. "Op-ed" referred to the sentence you added to the opening paragraph; the other stuff mentioned in the edit summary referred to other content in the lead that I reverted/corrected in the same edit. It showed up again when Sleyece reverted the lead to the version preceding my removal, saying that my next edit made Random Huge Changes to Lede Without Discussion. I said "op-ed" because within three years after leaving office and the sum total weren't supported by the body and the sources at the time, and I agree with the Scribe that we shouldn't be mentioning indictments in the first paragraph. MOS:OPEN: if Trump is convicted of a crime, we should mention it in the first paragraph, IMO, but until then he's innocent until proven guilty. The indictments are good where they are, in chronological order in the last paragraph.

• Sentence added to first paragraph: UTC 04:19 Aug 16
• My edit prior to removal of sentence: UTC 14:18 Aug 16
• Removal: UTC 14:37 Aug 16
• Sleyece's revert: UTC 19:49 Aug 16. Space4Time3Continuum2x 10:29, 17 August 2023 (UTC) Space4Time3Continuum2x 11:56, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

it was not op-ed or random stats. as you note, your citation of OPEN is your opinion, but I see no mention of conviction there. I saw the edit as notable as no previous former president had ever been criminally indicted, let alone 91 times. that's all I got here. soibangla (talk) 13:06, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, tbh, I'm calling this one as nonsense and WP:IDONTLIKEIT; you can't just say "Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines" and have literally nothing to back that up. -- Sleyece (talk) 20:54, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

As I replied to the comment above, read my whole comment. You have ironically committed the very thing you accuse me of in a way by ignoring my reasoning so you can push your "I dont like it" edit. I specifically stated where in the Policies and Guidelines tab my reasoning is coming from. I will respond to any remarks at 9 tomorrow as I am done for the day. The Financial Scribe (talk) 21:00, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

I mean, you're correct in saying the indictment count has no business in the lede, but the "Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines" shtick has been used to justify far more underhanded edits in the past. If you're going to reference policy it takes 2 seconds to call the template. -- Sleyece (talk) 21:04, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

Ok, perhaps you are correct in mentioning of how the PAG has been abused in making edits, but at least we agree on the fact that the original edit did not belong where it was placed. I know I am not as well versed with how edits are done in Misplaced Pages as most of my edits are on the topic of numbers and not words, which are much easier to do with no issues. I also started editing a few weeks ago at work as my workload is extremely light at the moment, which is why I only respond between 9-5 (LOL). The Financial Scribe (talk) 16:20, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

Which specific PAGs are you referring to? I've read the entire thread and have no idea. Cessaune 16:12, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

Click the Learn to Edit tab on the left and go though the prompts, then take the quiz. It is one of the examples in the questions. The Financial Scribe (talk) 16:16, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

Oh my! Started to go through the questions and found this "neutral" example: According to Simon Wiesenthal, the Holocaust was a program of extermination of the Jewish people in Germany, but David Irving disputes this analysis. Irving sure does but he's a discredited historian and Holocaust denier, so WP:UNDUE applies, probably also WP:FALSEBALANCE. Space4Time3Continuum2x 17:06, 17 August 2023 (UTC) Looked at the answer above the question. The answer correctly says that Not neutral and that Irving's position of Holocaust denial is a fringe viewpoint that should not be given equal standing with the consensus among respected historians". Trouting myself. Space4Time3Continuum2x 19:32, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

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

I believe an inflection point has been reached

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

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

I thought we were trying to trim this page down. GoodDay (talk) 03:19, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

The lead section is hardly an area for size concern. ––FormalDude (talk) 03:26, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

sure, trim the bloated and buried lead, replace it with one succinct sentence: Trump was the only president to be twice impeached and later indicted on multiple criminal charges. Many have spent years dodging and dancing around this. No more. This defines him. Countless reliable sources support it. soibangla (talk) 04:04, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

I have no opinion on the underlying question but 1) the lead is the last place I would trim as it is the most visible and 2) condensing his impeachements and indictments into a single sentence is too much for me. Cessaune 12:22, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

Could you show what exactly you have in mind, maybe in a userspace draft with this new lead? DFlhb (talk) 13:23, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

• It may be another inflection point but that remains to be seen. Is Trump, a former president, getting indicted on 4, 15, or 90 charges more remarkable/noteworthy/defining than Trump, the reality-TV actor and "Access Hollywood" video star, becoming president? WP:BLPCRIME applies to BLPs. Trump hasn’t been convicted of a crime. I support keeping the current order. Space4Time3Continuum2x 16:50, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

  I think fine to give it some time, no rush. but I'm willing to bet that this time in his life will figure prominently by the time the book is written. Andre🚐 21:03, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

  The felony indictments are mentioned at the end of the lead, which is organized in chronological order, to the benefit of the reader. In my view, the indictments belong at the end of the chronological lead at this time. If Trump is convicted of any felony, I would favor a restructuring of the lead, but we can cross that bridge if and when one or more criminal convictions take place. At that time, we can re-evaluate. I do believe that the lead could be edited to retain all the main points but trimming and explaining the points more succinctly, summarizing more briefly the secondary points. I think that the lead content about the criminal charges can be condensed, emphasizing the main point that Trump has been crimininally indicted four times and that he has been charged with 91 felonies, with a far briefer summary of the charges. Those are the salient points, and the body of the article and the various spinoff articles can appropriately go into much greater detail about all of these very important things. Cullen328 (talk) 03:51, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

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

I stand by my view that the RFC above is perfectly valid and that discussion has already happened multiple times on this issue, but on the chance that agreement is made that the RFC is premature and shut down, I strongly stand by my central argument which I will incorporate here:

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

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

• Support "University of Pennsylvania (BS)" or "University of Pennsylvania (BS Econ.)" (BS Econ is the current consensus) in the infobox and "University of Pennsylvania" in the lead. The infobox said "University of Pennsylvania" until this edit on Jan 3, 2016, added Fordham University. This edit without edit summary on Jan 8 replaced Fordham and UPenn with Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania. The info then changed several times in 2016, with and without Fordham, Wharton, U of Penn, and (BS), followed by the discussions mentioned in consensus #18.

We had the same back-and-forth in the lead. A month ago this edit changed Wharton School to UPenn with this edit summary: Corrected "Wharton School" to "University of Pennsylvania", which is the institution from which Donald Trump was graduated and received a BS degree. A business school at a university is not a degree-granting institution graduates of most other undergrad programs refer to the university, not school, as their alma mater. ("Wharton grad" e.g. as a metonym is widely understood as referring to an MBA graduate, not a Penn undergrad with a business major.) Amen. It was Trump who, for decades, claimed genius status for having attended a school that only admitted geniuses, without mentioning that he attended the undergraduate school and not the MBA program. Space4Time3Continuum2x 14:17, 19 August 2023 (UTC) Changed format from indent to bullet point. GoodDay, maybe you want to consider changing the format of your post, as well? Space4Time3Continuum2x 10:16, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

Procedural note: This would not change #18, as suggested in the section heading, but rather create a new consensus item superseding #18. This creates a clearer record. Follow existing examples. Existing items are occasionally "changed", but not in cases of complete reversal such as this would be. ―Mandruss ☎ 15:09, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

What is the basis for this? SPECIFICO talk 15:21, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

That may be my fault — supporting changing the infobox entry AND suggesting to add the language in the lead. (Or maybe not, see "complete reversal". Space4Time3Continuum2x 15:38, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

Basis? Clearer record, and precedent. What other kind of basis did you have in mind? ―Mandruss ☎ 15:47, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

No objection from me, for changing "Wharton School" to "University of Pennsylvania", if that means maintaining consistency & precedent. GoodDay (talk) 15:43, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

• Support "University of Pennsylvania (BS)". This would make the article consistent with the universal standard of presenting degrees and institutions. The department generally should not be included. Iamreallygoodatcheckers 04:15, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

Support. All the points made are valid. The arguments against this fall flat in comparison. Cessaune 02:01, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

We now have four Supports and one "no objection", which I read as a Tepid Support. No Opposes. Even at 100% support, I don't think we have nearly enough participation to supersede #18. At the same time, the challenge is well articulated and I don't think it should be allowed to die a natural death in these circumstances. So, unless we have a substantial influx of participation in the next week or so, while remaining at a high support percentage, I'd suggest we declare RFCBEFORE satisfied and take this back to RfC. (Note, I'd be arguing "settled issue" if #18 weren't 3-6 years old. I've no objection to revisiting a consensus after that amount of time, particularly when new arguments are raised.) ―Mandruss ☎ 03:17, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

If nobody comes to oppose just change it. A RfC would be overly bureaucratic. Iamreallygoodatcheckers 03:39, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

Agreed. Especially considering the number of talk page watchers that could chime in at any moment. Cessaune 03:46, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

I disagree (obviously). An existing consensus can only be changed by a stronger consensus, and amount of participation is one of the factors in the strength of a consensus. Otherwise, two editors in agreement could change any existing consensus. 90% of 12 editors is a stronger consensus than 100% of three editors, in my view. ―Mandruss ☎ 03:50, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

In my humble opinion, I think that the "stronger consensus" argument applies only to cases of extreme controversy or recent consensus. And 2017 is, frankly speaking, a long time ago when you think about it in a Trump context. However, I honestly don't even think consensus 18 applies here.

The argument in the August 2020 discussion wasn't between The Wharton School and The University of Pennsylvania, it was between The Wharton School and the Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania. Consensus 18 seems to me to be a consensus against The Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania and not a consensus for The Wharton School.

So, in my opinion, the arguments brought up above by GreenFrogs are new arguments that do not have to take into account consensus 18. Cessaune 04:25, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

Change or supersede — meh, I'm good either way. "Not applicable" does not apply — we can change the wording or supersede with a new consensus or revert to the general free-for-all that preceded the consensus. A long time ago in a Trump context is 1968, the year he graduated. Space4Time3Continuum2x 17:15, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

The four discussions forming consensus #18

• Universities in infobox, April 2017. Three separate !votes:

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

• Reopening discussion, April 2017: Change BS to "B.S. in Econ"
• University name in the Infobox, August 2020. Two proposals:

• Use "Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania" in the Infobox. 1 yes, 7 no.
• Use "University of Pennsylvania". 1 yes, 1 no

• University degree in infobox, December 2020. Proposal to revert to "BS Econ“. 4 yes, 0 no. Space4Time3Continuum2x 17:15, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

Protests

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

Note: Seeks to change or supersede current consensus item 20. ―Mandruss ☎ 03:35, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

What Mandruss said. Do you have any sources for anti-Trump rallies and pro-Trump protests and rallies? "Famous for rallies in his favor" - I believe they're called campaign rallies. He staged the first one for his 2020 campaign one month after the 2017 inauguration. Space4Time3Continuum2x 14:23, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

My issue is that the proposal adds a sense of equivalency between protests and rallies; the protests were varied, from many different people and groups, and occurred in an uncoordinated way. The notable rallies were basically all coordinated by Trump to support his own policies. To put them in the same sentence without context makes it seem like they were of a similar nature; they were not. There is not a similarity between "Trump organizing a rally to drum up support for himself and his policies" and "Disparate and numerous protests of many sorts against various things that Trump did". This feels like a WP:FALSEBALANCE sort of thing. I'd be open to some other proposal perhaps, but this isn't it. --Jayron32 14:39, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

Whether a protest was organized by Teresa Shook or by Donald Trump doesn’t seem very important, each person who showed up was unpaid, and motivated instead by support or opposition to Trump. I don’t see why we should emphasize the opposers and overlook the supporters. Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:56, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

Per my edit summary reverting the pro-Trump protests text: This is so far off both RS and talk page consensus that it does not even warrant talk page discussion, absent an opening argument that is clearly worded, at least minimally compelling, and documented with reliable sources for V and NPOV. SPECIFICO talk 14:58, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

While I would agree that his rallies could warrant inclusion, I'm not sure that this would be the right spot for them. This is more focused on gatherings that weren't organized by the subject; to compare protests (for or against, though the former I would have to see some sources) that were organized by third parties and his own rallies is like comparing Misplaced Pages articles written by the subject vs. the rest of the community. - AquilaFasciata (talk | contribs) 15:06, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

I think this sentence has been problematic for a long time. It harks back to the early days after Trump’s election. It would probably best to delete it. Jack Upland (talk) 06:33, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

And there is no evidence that a "protest": got out of hand on 1/6. That suggests it was not as planned as evidence shows. O3000, Ret. (talk) 16:44, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

"...for and against" is surely a WP:FALSEBALANCE. Cessaune 13:02, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

According to this source, protests during Trump's first year were indeed atypically large compared to previous years. However, the authors exact word in the conclusions section said that "participation clustered in several large, coordinated events...", and in figure 3 it clearly is the case that the March for Science protest was much larger than the others in terms of number of attendants. So, we can provide a phrasing that reflects the fact that Trump anti science policies sparked atypically larger protests compared to previous presidents, and a brief mention that there were thousands of other protests during his term.Forich (talk) 21:14, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

Donald Trump booking photo Fulton County Georgia

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

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

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

Art Smart, see WP:FART.--Jack Upland (talk) 02:44, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

A triumph. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 02:47, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

I am not a lawyer, but am fairly familiar with copyright law and issues. Unless there is a Georgia law or standing policy by Georgia or the Fulton County Sheriff's Office on the issue, it's my belief that it's up to the Sheriff's Office whether the mugshot is copyrighted or in the public domain. I just submitted a media request to the Sheriff's Office, explaining my understanding and asking them for its copyright status. I wanted to make this known to hopefully reduce others from emailing them and adding to the pile. If and when I get a response, I'll post it. Note that I made clear my status as a (small time) volunteer editor, exactly what that means, and that I don't represent Misplaced Pages or Mediawiki, and am not employed, officially representing, chosen, reviewed, or endorsed by Misplaced Pages or the Mediawiki Foundation. That said, if they distributed the photo saying it can be used "in the normal course of business", I would strongly lean toward that at minimum Misplaced Pages is licensed to use the photo on this webpage. I also asked them if they can confirm the "in the normal course of business" language, and that it allows using the image in the article. Darlingm (talk) 10:08, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

GA Code § 35-1-19 (2022): "c. An arresting law enforcement agency shall not provide or make available a copy of a booking photograph in any format to a person requesting such photograph if:

1. Such booking photograph may be placed in a publication or posted to a website or transferred to a person to be placed in a publication or posted to a website; and
2. Removal or deletion of such booking photograph from such publication or website requires the payment of a fee or other consideration.
   

d. When a person requests a booking photograph, he or she shall submit a statement affirming that the use of such photograph is in compliance with subsection (c) of this Code section. Any person who knowingly makes a false statement in requesting a booking photograph shall be guilty of a violation of Code Section 16-10-20."

Do copyright and public domain even apply? Names, dates, charges, and mug shots of people arrested are government data available to the general public. In Georgia, the above restrictions apply. Who is authorized to sign a statement on WP's behalf that the photo will not be used commercially? Space4Time3Continuum2x 15:15, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

Given that Misplaced Pages's "normal course of business" is the dissemination of images under free licenses, that's quite promising. Nevertheless, even if not, WP:NFCC still applies here. — The Anome (talk) 13:59, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

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

I've made it the same width as the other main images of Trump on the page. — The Anome (talk) 13:57, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

And that makes his head noticeably larger than that in the infobox. "The other main images of Trump on the page" are not close-cropped, which makes all the difference. I support 0.8. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:37, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

If the image can be used? then cool. Just don't have it as the infobox image. GoodDay (talk) 19:46, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

Scholarly ranking

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

@Delukiel In my view, we tend to avoid placing that information in the lede unless someone is definitely retired from politics. Since Trump is running for at least one extra term, having a line like "Scholars generally rate him as one of the worst presidents" would break NPOV - also, I don't think enough studies have come out about his tenure to definitively make that conclusion. Couruu (talk) 09:18, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

@Couruu It's actually already on the article. My comment was just about its placement. Delukiel (talk) 12:16, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

@Delukiel Oh no, to be clear, it should 100% be in the article - just not in the lede until the politician retires. Couruu (talk) 13:23, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

It is in the lead though. Scholars and historians rank Trump as one of the worst presidents in American history. Cessaune 13:48, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

It's consensus #54, based on this September 2021 RfC, after his term in office had ended. Space4Time3Continuum2x 14:17, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

@Cessaune Yeah I'm blind apparently. Ignore my comments, my bad. Couruu (talk) 16:24, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

Mugshot

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

100% agree 5.70.131.222 (talk) 13:17, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

Agreed! I vote to make it his official photo on wiki for the next year 2607:FB91:1129:6AD:85A:B08C:34FB:12FC (talk) 17:00, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

I second this. Luna <3 (She/Her) (talk) 17:46, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

I would love this. Do the silly, Misplaced Pages. George Mucus (talk) 08:36, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

I can't think of anything more petty, he should be treated no different from any other subject. Slatersteven (talk) 10:20, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

Of course, the photo should appear in the article. Of course, it should not replace his official photograph. Pecopteris (talk) 19:06, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

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

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

@Arthur Smart That is not an indication that the booking photo is freely licensed content. Moreover, when we remove it as non-free content, we are not removing or deleting it in return for the payment of a fee or other consideration - no one is paying or bribing us to remove it, rather we are removing it pursuant to our internal policies. ~ ONUnicornproblem solving 17:10, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

That said, the image page does properly note that it is a non-free work and provides a non-free content rational for its use on this page, so discussion of including on this page should proceed and not be shut down on the basis of it being non-free. ~ ONUnicornproblem solving 17:16, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

That said, the rationales laid out on the image page are plain boilerplate text, and could be vastly improved. I'm sure someone who reads this page could pop over to the image page and write some compelling reasons for each use in each article, as there obviously are some. -- zzuuzz 18:40, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

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

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

In my opinion, use of this non-free mug shot image in this article violates the content guideline Misplaced Pages:Non-free content. That guideline disallows Pictures of people still alive, and the shortcut is WP:NFC#UUI. I believe that the only article where inclusion of the mug shot is appropriate is Mug shot of Donald Trump, which contains extensive critical commentary about the photo itself. Cullen328 (talk) 23:12, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

The guideline disallows pictures of people still alive provided that taking a new free picture as a replacement (which is almost always considered possible) would serve the same encyclopedic purpose as the non-free image. What would be a free substitute for a booking photo? I don't care one way or the other; it's just a visual for the historic event of a former U.S. president being processed under Georgia law like every other defendant. Space4Time3Continuum2x 16:25, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

You have numerous free images of Trump. There is nothing special about the booking photo that needs illustration on a page about Trump. This is a strict policy under NFC. Masem (t) 20:40, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

Disagree, as I do not think it is "historical", when and if he is found guilty, that will be. Slatersteven (talk) 14:42, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

Image is already in the article, but it's seems to be of poor quality. Perhaps it's the lighting angle, but his left eye appears cartoonish. GoodDay (talk) 14:46, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

You're criticizing the lighting and quality of mug shots taken by Fulton County Jail staff? Will you accompany me to the DMV for my next license renewal? I always find my picture rather cartoonish — I'm much better looking. Space4Time3Continuum2x 16:37, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

The actual guy in the photograph has "appeared cartoonish" for decades. You can't blame the photography for that.--User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 17:48, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

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

I don't disagree with #6, IMO it doesn't apply in this case: An image to illustrate an article passage about the image, if the image has its own article (in which case the image may be described and a link provided to the article about the image). The subsection isn't about the photo, it's about the Georgia election interference case, main article Georgia election racketeering prosecution. It's the iconic image for the historic first of the criminal indictments. Also the LP part of BLP has published the image on his social media accounts and his campaign website, and he's commercializing this item of government property by selling T-shirts, mugs, koozies, bumper stickers and who knows what else. Space4Time3Continuum2x 16:14, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

I've commented on this on your talk page. Bottom line, we've gone around on very similar issues many times before, and it always results in the image only being used on the article about the image. Please, let's not rehash this again. If anyone wants to overturn/change WP:NFC#UUI #6, WT:NFC is the place to start a discussion on it. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:29, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

All non-free content use is subject to WP:NFCC. Non-free content use isn't automatic and each time it's being used it needs to meet all ten non-free content use criteria given in WP:NFCCP. One of these criteria WP:NFCC#3a, which encourages us to try and minimize non-free content use as possible and find alternatives to using it whenever possible. This is where item 6 of WP:NFC#UUI comes into play. Non-free content is not really in accordance with WP:COPY#Guidelines for images and other media files, but the WMF allows projects to use it if they want per the EDP of wmf:Resolution Licensing policy. One use of non-free content, therefore, is considered quite the exception whish is why the requirements it needs to meet are quite restrictive. This means that additional uses of the same file tend to be seen as being even more exceptional and thus need even stronger justifications for the their non-free use. In this case, there is a stand-alone article about the mug shot itself where it can be seen and which includes all kinds of sourced critical commentary about it. So, unless the plan is to basically recreate that article here, which would be a bad idea per WP:SS, the most there's going to be about mug shot is going to be a brief sentence of two in the "Georgia election interference case" section which already contains a link Mug shot of Donald Trump. There's nothing else in that section which really justifies another use of the file per NFCC#3, WP:NFCC#1 and WP:NFCC#8. The link to the mug shot article is an acceptable alternative way to comply with NFCC#3 per WP:FREER, and all of the critical commentary generally required for non-free use per WP:NFC#CS can be found in the article about the mug shot. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:20, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

Marchjuly, thank you for the explanation - takes care of any further discussions of using the photo in the infobox, as well. Sheer curiosity: would a drawing be an acceptable alternative, or would it considered to be a work inspired by others, such as "a character from TV, comics, or the movies" per the Upload Wizard? Space4Time3Continuum2x 10:57, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

I agree with @Space4Time3Continuum2x, I don't see how UUI #6 applies here whatsoever. If we are discussing the image (not simply using it for decoration) and otherwise meeting NFC, the image should be fine. —Locke Cole • t • c 07:43, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

Another photo not taken by WH photographers would have been nice. Space4Time3Continuum2x 10:57, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

As annoying as NFC#UUI #6 is, Hammersoft's reasoning (& Cullen's, and others) is correct. Best hope is to contact the sheriff's office and get a copyright release. DFlhb (talk) 11:50, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

We're not going to go against the reasoned policy objections of H and C, among others. But more than that, I'd say the mugshot is UNDUE and NOTNEWS and IMO is a personal promotional pose (PPP) created by Mr. Trump. Sparkfire29 (talk)

Health/weight

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

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

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

It may be telling -- but as you say, considering his reputation; it's trivia. Also, not heavily covered by RS. O3000, Ret. (talk) 01:41, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

The article already addresses his credibility. That's better than listing various instances. SPECIFICO talk 02:04, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

@CNC33: Consider adding it to Public image of Donald Trump § Height and weight. ––FormalDude (talk) 02:07, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

The Anome beat you by 13 hours. ―Mandruss ☎ 02:44, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

No need to mention his height or weight in this article. Iamreallygoodatcheckers 02:30, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

I disagree. As a politician, his credibility is important. This goes to show how lacking he is in credibility. George Mucus (talk) 02:49, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

If you want to talk about his credibility then talk about his credibility not his height and weight. We already have a subsection and multiple paragraphs about his falsities, conspiracies, etc. Iamreallygoodatcheckers 05:27, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

References

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

• Former good article nominees
• Old requests for peer review
• Biography articles of living people
• B-Class biography articles
• B-Class biography (arts and entertainment) articles
• Mid-importance biography (arts and entertainment) articles
• Arts and entertainment work group articles
• B-Class biography (politics and government) articles
• Top-importance biography (politics and government) articles
• Politics and government work group articles
• WikiProject Biography articles
• B-Class WikiProject Business articles
• Mid-importance WikiProject Business articles
• WikiProject Business articles
• B-Class New York City articles
• High-importance New York City articles
• WikiProject New York City articles
• B-Class Conservatism articles
• High-importance Conservatism articles
• WikiProject Conservatism articles
• B-Class politics articles
• High-importance politics articles
• B-Class American politics articles
• Top-importance American politics articles
• American politics task force articles
• B-Class political party articles
• High-importance political party articles
• Political parties task force articles
• WikiProject Politics articles
• B-Class United States articles
• Top-importance United States articles
• B-Class United States articles of Top-importance
• B-Class American television articles
• Mid-importance American television articles
• American television task force articles
• B-Class United States presidential elections articles
• Top-importance United States presidential elections articles
• WikiProject United States presidential elections articles
• B-Class United States Presidents articles
• Top-importance United States Presidents articles
• WikiProject United States Presidents articles
• B-Class United States Government articles
• High-importance United States Government articles
• WikiProject United States Government articles
• WikiProject United States articles
• B-Class television articles
• Mid-importance television articles
• WikiProject Television articles
• Pages in the Misplaced Pages Top 25 Report
• Misplaced Pages pages referenced by the press
• Misplaced Pages controversial topics