Talk:Donald Trump: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 09:58, 1 June 2024 editSer! (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users, Rollbackers11,636 edits removed duplicate vote (like, exact same worded vote from user who had voted seven minutes prior) - if I'm acting above my station feel free to revert me and strike it out or whatever, I dunno what the due process here isTag: 2017 wikitext editor ← Previous edit		Latest revision as of 15:24, 11 January 2025 edit undoSpace4Time3Continuum2x (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users15,791 edits →Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 11 January 2025
Line 1:		Line 1:
	{{~~pp-protected~~\|~~small~~=yes}}		{{Talk header\|hide_find_sources=yes}}
	{{~~stt~~}}		{{Controversial}}
	{{~~skip to bottom~~}}		{{Calm}}
	{{Warning RS and OR}}		{{Warning RS and OR}}
	{{Talk header\|hide_find_sources=yes\|archive_age=14}}
	{{pp-move-indef}}
	{{FAQ\|collapsed=no}}
	{{anchor\|FAQ}}
	{{American politics AE\|Consensus required=no\|BRD=yes\|1RR=no}}		{{American politics AE\|Consensus required=no\|BRD=yes\|1RR=no}}
			{{tmbox
	{{Controversial}}
			\|image = ]
	{{tmbox
	\|image = ]
	\|text = '''Want to add new information about Donald Trump?'''<br/>Please consider choosing the most appropriate article, for example:		\|text = '''Want to add new information about Donald Trump?'''<br/>Please consider choosing the most appropriate article, for example:
	{{div col}}		{{div col}}
	* ]		* ]
	* ]		* ]
	* ]		* ]
			* ]
	{{div col end}}		{{div col end}}
	... or dozens of other places, as listed in {{t\|Donald Trump series}}. Thanks!		... or dozens of other places, as listed in {{t\|Donald Trump series}}. Thanks!
	}}		}}
	{{~~Banner holder~~ \|collapsed=~~yes \|1=~~		{{FAQ\|collapsed=no}}
			{{WikiProject banner shell \|class=B \|blp=activepol \|collapsed=yes \|vital=yes \|listas=Trump, Donald \|1=
			{{WikiProject Biography \|a&e-work-group=Yes \|a&e-priority=Mid \|politician-work-group=Yes \|politician-priority=Top}}
			{{WikiProject Business \|importance=Mid}}
			{{WikiProject Climate change\|importance=High}}
			{{WikiProject Conservatism \|importance=High}}
			{{WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography \|importance=Top}}
			{{WikiProject New York City \|importance=High}}
			{{WikiProject Politics \|importance=High \|American=Yes \|American-importance=Top \|political-parties=yes \|political-parties-importance=High}}
			{{WikiProject Television \|importance=Mid \|american=yes}}
			{{WikiProject United States \|importance=Top \|USTV=Yes \|USTV-importance=Mid \|USGov=Yes \|USGov-importance=High \|USPE=Yes \|USPE-importance=Top}}
			{{WikiProject United States Presidents \|importance=Top \|trump=yes \|trump-importance=top}}
			{{WikiProject University of Pennsylvania \|importance=Low}}
			{{WikiProject 2010s \|importance=Top}}
			}}
			<!-- end wikiproject banner bundle -->
			{{Banner holder \|text= Page history \|collapsed=y \|1=
	{{Article history		{{Article history
	\|action1=GAN		\|action1=GAN
Line 72:		Line 84:
	\|topic=Politics and government		\|topic=Politics and government
	}}		}}
			{{Afd-merged-from\|Health of Donald Trump\|Health of Donald Trump\|13 June 2019}}
	{{WikiProject banner shell \|class=B \|living=yes \|activepol=yes \|collapsed=yes \|vital=yes \|listas=Trump, Donald \|1=
			{{Press \| collapsed=yes
	{{WikiProject Donald Trump \|importance=Top}}
	{{WikiProject United States \|importance=Top \|USTV=Yes \|USTV-importance=Mid \|USGov=Yes \|USGov-importance=High \|USPE=Yes \|USPE-importance=Top \|USPresidents=Yes \|USPresidents-importance=Top}}
	{{WikiProject Conservatism \|importance=High}}
	{{WikiProject New York City \|importance=High}}
	{{WikiProject Politics \|importance=High \|American=Yes \|American-importance=Top \|political-parties=yes \|political-parties-importance=High}}
	{{WikiProject Business \|importance=Mid}}
	{{WikiProject Television \|importance=Mid}}
	{{WikiProject Biography \|a&e-work-group=Yes \|a&e-priority=Mid \|politician-work-group=Yes \|politician-priority=Top}}
	{{WikiProject Twenty-Tens decade \|importance=Top}}
	}}
	{{All time pageviews\|233}}
	{{Annual report\|], ], ], ], ], ], ], and ]}}
	{{Top 25 report\|Jun 14 2015\|Jun 28 2015\|Jul 19 2015\|until\|Sep 27 2015\|Dec 6 2015\|Dec 13 2015\|Jan 3 2016\|until\|Jan 17 2016\|until\|Jun 12 2016\|Jul 3 2016\|until\|Jul 31 2016\|Aug 21 2016\|until\|Dec 18 2016\|Jan 1 2017\|until\|Apr 2 2017\|Apr 23 2017\|May 14 2017\|until\|May 28 2017\|Jun 11 2017\|Jun 25 2017\|Oct 8 2017\|Oct 22 2017\|Nov 26 2017\|Jan 14 2018\|Jun 10 2018\|Sep 30 2018\|Oct 28 2018\|until\|Nov 25 2018\|Dec 9 2018\|Sep 22 2019\|Dec 15 2019\|Jan 5 2020\|Feb 23 2020\|Mar 1 2020\|Apr 12 2020\|May 31 2020\|until\|Jun 28 2020\|Aug 9 2020\|until\|Aug 23 2020\|Sep 27 2020\|until\|Dec 13 2020\|Jan 3 2021\|until\|Jan 31 2021\|Jul 10 2022\|Jun 11 2023}}
	{{afd-merged-from\|Health of Donald Trump\|Health of Donald Trump\|13 June 2019}}
	{{press \| collapsed=yes
	\|org='']'' \|date=November 16, 2013 \|author=Cuozzo, Steve \|title=Don't Trust Anything on Misplaced Pages		\|org='']'' \|date=November 16, 2013 \|author=Cuozzo, Steve \|title=Don't Trust Anything on Misplaced Pages
	\|url=http://nypost.com/2013/11/16/dont-trust-anything-on-wikipedia/		\|url=http://nypost.com/2013/11/16/dont-trust-anything-on-wikipedia/
Line 112:		Line 110:
	\|org14='']'' \|date14=26 November 2018 \|author14=Martin, Alan\|title14=The Trump penis Misplaced Pages war has kicked off again\|url14=https://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/news/3066986/the-trump-penis-wikipedia-war-has-kicked-off-again		\|org14='']'' \|date14=26 November 2018 \|author14=Martin, Alan\|title14=The Trump penis Misplaced Pages war has kicked off again\|url14=https://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/news/3066986/the-trump-penis-wikipedia-war-has-kicked-off-again
	\|org15='']'' \|date15=December 3, 2018 \|author15=Brandom, Russell\|title15=Misplaced Pages engages the 'nuclear option' after Trump penis hack\|url15=https://www.theverge.com/2018/12/4/18125359/wikipedia-trump-admin-account-security-hack		\|org15='']'' \|date15=December 3, 2018 \|author15=Brandom, Russell\|title15=Misplaced Pages engages the 'nuclear option' after Trump penis hack\|url15=https://www.theverge.com/2018/12/4/18125359/wikipedia-trump-admin-account-security-hack
	\|org16='']'' \|date16=May 28, 2019 \|author16=Mak, Aaron\|title16=Donald Trump's Misplaced Pages Entry Is a War Zone\|url16=https://slate.com/technology/2019/05/donald-trump-wikipedia-page.~~html~~		\|org16='']'' \|date16=May 28, 2019 \|author16=Mak, Aaron\|title16=Donald Trump's Misplaced Pages Entry Is a War Zone\|url16=https://slate.com/technology/2019/05/donald-trump-wikipedia-page.htm
			\|org17='']'' \|date17=March 7, 2020 \|author17=Pasternack, Alex \|title17=How Misplaced Pages's volunteers became the web's best weapon against misinformation \|url17=https://www.fastcompany.com/90471667/how-wikipedia-volunteers-became-the-webs-best-weapon-against-misinformation

			\|org18='']'' \|date18=May 21, 2020 \|author18=Flood, Brian \|title18=Misplaced Pages co-founder Larry Sanger says online encyclopedia scrapped neutrality, favors lefty politics \|url18=https://www.foxnews.com/media/wikipedia-co-founder-larry-sanger-says-online-dictionary-scrapped-neutrality-favors-lefty-politics
	\| author17 = Alex Pasternack
			\|org19='']'' \|date19=November 19, 2020 \|author19=Evon, Dan \|title19=Does Loser.com Redirect to Trump’s Misplaced Pages Page? \|url19=https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/loser-com-trump-wikipedia-page/
	\| title17 = How Misplaced Pages's volunteers became the web's best weapon against misinformation
			\|org20='']'' \|date20=October 23, 2023 \|author20=Williams, Zoe \|title20=Why is Elon Musk attacking Misplaced Pages? Because its very existence offends him \|url20=https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/oct/23/why-is-elon-musk-attacking-wikipedia-because-its-very-existence-offends-him
	\| org17 = ]
			\|org21='']'' \|date21=May 31, 2024 \|author21=Hays, Gabriel \|title21=CNN host suggests Trump conviction not mentioned prominently enough on former president's Misplaced Pages page \|url21=https://www.foxnews.com/media/cnn-host-suggests-trump-conviction-mentioned-prominently-enough-former-presidents-wikipedia-page
	\| url17 = https://www.fastcompany.com/90471667/how-wikipedia-volunteers-became-the-webs-best-weapon-against-misinformation
			\|org22='']'' \|date22=June 4, 2024 \|author22=Harrison, Stephen \|title22=The Most Heated Debate on Trump’s Felony Conviction Is Happening on ... Misplaced Pages? \|url22=https://slate.com/technology/2024/06/donald-trump-felony-wikipedia-debate.html
	\| date17 = 7 March 2020
			\|org23='']'' \|date23=October 17, 2024 \|author23=Sam Wineburg and Nadav Ziv \|title23=Go ahead and use Misplaced Pages for research \|url23=https://www.bostonglobe.com/2024/10/17/opinion/use-wikipedia-reliable-source/
	\| accessdate17 = 9 March 2020
			}}

			{{All time pageviews\|233}}
	\| subject18 = article
			{{Annual report\|], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], and ]}}
	\| author18 = Brian Flood
			{{Top 25 report\|Jun 14 2015\|Jun 28 2015\|Jul 19 2015\|until\|Sep 27 2015\|Dec 6 2015\|Dec 13 2015\|Jan 3 2016\|until\|Jan 17 2016\|until\|Jun 12 2016\|Jul 3 2016\|until\|Jul 31 2016\|Aug 21 2016\|until\|Dec 18 2016\|Jan 1 2017\|until\|Apr 2 2017\|Apr 23 2017\|May 14 2017\|until\|May 28 2017\|Jun 11 2017\|Jun 25 2017\|Oct 8 2017\|Oct 22 2017\|Nov 26 2017\|Jan 14 2018\|Jun 10 2018\|Sep 30 2018\|Oct 28 2018\|until\|Nov 25 2018\|Dec 9 2018\|Sep 22 2019\|Dec 15 2019\|Jan 5 2020\|Feb 23 2020\|Mar 1 2020\|Apr 12 2020\|May 31 2020\|until\|Jun 28 2020\|Aug 9 2020\|until\|Aug 23 2020\|Sep 27 2020\|until\|Dec 13 2020\|Jan 3 2021\|until\|Jan 31 2021\|Jul 10 2022\|Jun 11 2023\|May 26 2024\|Jun 23 2024\|Jul 14 2024\|Jul 21 2024\|Oct 20 2024\|until\|Nov 24 2024}}
	\| title18 = Misplaced Pages co-founder Larry Sanger says online encyclopedia scrapped neutrality, favors lefty politics
			{{Annual readership\|scale=log}}
	\| org18 = ]
			<!-- end page history banner bundle --> }}
	\| url18 = https://www.foxnews.com/media/wikipedia-co-founder-larry-sanger-says-online-dictionary-scrapped-neutrality-favors-lefty-politics
			{{Skip to talk}}
	\| date18 = 21 May 2020
			{{Skip to bottom}}
	\| quote18 =
			{{Banner holder \|collapsed=yes \|1=
	\| archiveurl18 =
			{{Section sizes}}
	\| archivedate18 =
	\| accessdate18 = 22 May 2020

	\| subject19 = article
	\| author19 = Dan Evon
	\| title19 = Does Loser.com Redirect to Trump’s Misplaced Pages Page?
	\| org19 = ]
	\| url19 = https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/loser-com-trump-wikipedia-page/
	\| date19 = 11 November 2020
	\| quote19 =
	\| archiveurl19 =
	\| archivedate19 =
	\| accessdate19 = 19 November 2020
	}}		}}
	{{Daily pageviews\|scale=log}}
	}}
	{{section sizes}}

	{{User:MiszaBot/config		{{User:MiszaBot/config
	\|algo = old(~~14d~~)		\|algo = old(7d)
	\|archive = Talk:Donald Trump/Archive %(counter)d		\|archive = Talk:Donald Trump/Archive %(counter)d
	\|counter = ~~169~~		\|counter = 187
	\|maxarchivesize = ~~200K~~		\|maxarchivesize = 150K
	\|archiveheader = {{aan}}		\|archiveheader = {{aan}}
	\|minthreadstoarchive = 1		\|minthreadstoarchive = 1
	\|minthreadsleft = 4		\|minthreadsleft = 3
	}}		}}

	__TOC__		__TOC__

			== Current consensus == <!-- Must be on this page, not the subpage, to support mobile users -->
	{{/Current consensus}}		{{/Current consensus}}


			== Racially charged ==
	==Lead: Consensus 43 vio? <span class="anchor" id="Lead"></span>==
			<!-- START PIN -->{{Pin message\|}}<!-- ] 10:51, 10 November 2034 (UTC) -->{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil\|2046768684}}<!-- END PIN -->
			Hello all, I see Consensus #30, based particularly on ] says: "The lead includes: "Many of his comments and actions have been characterized as racially charged or racist."" I can also see that this is the only mention of "racially charged" in the article. Would editors here support removal of "racially charged" until such text is supported in the body? ] (]) 04:19, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
			:{{tq\|Would editors here support removal of "racially charged" until such text is supported in the body?}} Not this one, per process. We're not going to amend #30 until the body is fixed, then reverse the amendment. "Racially charged" appears to have enough RS support, so just find a way to work it into the body. ―] ] 05:54, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
			::<s>What does "reverse the amendment" mean? Go back to Consensus 24? ] (]) 06:07, 12 November 2024 (UTC)</s> I understand. ] (]) 06:07, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
			:::I see the grammatical ambiguity. :) ―] ] 07:06, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
			::This seems backwards. Lead follows body. We shouldn't treat the consensus list as sacrosanct, it's merely there to keep track of RfCs. If the article has moved on, I'd support a new RfC to challenge the previous one. ] (]) 07:32, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
			:::{{u\|Riposte97}} I think an RfC should be avoided if it can be. Do you think you could ]? I'll have a go as well in a bit. If we don't have luck we can look at overturning Consensus #30.
			:::Given it's an ] claim, high-quality sources will be needed. I wouldn't accept journalists being arbitrators of whether his comments were "racially charged", political scientists will have written on it and we shouldn't accept inferior sourcing. This is the standard that was applied for "cult of personality". ] (]) 07:57, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
			::::Your reasoning seems consistent with ]. A departure, probably more impactful (disruptive?) than you realize, but maybe ultimately good for the article. No strong opinion provided we adhere to the established consensus process. If that means revisiting #30, I suppose you pass the "significant new argument(s)" test. ―] ] 08:37, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
			::::@], apologies that I've not had the time to properly devote to this. I'll see what I can add to your page in the coming days. ] (]) 10:37, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
			:Yep definitely. ] (]) 19:45, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

			I have created a page ] as a space for research on this article. I intended to use academic sources in ] as the basis to follow summary style, but extremely disappointingly, only six of the almost 500 sources are academic.
	Consensus #43 indicates that for the lead section, "the mere fact that an edit has not been discussed is not a valid reason to revert it." With that in mind, ], could you provide a rationale for ? The lead is ]. ] (]) 12:09, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
	:I still think that when your from the lead is challenged, you need to provide a rationale for the removal on the Talk page. (Your edit summary merely says "rework lead".) Per ], the lead {{tq\|gives the basics in a nutshell}}, and six words defining the successful side ventures seem appropriate to me. Ditto the seven words explaining which families were affected by the family separation policy, the three words detailing the kind of Covid misinformation he spread, the sheer number of felony counts, and the sentence on the rollback of environmental policies. ]] 12:53, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
	::What do you think of Nikkimaria's comment, "The lead is ]." ] (]) 20:05, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
	:::This. Adding a handful of words about every single topic adds up to a lot more than a handful, and when the lead is so overlong there would need to be a much stronger justification for doing that. In fact it would be appropriate to do more reworking. ] (]) 00:35, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
	::::Well this has taken a strange turn. Good luck. ] (]) 03:08, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

			This is collaborative so please help! If this can be pinned to the top of this page for a short while it would be valuable. Remember, for ], we are not merely looking for multiple sources describing him or his comments/actions as racist/racially charged, but for the weighted response of high-quality academic sources to these questions. ] (]) 10:21, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
	*@]So why is there an issue with adding "just a handful of words" about the causes of death on January 6? Now it is highly misleading:
			:{{u\|SusanLesch}} Pinging you in case this effort is of interest. Been working mostly on collating books right now as journals are daunting for finding discussion of general scholarly consensus. If you find other useful texts along the way providing a scholarly retrospective assessment on aspects, I'm currently dropping them in ]. ] (]) 17:17, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
	::"he urged his supporters to march to the U.S. Capitol, which many of them then attacked, resulting in multiple deaths and interrupting the electoral vote count."
			::Will do. Sorry if I'm slow today with journals but I will catch up. On this topic per ], {{tq\| not everything in the lead must be repeated in the body of the text}}, however this statement absolutely should be cited per ]. Seems like a good place for a perfectly cited footnote. -] (]) 17:42, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
	::This statement saying "resulting in multiple deaths" is MISSING CONTEXT. This source I cite below clearly spells out that all deaths were either natural causes or suicide or Ashley Babbit, not the result of violence of the rioters. The average reader, including over half of the students I showed this, is led into thinking that the deaths were violent after mentioning an "attack."
			:::Thanks :) Yes the key issue is definitely it being uncited. ] (]) 17:48, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
	::These Are the People Who Died in Connection With the Capitol Riot https://www.nytimes.com/2022/01/05/us/politics/jan-6-capitol-deaths.html?smid=nytcore-android-share
			:'''Support removal'''. "Racially charged" is . When you consider that in the same sentence we are saying that Trump's comments and actions have been characterized as outright racist, it makes even less sense to "soften" the characterization with this term. Reading that old discussion, I think the true reason that many editors tended to support the euphemism was because it softens the perception that we are saying he is racist in ]. "Characterized by some" was rightly rejected by editors as too vague, but perhaps "characterized by critics" could be used to clearly attribute the characterization and prevent reader misunderstanding. — ] (]) 01:34, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
	::{{rpa}} ] (]) 16:02, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
			::it needs removing for sure. it's against ] on multiple counts, but specially "Remove contentious material that is unsourced or poorly sourced" ~ ] 18:29, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
	:::Do we say "violence by rioters"? ] (]) 16:18, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
			:::It's sourced in ]. A citation should be added to the lead per ]. – ] (]) 18:44, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
	:::Thanks for the personal attack. You already uttered your opinion in "This is biased and false", above (, , and ). Consensus #62 applies. ]] 16:53, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
			:::To be clear, I do not oppose the lead's inclusion of the fact that many characterize Trump as racist. I am only supporting the removal of the term "racially charged", which I feel is redundant. — ] (]) 17:08, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
	::::Sorry, where is the personal attack? Has a comment been removed?
			*Suggest you look up the meaning of "racially charged". Regards, ] (]) 23:40, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
			*:This comment is going over my head. ] (]) 01:19, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

			== Tracking lead size ==
	::::I agree that the current wording is misleading. 'Resulting in' can clearly be read two ways, one of which contradicts #62, as it essentially means the attackers killed them. ] (]) 23:06, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
			Word counts by paragraph and '''total'''.
	:::::The personal attack was removed per ]. To point you to that edit would largely defeat the purpose of the removal. It's in the page history if you have the time and the interest. ―] ] 23:35, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
			{{hidden
	::::::Hmm. I don't think that was an appropriate removal, but I don't care enough to argue the point.
			\| headerstyle = text-align:left; font-weight:normal;
	::::::Focussing on the issue, the current wording can be read to violate consensus. The simplest way to fix that is probably just to end the sentence at 'attacked', but open to suggestions. ] (]) 10:40, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
			\| header =
	:Space4T, I have difficulty reconciling your editsum with #43. It seems to me you should've provided separate editsum rationale for each and every change item you reverted, even if that required 10+ edits. I know that's a lot of work.{{pb}}It also seems to me that Nikkimaria should have facilitated that by splitting their edit into discrete pieces. Mass changes like this are always a problem, to the point I might support a consensus item forbidding them in the lead or anywhere else. Minimizing page history entries is not a priority. (It would also force editors to slow down a little with their bold edits, never a Bad Thing.) ―] ] 22:15, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
			— '''614''' = 29 + 101 + 106 + 156 + 101 + 121
	::How exactly would we go about forbidding mass changes? Just curious. ] </nowiki></span>''']] 22:29, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
			\| content =
	:::Hey, I don't do details: the devil's in them. Lol. Yeah, I asked myself the same question. I'm not the smartest guy in the room, as you know, and I think it would be doable if we put our collective mind to it. I don't think it could be codified with precision, and Misplaced Pages hates that kind of thing anyway. It's one of those things where there are three areas or zones: a clear "yes" (i.e., the vast majority of bold edits here), a clear "no" (e.g., Nikkimaria's edit), and a gray area in between. For the most part, the only disputes would occur in the gray area, and it might not be excessively large. ―] ] 22:48, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
			— '''657''' = 46 + 101 + 116 + 175 + 176 + 43
	::::I think this is a good idea. It would potentially save a lot of time, because people could get down to discussing the real issues in dispute. ] (]) 23:03, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
	::It was one bulk edit involving removals, changes of sentence order, and copy edits, and I challenged most of it. My objection wasn't that an edit to the lead hadn't been discussed beforehand. From now on, I won't ask editors to take edits I challenge to the Talk page; I'll leave it to the author to figure out what to do. In this case, it was also redundant because the editor isn't new and has been active on this page for a while. Instead, my editsum should have said s.th. like "partial rvt - challenging rmv of info vital to understand e.g. fam. sep., type of covid misinformation, rollback of environm. policies, the astounding number of felony counts …". It's not as if editors (not just me) hadn't complained about mass edits before. If there had been 10+ separate edits, I or other editors could have objected to individual ones. Editsum "rework lead": I know we're not required to state a reason, but it's a courtesy to do so, especially in a much-litigated article such as this one. Maybe the reason for removing e.g. mention that he separated migrant families at the border would have convinced me or other editors not to challenge it? (First time I heard of minimization of page history - is that a thing?) ]] 11:47, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
	:::{{tq\|(First time I heard of minimization of page history - is that a thing?)}} Assuming you're serious, I meant "minimizing the number of page history entries". It's really the only reason one would do such a mass edit, beyond saving the wee bit of time required to start each smaller edit. ―] ] 14:34, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
	::::I left out a word - can't really call it a typo. Brain spasm? I was referring to your sentence {{tq\|Minimizing page history entries is not a priority.}} <small>Off-topic: today's NYT has an aerial view of the swirls and eddies on top of Trump's head.</small> ]] 14:51, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
	:::::So I gathered, but I guess I misunderstood you, thinking you were thinking of "minimizing" as in minimizing a window or something.{{pb}}I suppose I could be more cynical and say that an editor might do a mass edit to make it more difficult to challenge (all the more reason to ban mass edits). ―] ] 15:31, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
	:::I do recall discussion along the lines of, "If you edit en masse, don't complain about being challenged en masse." What we're considering above is simply formalizing that and giving it teeth. Your editsum would have been "rv per consensus 66" and #43 would not have been in play. Or, better yet, Nikkimaria would've been aware of #66 and refrained from the mass edit in the first place. I think it's worth pursuing. ―] ] 14:19, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
	*FYI, the Trump lead is about twice as large as the Biden lead. ] (]) 16:01, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
	:My take: The lead is too long because lead summarizes body and body is too long. You can't fix the former without first fixing the latter. This well-intentioned reduction is occurring in the wrong place.{{pb}}But we're mixing a process dispute, which is how this thread started, with a content dispute, and it might be more useful to separate them. ―] ] 16:17, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
	::It's like obesity leads to all sorts of medical problems. ] (]) 16:28, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
	:::Mos def. ―] ] 16:37, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

			— '''418''' = 62 + 76 + 153 + 127
	::{{ping\|Space4Time3Continuum2x}} Regarding : your edit summary is absolutely correct that he spread other misinformation, which is why your revert is incorrect - specifying one kind of misinformation makes it appear that that was the only kind, when in fact it was a much broader issue. Similarly with the "slowly" piece: the problem was his immediate reaction was denial or contradiction, which is what the text goes on to say. ] (]) 21:23, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

			— '''406''' = 56 + 70 + 138 + 142
	:::{{ping\|Nikkimaria}} We had a ] about this sentence almost exactly a year ago, and the current version is what we landed on. ]] 20:58, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
			}}
			{{hidden
			\| headerstyle = text-align:left; font-weight:normal;
			\| header =
			— '''418''' = 53 + 64 + 158 + 143
			\| content =
			— '''413''' = 54 + 62 + 153 + 144

			— '''422''' = 58 + 57 + 141 + 166
	::::That ginormous discussion didn't find consensus for this version so much as it fell back on it as a default, because editors struggled to balance concision with the nuance of describing the various misinformation at play. The reverted version solves the issues raised in that discussion: it is concise without misleading, it is correct in a more comprehensive way than the current version, and it leaves discussion of those nuances to the linked article for those who wish to learn more. ] (]) 00:43, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

			— '''437''' = 58 + 57 + 156 + 166
	:::::I'm afraid not. Consensus version restored. ] (]) 01:53, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

	~~::::::As the~~ ~~indicates, there is no consensus on specific wording~~; ~~the~~ ~~only~~ ~~requirement~~ is ~~that~~ ~~his~~ ~~reaction~~ ~~is mentioned, which it was prior to your revert. ] (]) 02:11, 14 May 2024~~ ~~(UTC)~~		— '''465''' = 87 + 60 + 154 + 164
			}}
			{{hidden
			\| headerstyle = text-align:left; font-weight:normal;
			\| header =
			— '''438''' = 58 + 60 + 156 + 164
			\| content =
			}}

			== Tracking article size ==
	:::::::As the wording has remained largely as-is since, I'm afraid it is. Feel free to see if there's support for your proposed change. Otherwise, status quo ante. ] (]) 21:26, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
			] size in words – Wiki markup size in bytes – Approximate number of additional citations before exceeding the ] limit.
	::::::::At best, was incorrect per the cited consensus item. IMNSHO, any editor would be within process to revert you on that basis alone. ―] ] 02:29, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
			{{hidden
	::::::::{{ping\|Zaathras}} In addition to the above, your most recent revert violates the arbitration remedy; please self-revert. Do you have a substantive objection to the change? ] (]) 00:16, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
			\| headerstyle = text-align:left; font-weight:normal;
	::::::::{{ping\|Zaathras}} Re: Just how much consensus do you require for this relatively inconsequential issue? Do you propose pinning this section with the hope of substantially more participation? Starting an RfC? Dispute resolution? What? I'm seeing a need to ] and ] mentality that we don't often see at this article in recent years.{{pb}}As I said previously, an editor would be within process to revert you on the basis of your incorrect edit summary. You could not dispute that fact, so you resorted to other tactics: a ''de facto'' consensus argument and a ''no consensus'' argument, neither having any merit in this situation. Even if you claim they have merit, you can't play them like trump cards against the opposition of two editors. That's not how it works, and I think you know that. It's like linking to ] and expecting all others to bow in deference—a common newbie mistake. ―] ] 05:11, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
			\| header =
	::::::::All that said, if {{u\|Space4Time3Continuum2x}} sides with you, that makes it 2–2 and in fact ''no consensus''. It's not entirely clear to me that he does, so let's ask him. If there is ''no consensus'' and status quo ante is clear enough (I haven't checked), you ].{{pb}}Even so, you and others went about it the wrong way: disputes should be addressed on this page, not by re-re-re-reversions on the article page, and edit summaries are a very poor substitute for collaborative discussion. Only after the discussion has played out should the article be touched, if then. I don't much care how things are done elsewhere, or even what the guidelines say (guidelines have to be written for the general case); I've spent enough time elsewhere to know that method doesn't work very well for highly contentious subject areas. It favors and rewards the aggressive, thereby encouraging aggressiveness. ―] ] 06:02, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
			— 15,818 – 421,592 – 103
	{{od}}
			\| content =
	Sequence of edits:
			— 15,883 – 427,790 – {{0}}46
	, , , , , . Seems to me that Nikkimaria shouldn’t have made their first revert after I challenged their first edit because there was no consensus for a change at the time, and there isn’t one now (are you the second editor supporting removal)? <small>I still think that "promoted misinformation about testing and unproven treatments" would have been the better version but one year isn't long enough for me to want to go through s.th. like that archived discussion again. </small> What about consensus #48? Completely ignored by every editor in the ] (I plead non-involvement in the 2020 RfC with resulting unawareness of #48 {{Smiley\|ttth}}, and I'm aware of ignorance of the law not being an excuse) that, in practice, appears to have resulted (who can tell?) in a new consensus and new wording of the lead. ]] 11:30, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
	:Ok, I'll buy your process analysis. I'll also drop out of the !voting, since I don't have a content opinion here (my error). That makes it 2–1 in favor of status quo ante.{{pb}}This kerfuffle points to the importance of stricter adherence to BRD, and I arrived late causing me to read the situation wrong. Apologies to Zaathras for ''some'' of what I said.{{pb}}Nikkimaria: When one's bold edit is reverted, it goes to the talk page until there is a consensus for the change (or the bold editor chooses not to challenge the challenge). As we've seen, there is some disagreement about what constitutes a consensus, but we weren't close to one at the time of your first revert. Disruption ensued. Zaathras's reverts were also wrong IMO (the remedy for article disruption is not more article disruption), but yours was wrong first. ―] ] 01:21, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

			— 15,708 – 430,095 – {{0}}12
	::We may disagree about what constitutes a consensus, but what is clear is that it's not a vote. At the time of my first revert, the only argument put forward in favour of status quo here was a previous discussion that arrived at no consensus. That hadn't changed by the second. Space4Time: do you have a rationale for your preferred version? ] (]) 00:54, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
	:::"Your argument is invalid, so it doesn't count, so I win." I don't think I've ever seen that logic succeed, nor should it. Except in cases where no rationale whatsoever was given (that's what a vote is), we accept the numbers or appeal to a higher power, such as RfC or dispute resolution. Space4T's rationale is .{{pb}}Or, we can try to change the numbers by swaying others. If that fails after a reasonable amount of time, see above. ―] ] 01:09, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

			— 15,376 – 414,196 – {{0}}67
	::::We discount invalid arguments all the time - there's several items in the consensus list along those lines.
			}}
			{{hidden
			\| headerstyle = text-align:left; font-weight:normal;
			\| header =
			— 15,479 – 415,176 – {{0}}64
			\| content =
			— 15,279 – 404,464 – 122

			— 15,294 – 405,370 – {{0}}80
	::::I responded to Space4T's edit summary in my post above; I'd be interested in seeing further discussion around that, if anyone has counterpoints. ] (]) 01:38, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
	:::::It's not enough to be right in your view; you have to persuade others that you're right. If you can't do that, you're not right by Misplaced Pages's definition of right. Very little is so cut-and-dried black-and-white. ―] ] 01:42, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

			— 14,863 – 402,971 – 190
	::::::I agree. I'm very interested in anyone weighing in on why they feel I'm wrong on the substance of the edit under discussion. ] (]) 01:45, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
	:::::::Sure, the only question being how much more time you want to commit to such a small issue, both yours and others'. Nobody is ''required'' to respond to you, as I'm sure you know, and a failure to respond does NOT constitute surrender. I know it can be damned frustrating, but we don't have to keep talking until you think we've talked enough. If others have had enough—and until you successfully pursue another avenue—and unless other editors jump in before auto-archival of this section—this is a settled issue against your bold edit. Gaming the system? Depends on one's perspective.{{pb}}But your first revert was still wrong. ―] ] 02:58, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

			— 14,989 – 409,188 – 180
	== Lead tags excessive detail ==
			}}

			{{hidden
	Jury of 12 peers convicted him on all 34 counts of felony and he finally won the popular vote. :p
			\| headerstyle = text-align:left; font-weight:normal;

			\| header =

			— 14,681 – 404,773 – 187
	I the of the Trump rollback of environmental policies and of the number of felony counts, among other changes to the lead. Now the sentences have been tagged as excessive details. Are the tags justified?
			\| content =
	*Environment. Sentenced proposed for removal: {{tq\|He weakened environmental protections, rolling back more than 100 environmental policies and regulations.}}
	*Felony counts. Current version: {{tq2\|He is on trial in New York on 34 felony counts of falsifying business records, and was indicted in Florida on 40 felony counts related to his mishandling of classified documents; in Washington, D.C., on four felony counts of conspiracy and obstruction for efforts to overturn the 2020 presidential election; and in Georgia on ten charges of racketeering and other felonies committed in an effort to overturn the state's 2020 election results.}} Proposed version: {{tq2\|He is on trial ] for falsifying business records, and was indicted ] for mishandling of classified documents, ], for conspiracy and obstruction for efforts to overturn the 2020 presidential election, and ] for racketeering and other felonies committed in an effort to overturn the state's 2020 election results.}}
	]] 17:30, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

	===Survey: Lead tags excessive detail <span class="anchor" id="Discussion"></span>===

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

	*:{{ping\|Bob K31416\|Riposte97\|Anythingyouwant}} Is amenable to you also? ] (]) 01:03, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
	*::Your "this version" says, "He is on trial ] on 34 felony counts, and has been indicted on 54 additional felony counts in other jurisdictions. Trump pleaded not guilty." Yes, I'm amenable to that, it's simple, and of course the trial result in NY will be coming soon, and that result will be more notable than mere charges.] (]) 02:25, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
	*:::Looks good to me. ] (]) 08:05, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
	*::I think it's an improvement. ] (]) 19:25, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

	*:::{{ping\|Firefangledfeathers}} work for you? ] (]) 01:23, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
	*::::The current version (starting at "He is on trial" and ending with "all charges" at the end of the paragraph) comes in at 79 words. Your proposal gets it down to 27, but we lose all description of the charges. I'd prefer a 50ish-word summary along the lines of {{tqb\|He is on trial in New York on 34 felony counts, and has been indicted on 54 additional felony counts in other jurisdictions—he is charged with falsifying business records, mishandling classified documents, and multiple offenses related to his efforts to overturn the 2020 election results. Trump pleaded not guilty.}} ] (] / ]) 03:17, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
	* I have no opinion on the tags for now, but I do hope we can agree to removal when this discussion is concluded (even if the conclusion is a petering out). I think the environmental line is fine as is, but I would like to see the criminal case content trimmed down. I think we can present the indicted charges in aggregate (is "state-level" too imprecise a descriptor if DC is included?) and I don't think we need to mention which states are associated with which charges. ] (] / ]) 19:25, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

	*:Looks like we have consensus for some case trimming, though not sure if recent events may have changed folks' perspectives on what that should look like. ] (]) 01:28, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

	== Revert of official nomination ==

	See

	According to these RS Trump is the official nominee... - - etc...etc...

	Unless a majority of sources use the word "dominate" I don't think it deserves to be in wikivoice...

	I thought about including citations but that isn't where they go. ] (]) 01:51, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
	:*Nomination. "Presumptive" until certified. Quoting AP: "But the magnitude of their wins gave each man the delegate majority he needed to claim his party’s nomination at the summertime national conventions." That just means the delegates at the Republican nominating convention will be bound by party rules to vote for Trump to be certified as the party's presidential candidate to get on each state's ballot. (See also the Ohio to keep Biden off their state ballot because the Democratic nominating convention will take place after for presidential major party nominees of 90 days before the election, a deadline the last time the Republican National Convention took place after the certification deadline (RNC and DNC take turns holding the conventions in July and August). As for the certainty of the nomination, in theory the party could change the rules, the candidate could drop out ...
	:*Dominate. Are there any RS for the proposed wording "strongly influence"? The subheading of the NYT article says that "Hoarding cash, doling out favors and seeking to crush rivals, the former president is dominating the G.O.P., preparing for another race and helping loyalists oust officials who thwarted his attempted subversion of the 2020 election." : "a look at the data reveals that Trump now is the establishment". : "Donald Trump now owns the Republicans". ]] 16:22, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

	== Investigations, criminal charges, civil lawsuits ==

	This section could really be trimmed down, given that many of the cases have their own articles. For example, {{tq\|On March 30, 2023, a New York grand jury indicted Trump on 34 felony counts of falsifying business records. On April 4, he surrendered and was arrested and arraigned; he pleaded not guilty and was released. The trial began on April 15, 2024.}} tells us little about the case. ] (]) 03:10, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
	:It tells us that there is a criminal trial of a former U.S. president underway which is a big deal, at least until there is a verdict. If you want to trim down s.th. that has its own article <u>and</u> was ], maybe you could take a whack at this sentence in ]: {{tq\|In December 2023, the Colorado Supreme Court ruled that Trump was disqualified from holding office due to his role in the Capitol attack until the U.S. Supreme Court reversed the decision via '']'' in March 2024.}} I didn't get any anywhere due to ] 2:1 low-participation discussion {{emoji\|1F528}}. ]] 12:32, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
	:Can someone please include DJ Trump's new official title as first convicted felon in American history..? Much appreciated.. ] (]) 10:46, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
	::And in a twinkling of an eye the offending passage has vanished.--] (]) 01:59, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

	== Remove the St. John's photo-op? ==

	I think we should remove it, or at least shorten it. It currently gets just as much coverage here as it does at the presidency article, which makes no sense since the presidency section should be summarizing the presidency article. Since it only gets a paragraph or two there, we don't really need to mention it in the summary here. I could potentially understand giving it a sentence in a section somewhere, but we currently give way too much weight to it. This article will need to cut a few things to make room for the impending election and the impending verdicts in his cases, and it is already very large. This seems like it is something that can go, and it can stay at the presidency article. ] (]) 20:38, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
	:Agreed. ] (]) 01:00, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
	:Remove.--] (]) 01:06, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
	:Yeah I concur. – ] (]) 01:30, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
	:One, maybe two sentences, with a piped section link to ]. If they want even more detail, that section links to ]. One click for each successive level of detail. ―] ] 02:02, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
	:'''Disagree'''. It's only four sentences now, with one of the iconic images of his presidency, autocracy on the march for the purpose of a photo-op with a Bible, straight line to January 6 when the Pentagon dithered and dawdled so as not to create similar optics. ]] 12:06, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
	::], Re "...straight line to January 6 when the Pentagon dithered and dawdled so as not to create similar optics." — That's an interesting point that the Capitol was not properly protected Jan 6 because of the St. Johns photo op. Why isn't that point in the Trump article's St. Johns photo op section, Jan 6 section, or the Jan 6 article? Is that point made in any source? Thanks. ] (]) 16:43, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
	:::It may not have been the only reason, the other being, "patriots, supporting our president, they wouldn't attack Congress, would they"? Online sources: , , , , , , , , , , . Plus various books, some having been mentioned in previous discussions but both the discussions and the passages in the books would take me much longer to dig up. ]] 17:57, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
	::::Good work. I looked at just the first two sources but that was enough to convince me that the idea was out there. ] (]) 20:05, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
	:{{tq\|the presidency section should be summarizing the presidency article}}: according to which WP policy? Seems we've had similar discussions before, as in "let's just use the lead of the 'Presidency' article". ]] 12:39, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
	::{{ping\|Space4Time3Continuum2x}} According to the guideline ], which provides good guidance for writing this section. We can't follow it to the letter in this situation, but we should follow the general principles. ] (]) 15:13, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
	:::The people who wrote ] haven't met ]. A "high-level or conceptual article" this definitely ain't, it's ], except it's not funny, and Grandpa may nap a lot, but he keeps waking up and adding to the story. ]] 15:28, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

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

	:Which less significant nuggets are you referring to? ] (]) 02:25, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
	::For example, the whole Religion section could be cut. Most of the blow by blow of his purported business career could be summarized in 3 sentences. Etc. If future need be.]] 02:26, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

	:::Okay, made a start on that. Do you have a summary in mind for the business career piece? ] (]) 03:00, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
	:It isn't speculation to note that we will need to add things to this page on the 2024 election, such as who wins and whether or not the loser accepts the results. – ] (]) 02:36, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
	::It's speculation to predetermine what might be triimed for any reason in the future. But its also jumping the gun. If the church bit were UNDUE, we wouldn't need to trade it for a player to be named later. ]] 03:03, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
	::I'm proposing two candidates for trimming. #1: As I mentioned before, this sentence in ] mentions a mere blip on the 2024 campaign radar that is forgotten by now: {{tq\|In December 2023, the Colorado Supreme Court ruled that Trump was disqualified from holding office due to his role in the Capitol attack until the U.S. Supreme Court reversed the decision via '']'' in March 2024.}} #2: In two weeks or so, when the verdict is in, we should be able to update and shorten the section on the Manhattan criminal case considerably. Lafayette Square will keep cropping up as long as Trump is running for office. ]] 12:20, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

	:I gather you don't support my suggestion, either. The philosophical difference rears its ugly head again. Where something is covered in a sub-article, that article should be the main go-to for readers. The function of this article should be to provide an easy path to the sub-article content, and it should do so in the form of a high-level summary/overview containing a link: substantially higher-level than we currently use for this topic in this article. Side benefit: Any subjective article length issues vanish forever. ―] ] 02:38, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
	::Let's apply that to all the business deals. Keep just the core: 1) Commodore Hotel, 2) went broke, 3) pivot to The Apprentice.]] 03:08, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

	:Remove, unsure. Reduce sure. ] (]) 09:33, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
	::This section has already been reduced to the detriment of our readers. The page is indexed so that readers are not burdened by length nearly as much as by omission and cryptic framing that omits significant detail. Once we send a reader to a subpage, and maybe to a secondary sub-subpage, they are off the track of the main page. It is far easier to navigate the main page table of contents than to blow up one's browser with a fog forest of detail pages.]] 11:22, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
	::It's only four sentences, and the picture. ]] 12:07, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
	:{{tq\|We should remove highly significant content because why?}} Because ] is a guideline, and it says that we should make the presidency section summarize the important parts of the presidency article. Giving this one controversy as many words here as at that article is not compatible with the guideline. I will agree with Space4 that some of the post-presidency stuff should also be trimmed. ] (]) 12:33, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
	::"Also??" What? There is no guideline that requires us to remove or further weaken this short section.]] 13:45, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
	:::I think giving an entire section to this one controversy, with as much information about it here as at the more specific presidency page, violates ]. It also arguably violates ] by giving more weight to this one incident than most sources do. It hasn't received much attention since it happened, and is not one of the controversies that I have seen any source bring up as a point against Trump, and they have brought up a lot of his old controversies from his presidency. I see no reason for this one incident to get an entire section. ] (]) 14:44, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
	:::For more specific examples, we have one paragraph about his opinions on the ACA. We have one sentence about his thoughts on NATO. We have one sentence about his stance on abortion. All three of those get much more weight in the media than the photo-op. In light of that, per ], we should either increase how much room those three topics get or decrease the amount of room the photo-op gets. The first one is not feasible and would lead to serious size issues, so that leaves the second option, which is to remove most or all of the information about the photo-op. ] (]) 14:52, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
	::::NATO and Abortion should indeed be expanded.Good catch.]] 16:23, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
	::::{{tq\|It hasn't received much attention}} - you probably didn't notice it when it was mentioned in some other context. Quoting myself from another discussion: Baker/Glasser's ''The Divider'' devotes an entire chapter to ''The Battle of Lafayette Square'', where "Trump had staged what would become the most infamous photo-op of his presidency".{{sfn\|Baker\|Glasser\|2023\|p=}}
	{{cot\|Work cited}}
	{{Refbegin}}
	*{{cite book\|title=The Divider\|last1=Baker\|first1=Peter\|last2=Glasser\|first2=Susan\|author-link=Susan Glasser\|publisher=Anchor Books\|year=2023\|orig-year=2022\|isbn=978-0-593-08296-6\|title-link=The Divider}}
	{{Refend}}
	{{cob}}
	::::The event was notable and iconic — using federal law enforcement to break up a lawful demonstration for the purpose of staging a show of strength/dominance, with the Bible and the highest-ranking military officer as a prop. ]] 16:03, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
	:::::Baker/Glasser are journalists who didn't write a biography, and didn't write a summary of Trump's presidency; they focused on ''one aspect'' of Trump's presidency: the division. ] (]) 05:45, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
	:::::I just checked Google News, it would appear that you are correct about it remaining relevant. I still feel like it should be trimmed, but count me neutral on removing it entirely. ] (]) 16:16, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
	::::::I googled the keywords, . As one can see from the hits, a year after the incident there were a lot of mainstream articles saying that Trump's photo-op was not the reason the park was cleared. The section seems to be misleading. ] (]) 20:07, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
	:::::::You can't just look at the headlines popping up in Google searches. This was similar to Barr spinning Mueller's report into "total exoneration" for Trump, and some mainstream media fell for it. Some, e.g. , reported that "Attorney General William Barr urged officials to speed up the clearing process once Trump had decided to walk through the area that evening". See ]. See also , , . ]] 11:12, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
	::::::::I looked at what you presented and it doesn't show that the park was cleared because Trump wanted a photo-op. Thanks for the effort, but our article section is misleading on that point. ] (]) 12:03, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
	:::::::::No, it isn't. We merely say that federal law-enforcement officials cleared the park, and then he walked and posed. The fence was scheduled to be erected later that evening, after the curfew set to begin at 7 p.m., and it actually was put up later that evening. The Trump-appointed IG at DHS refused to initiate any audit, investigation, or even review of the actions taken by DHS personnel, the DOJ IG’s report is still pending as of this month, and the Interior Department’s IG conducted a limited review , according to their own report. See , , . ]] 17:06, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
	::::::::::"We merely say..."? It's a false implication supported by obsolete references that were contradicted a year later. Just the raising of questions by the sources that you just presented isn't enough compared to the many mainstream reliable sources. Those many sources didn't seem to come out to support theories and analysis that the park was cleared for the photo-op, after it was shown that it wasn't. I'll wait and see what others think and let the chips fall where they may. Again, thanks for your efforts. ] (]) 17:55, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
	:::::::::::Agreed. The section clearly conveys a false implication. It needs to change. ] (]) 01:03, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
	{{od}}Bob. The purpose and function of search engines is to show you that which you seek. Unfortunately in this case, it appears you searched for and found one of the many thousands of deflections. equivocations, and revisions of events covered in the NPOV content of our Trump pages.]] 19:58, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
	:It seems to be an incident that gathered a lot of attention at the time, but on investigation wasn't that earth-shattering. It has its own article and doesn't need to be discussed here.--] (]) 03:18, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
	*It should be like 1 sentence (2 max) tucked somewhere in this article. Not in it's own subsection. I've long supported the need for a general BLM/protest subsection where it could be, but I'm to lazy to write it right now and it probably wouldn't be accepted anyway. ]<sup>]</sup> 06:45, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
	Don't confuse Bill Barr with Smokey the Bear. If anything, we should be more explicit to debunk the various denials.]] 06:57, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

	{{ping\|Space4Time3Continuum2x\|SPECIFICO\|Iamreallygoodatcheckers\|Jack Upland\|Mandruss\|Riposte97\|Bob K31416\|Slatersteven\|Muboshgu\|Nikkimaria}} I'm seeing a general agreement to, if not remove it, reduce it to a sentence or two. I am not currently seeing enough support to remove all mention of it. The only ones supporting the status quo are SPECIFICO and Space4. Pinging everyone to make sure I am correct in that assessment. Where do people think that the sentence should be placed in the article? ] (]) 18:01, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
	:It could go in ]. On balance, I'm unconcerned that it isn't covered in that section's linked "main article". It's covered in the grandparent section's main article.{{pb}}Looking at the Presidency part of the table of contents, I'm struck by the glaring contrast between Lafayette Square and virtually all of the other subsections. They're all general in nature until you see section 5.5, then—BAM—a section about a single isolated event. UNDUE seems clear.{{pb}}I'm inclined to change my support from 1–2 sentences to 2–3; one seems excessively low unless the sentence is made cumbersomely long. ―] ] 21:40, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
	:Yep I think reducing to a couple of sentences is appropriate. ] (]) 21:45, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
	:Remove or 1-2 sentences. ] (]) 00:19, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
	::I think {{u\|Mandruss}} makes a good point about Lafayette Square compared with other subsections.--] (]) 05:16, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
	:I support removing it altogether; it's undue and the wrong level of detail for this article. No subsection should be dedicated to individual events - ] (]) 06:03, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
	::I'm not saying a subsection, I'm saying a sentence or two somewhere in the article. ] (]) 18:28, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
	:::And I'm saying it should be removed; that aspect of his presidency should be covered as a synthesis (by the dictionary definition; from a good recent source/sources) and it would deserve a brief mention (1 clause) as part of that - brought up as an example to illustrate a more general point, not mentioned in an isolated fashion. The latter isn't worth doing at all, since we can't expect readers to figure out that larger point all on their own - ] (]) 18:57, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

	===Bypassing the Presidency article===
	I note that we currently link to ], bypassing ]. That violates principles of hierarchical structure and deprives readers of the opportunity to be satisfied by the level of detail in the Presidency article. One click for each successive level of detail, ''without skipping any''. ―] ] 22:52, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
	:Why? The hatnote says "main article", so it should logically lead to the main article. If it did not, we would be misleading readers. The Presidency article also has few details that aren't also contained in this article, while missing some that are. ] (]) 22:54, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
	::{{tq\|Why?}} Didn't I already answer that? {{tlx\|Main}} allows section links; see examples there. Apparently the community is not concerned that the hatnote says "article". I'm certainly not. If this "misleads" readers, that's already happening in countless other places in the encyclopedia.{{pb}}Let's not get too hung up on semantics. "Main article:" can be interpreted as "Next level of detail:" without costing me any sleep. I honestly doubt readers care.{{pb}}But the semantics are not ''entirely'' unimportant. Any problem can be avoided by using {{tlx\|Further}} instead of {{tlx\|Main}}, creating the hatnote "Further information:". This also supports section links.{{pb}}Anyway, your concern becomes moot if the topic is deprived of its own subsection; in that case, there is no hatnote but rather an inline piped section link. ―] ] 23:27, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
	::{{tq\|The Presidency article also has few details that aren't also contained in this article}} - Aren't we talking about dramatically reducing the details in this article? Similar levels of detail is precisely what should be avoided.{{pb}}It goes to the system design principle that ] is bad design: "Data redundancy leads to ] and generally should be avoided by design ". Specific to our situation, we should avoid creating redundant levels of detail that have to be coordinated between articles. To some unknown degree, we surely fail to coordinate adequately, creating discrepancies ("corruption") across articles. An editor makes a change to this article and fails to look at one or more sub-articles to see if they also need changing. Cross-article coordination not being a priority for time-limited volunteers, the discrepancy no doubt often goes unnoticed for years, if not forever. Opportunities for that are to be minimized, and that's done by avoiding similar levels of detail. (It's still possible to create discrepancies, but less easy. You can make a change at the more-detailed level without affecting the less-detailed level, in which case no discrepancy is created.) ―] ] 02:28, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
	:::Both the Trump article section and the Trump presidency article section refer to the same photo-op article, so there shouldn't be a problem. The interesting idea that you brought up about computer programming doesn't seem useful here. Both sections should depend on the photo-op article, which seems like the ultimate authority with regard to the subject in Misplaced Pages. Seems more likely that problems can occur if the Trump presidency article section is represented as the place for more information about the photo-op, e.g. an editor at the Trump presidency article may make a mistake in interpreting the photo-op article or make a mistake interpreting a source. Also, I agree with a previous point that essentially says that the link to the Trump presidency article section isn't very useful compared to the link to the photo-op article. ] (]) 14:59, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
	::::Computer programming? Misplaced Pages is essentially a special-purpose database and most of the same concepts and principles apply here. It's about how we choose to structure and organize data. ―] ] 20:08, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
	:That would apply to every subsection and sub-subsection of the "Presidency" section. E.g., the main article for ] is ], for ] it's ], etc. This is Trump's biography. It should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in those sources. We have differences of opinions on what's significant enough to be mentioned here. If there's a consensus to move content to a related article, then the editor who removes the content from this article should be the one to add it to the other article or make sure that it's already present, and then possibly discuss inclusion or not with the editors on that page. ]] 18:43, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
	::Disagree again. Conceptually, "Trump's biography" comprises a number of articles that are divided only because combining them would create an impossibly large article. If not for that, the content in the Presidency article would be in this article. Therefore it's part of "Trump's biography" (might as well be ]), and that's very hard to dispute when a large part of this article, which you claim contains his entire biography, is about his presidency.{{pb}}When you split part of this article into a new one (usually done only for size reasons), does that split content cease to be a part of his biography? I don't see how. ―] ] 19:21, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
	:::You might want to clarify your position regarding the point, "That would apply to every subsection and sub-subsection of the "Presidency" section." In other words, do you want to change those links too? Thanks. ] (]) 20:22, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
	::::Where we're bypassing intermediate levels of detail, that would be an "ultimately, yes". It wouldn't have to all be done ''now'', and scope expansion is often counterproductive.{{pb}}This goes hand-in-hand with reducing the level of detail in this article where there is a sub-article, which largely guarantees that we're bypassing intermediate levels of detail. The St. John's topic provides a "test case" that helps us think about the concept. ―] ] 21:42, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

	===Removal of small fire===
	{{ping\|SPECIFICO}} Please explain to me how the fact that the protestors started a small fire the night before the photo-op is relevant to our biography of Donald Trump. ] (]) 17:37, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
	:Please consult the cited sources and sub-article content.]] 23:51, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
	::{{ping\|SPECIFICO}} The sub-article does not explain why it is important to include on the article for Donald Trump, only that it is relevant to the protests near the church. Like I said, please explain how the small fire that happened the day before is relevant to our biography of Donald Trump. ] (]) 00:24, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
	{{reftalk}}

	== Charges in the Miami case ==

	{{ping\|Space4Time3Continuum2x}} I don't think we need to list each and every individual charge in the documents case, when "among other charges" will summarize it. We already use similar wording for the Georgia racketeering case. ] (]) 14:40, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
	:I disagree. Georgia indicted Trump for felonies concerning Georgia, i.e., attempting to overturn the election results in Georgia ("I just need x votes"), attempting to gain access to voting machines, etc., and we only name one charge (racketeering). The charges on the federal level are different, and replacing {{tq\|jointly with a personal aide, single counts of conspiracy to obstruct justice, withholding government documents, corruptly concealing records, concealing a document in a federal investigation and scheming to conceal their efforts}} with {{tq\|along with several other charges, some being joint charges with a personal aide}} may not be intended to whitewash but sure looks like it. ]] 15:16, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
	::That makes sense. I am fine with keeping the list of charges. ] (]) 15:23, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
	:::Facts are facts...list each and every charge..let the courts decide ] (]) 23:32, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

	== Wealth ==

	You have me at a disadvantage with an unlimited number of bold edits per day vs. three reverts, so for now I'm just venting. The self-funding billionaire business whiz paying $750 in taxes per year because of business losses is not an . As for the , let's wait and see if the wrestling enthusiasts who think it's an important part of his bio will weigh in. ]] 16:13, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

	:{{ping\|Space4Time3Continuum2x}} I self-reverted on the income tax part, since I did not realize that that sentence referred to how much he paid for all taxes. As for the WWE, do you actually object to this removal? I really do not see how it is important enough to include here. ] (]) 17:31, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
	::Thanks for the self-revert. WWE: I vaguely remember trimming that section considerably some time ago which was met with considerable resistance. WWE is big in the U.S., and Trump used it to market his persona just like the other shows (Howard Stern, Trumped, Fox and Friends), so IMO the two sentences are justified. But if nobody else objects to their removal, I'm not going to revert. <small>It may result in something wordier, less well sourced being added.</small> ]] 18:12, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

	== About the Jan 6 commission ==

	{{ping\|SPECIFICO}} I removed the criminal referral by the Jan 6 commission because AFAICT, the DOJ did not follow it up and actually charge Trump. If my assessment was incorrect, please inform me. ] (]) 17:27, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
	:?? Yes he has been charged. Such referrals do not supercede prosecutors' discretion as to various details.]] 17:38, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
	::Were the charges actually related to the Jan 6 referral? Currently, they do not seem related. If they are not related, the referral did not directly lead to charges and my original point stands. ] (]) 17:40, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

	== Inline tag in the lead after being reverted ==

	{{ping\|Nikkimaria}} You made a to the lead, were , and then the reverted material instead of starting a discussion about the merits of your bold edit on the Talk page. Seems to me that that is an improper use of a tag. ]] 17:13, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

	:Don't we already have an active discussion about this going above? ] (]) 21:48, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
	::You're right. I didn't even notice that this is the same content Nikkimaria had . Doing it again while the content is under discussion? I started a new discussion because it didn't seem right to add this new tag to a discussion that's been ongoing (slowly) for two weeks, and this tag is for undue weight, not excessive detail. Not sure what to do about this now. ]] 10:14, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
	:As far as I'm concerned, such tagging is for articles that don't have a lot of competent editors around, and it feels more than a little ]y. I'd like to see a lot less of it here. Instead, use the damn talk page. ―] ] 22:01, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

	::One of the purposes of that particular tag is to direct people to the talk page. ] (]) 00:31, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
	:::"People" already here don't need directing, and I don't recall ever seeing such a tag attract attention from "outside". If that's happened a handful of times, that doesn't justify the article clutter. It's little different from the {{tlx\|Very long}} tag, which we have already decided to omit as consensus 64. ―] ] 01:49, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

	== Home at birth ==

	I am going to revert {{User\|Space4Time3Continuum2x}}'s removal of the mention of ]. Besides having a Misplaced Pages article, the location is (as the cite says) the address on Trump's birth certificate. I will reword to clarify this. ] (]) 23:30, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
	:Looks to me like he was born while his parents lived on Wareham and they moved to Midland Parkway a few years later, exact date unknown. I don't see why the article couldn't convey both; it doesn't get much more "biographical" than this, and virtually anything pre-presidency is ''some'' improvement (where there is no sub-article, as here). Space4T: "Is WP at least getting paid for advertising real estate?" Really? ―] ] 00:33, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
	::Really. Did you look at the cite, Newsday Classifieds? You can rent the place at Wareham, fully furnished, comes with a of Trump. There is a sub-article, ], gets an average of 150 to 200 views per day. It has the addresses of both houses. {{tq\|moved to Midland Parkway a few years later, exact date unknown}}: . Adding the info that Trump's parents were living at 85-15 Wareham Place is a biographical improvement — really? This won't be the next Lincoln's birthplace historical monument. Trump's birthplace is Jamaica Hospital, and somehow I can't picture them even affixing a plaque honoring the event. The house on Wareham Place made its way into the bio in 2016, that Trump lived there until Junior High. The cite for this false claim, , does not verify it; it says he grew up in the mansion on Midland Parkway. No idea why the place where Trump's parents lived from 1940 to 1950 (with Trump from 1946 until 1950) even has a WP page; seems undue to me. There's a long list of biographical stuff that we cut due to size. ]] 11:30, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
	::, , <small>Quote: Mr. Trump’s childhood home was briefly available for rent on Airbnb, and a plaque memorialized his conception.</small>{{Oldsmiley\|roll}} ]] 14:49, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
	:{{ping\|Ylee}} Your reinsertion of the challenged bold edit violated BRD restrictions in effect on this page (see the banner "Warning: active arbitration remedies", above). Please self-revert.<br/> Status quo ante: {{tq2\|Donald John Trump was born on June 14, 1946, at Jamaica Hospital in Queens, New York City, the fourth child of Fred Trump and Mary Anne MacLeod Trump. Trump grew up with older siblings Maryanne, Fred Jr., and Elizabeth and younger brother Robert in the Jamaica Estates neighborhood of Queens, and attended the private Kew-Forest School from kindergarten through seventh grade. Trump.}} Your original edit, addition in bold: {{tq2\|Donald John Trump was born on June 14, 1946, at Jamaica Hospital in Queens, New York City, the fourth child of Fred Trump and Mary Anne MacLeod Trump. Trump grew up with older siblings Maryanne, Fred Jr., and Elizabeth and younger brother Robert '''at 85-15 Wareham Place''' in the Jamaica Estates neighborhood of Queens, and attended the private Kew-Forest School from kindergarten through seventh grade.}} Current edit: {{tq2\|Donald John Trump was born on June 14, 1946, at Jamaica Hospital in Queens, New York City, the fourth child of Fred Trump and Mary Anne MacLeod Trump, living at 85-15 Wareham Place in Jamaica Estates, Queens, New York. Trump grew up with older siblings Maryanne, Fred Jr., and Elizabeth and younger brother Robert, and attended the private Kew-Forest School from kindergarten through seventh grade.}} <br/> I challenged the insertion of the content, i.e., the address, both as an undue detail and because it is incorrect - he lived in the mansion much longer than in the Tudor. The current iteration is even worse, IMO, adding his parents' address at the time he was born. I fail to see the significance of either. ]] 11:36, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
	::Interesting tidbit I would not be aware of if it wasn't in the article for a few hours..... now lost to history because someone doesn't like a link. <span style="font-weight:bold;color:darkblue">]</span>🍁 13:51, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
	:::Many interesting tidbits were lost to history because reasons. ]] 14:01, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
	::::I'm wondering if they all involve the stewards of this article? <span style="font-weight:bold;color:darkblue">]</span>🍁 17:15, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
	:::::] Kind of funny, 'though. I'm usually one of the "stewards" who catch flak for opposing the removal of details. Can't win for losing. ]] 17:18, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
	::I don't think someone's parents address when they were born belongs in articles unless there is something significant about the address, for example if his parents had lived in Gracie Mansion or Blenheim Palace. ] (]) 17:28, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
	:::+1. Is it really that important when we are already at the point of trying to save space? ] (]) 17:49, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
	::I apologize for violating BRD; I thought that opening a Talk thread would be sufficient compliance for the rule (which I knew applies to the article) for something relatively innocuous as this. I think that the address of Trump's family at the time of his birth is relevant; Trump lived there until the age of four, so it's not like a temporary residency in which his family happened to be on vacation in that week or something, either. I agree that not every home he lived in while growing up is relevant here, or (say) the addresses of his dorms at Fordham and Wharton; ], as noted, exists. ] does appear in this article; it is notable both on its own and as Trump's primary residence for decades. While not quite on that level, I submit that the closest thing to his birthplace is also relevant here.
	::As for "real estate advertisement", I echo {{User\|Mandruss}}'s incredulity at the accusation. Since when is ''Newsday'' not a RS? I didn't create the Misplaced Pages article on 85-15 Wareham, so some degree of notability has already been established. ] (]) 19:58, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
	:::I apologize for the facetious wording, seemingly directed at you. I was commenting on the most trivial minutiae in Trump's life having been memorialized with WP articles. The house isn't notable. After Trump became the presumptive GOP nominee in 2016, real estate speculators hyped it as Trump's childhood home, and it became part of Trump's "self-made billionaire from humble origins" persona, never mind that he grew up in the 23-room mansion with cook and chauffeur on the other side of the block. I just proposed merging ] into ] which already mentions both places. ]] 14:40, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

	== Media use of the word "lies" <span class="anchor" id="can we remove this?"></span> ==

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


	CBS News:

	Mother Jones:

	CNN: Numerous articles e.g.

	Mediaite: ’

	Forbes: Numerous articles e.g.

	Business Insider: and

	Daily Beast:

	The Wrap:

	Vogue:

	Fortune:

	Vox:

	Slate:

	Vanity Fair:


	Here's some non-American sources as well:

	CBC:

	Hindustan Times:

	The Guardian:

	Frankfurter Rundschau:

	Tagesspiegel:

	Aftnonbladet:

	Sveska Dagbladet:

	Göteborgs-Posten:

	El País:

	Tagesschau: and
	] (]) 22:12, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

	:Hmm. Seems like prima Davie evidence that not only should the media paragraph be stronger, but potentially, 22 should be revisited. ] (]) 22:35, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
	:There's little disagreement that the situation has changed, in fact the article already states that. That's all we need to justify revisitation. We're certainly not going to cancel 22 in ''this'' thread, and any source assessments should be saved for the RfC, if any. ―] ] 22:41, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
	:Speaking of which: That's how any RfC should be framed, in my opinion... canceling 22 rather than superseding it. We don't need a consensus item to ''allow'' something: if it's not banned, it's allowed by default. The link to the RfC would be placed at the end of the canceled item 22, identified as e.g. "Canceled: RfC July 2024".{{pb}}If there were subsequent disputes about specific content using the {{nowrap\|L-word}}, they might warrant new consensus items; but that's different. That probably should be "when", not "if". ―] ] 00:12, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

	:Mainstream media appear to mostly falsehoods, misleading claims, false statements, etc., so our wording still reflects the majority viewpoint, I think. ]] 19:09, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
	::Are you basing this on a single NYT article? ] (]) 22:04, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

	==Discussion at ]==
	] You are invited to join the discussion at ]. –] <small>(])</small> 10:20, 26 May 2024 (UTC)<!-- ] -->

	== Erroneous date for hush money jury conviction ==

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

	== Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 30 May 2024 ==
	{{atopy
	\| status =
	\| result = There's active discussion on this at ]. Please participate there if you wish. '']''<sup>]</sup> 09:54, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
	}}		}}

			== RfC on describing Trumpism in lead ==
			<!-- START PIN -->{{Pin message\|}}<!-- ] 10:40, 14 December 2034 (UTC) -->{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil\|2049705633}}<!-- END PIN -->
			{{rfc\|bio\|pol\|rfcid=E2D89B1}}
			The current lead contains a simple mention of Trumpism. Should a brief description be added to this mention? A proposed wording for the added text, which is also up for debate here: {{tq\|characterized by ], "]" nationalism, and economic ].}} — ] (]) 04:51, 16 December 2024 (UTC)<br> Addendum: A shorter version of the proposed addition could look like {{tq\|led to ], a ] movement.}} — ] (]) 18:31, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
			:{{small\|Previous discussion at ]. — ] (]) 04:51, 16 December 2024 (UTC)}}
			:'''Support'''. The statement "Trump created Trumpism" without further description is meaningless. If there is any single piece of information which a reader should take away from the lead, it is that Trump is America's leading proponent of right-wing populism, and the person who has done to most to reshape the Republican Party along these lines. It was argued by some in the previous discussion that details should be saved for the Trumpism article, but I believe that these words briefly and simply introduce what much of the rest of the lead and article are seeking to explain. Just as ]'s lead describes in broad terms what "]"ism is and ]'s describes what "]" is, so too should Trump's lead briefly describe Trumpism. This is especially relevant after the recent election, as Trump and Trumpism's importance in U.S. political history only continues to grow. — ] (]) 04:51, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
			:'''Suppport''': we need to know what Trumpism is about.--] (]) 04:55, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
			:'''Oppose''' as I believe it is unnecessarily adding to an already excessively large article. The article is not about ] - which is linked in the text for the purpose of providing a shortcut should people wish to know more about what constitutes such, without contributing further to the word count. <span style="border:1px solid#880808">]</span><span style="background:#880808;border:1px solid#880808"><span style="color:white"><sup>]</sup></span></span> 05:05, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
			:'''Comment''' Further explanation of Trumpism seems relative in the lead, or at least, it likely will be within the next four years. ] (]) 06:13, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
			:'''Oppose''' a, this article is already too long, and 2, it might need a lot more explanation then we can give it in the lead, what is Trumpism? ] (]) 14:50, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
			:'''Support''' but it should be limited to one sentence after a more detailed yet brief description is provided in the body. I agree that anyone with a political movement named after them should have some more description about it other than "they created it". I don't have exact wording but something along the lines of its impact on the Republican Party or American politics would be warranted as per Goszei. Any statement would need to be sourced in the body first, however, to avoid OR. Agreeing on a description in the political practice and rhetoric section would be helpful first before adding it to the lead. ] (]) 14:57, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
			*'''Support''' since Trumpism is mentioned, then it should be explained what it is. A single sentence in the lede, and a brief elaboration somewhere else in the article. The wording in the lede could be as proposed above, or something a bit different. ] (]) 19:18, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

			*'''Oppose''' as misplaced for the lead, and per Artem. ] (]) 01:34, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
			*'''Oppose''' too wordy in an already bloated article. Artem is indeed correct. ] (]) 03:30, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
			*'''Oppose''' because “Trumpism” in the lead should be replaced with “MAGA”, which is a much more widely discussed and widespread thing.] (]) 04:01, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
			:{{ping\|Artem P75\|Slatersteven\|Nikkimaria\|Nemov}} To those opposing the proposed text based on concerns about length, would you support a shorter addition such as {{tq\|led to ], a ] movement.}}? — ] (]) 04:03, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
			*'''Oppose''' We don't have room for this, and this isn't the Trumpism article, it is the Trump article. Also, this would need to be added to the body first, since the lead follows the body. ] (]) 15:00, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
			*'''Oppose''' per Anythingyouwant. I've never heard of Trumpism before. Neither has Britannica, which instead has an article for MAGA movement. -] (]) 18:48, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
			*:What the Britannica article describes is exactly what our article at ] describes. The term MAGA movement should probably be added to that article's lead as a synonym. — ] (]) 18:59, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
			*::It's a redirect. The said, {{tq\|But is there such a thing as Trumpism? Well that might be stretching it.}} -] (]) 23:12, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
			*::This article doesn't mention MAGA. Maybe somebody wanted to make something of Trumpism? -] (]) 16:33, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
			*'''Oppose''' mainly as {{TQ\|it is unnecessarily adding to an already excessively large article}} per Artem, also because ] isn't a ''"a thought-through philosophy, a carefully mapped world view"'' inextricably linked to the man in the way that Marxism or Leninism are. Trumpism is more of a term descibing a series of populist instincts which are not very often used to characterise reactions/policies etc. When/if Trumpism itself becomes more elaborated, and the term more used, WEIGHT might then dictate a brief definition. At present it would be at least unnecessary and potentially confusing.] (]) 07:57, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

			:* '''Support''' Very much ] to summarise the key tenets of his political ideology, much more so than discussing specific policies as in the status quo. I’m very confused about the opposes, however the leads of ] and ] only mention their ideologies rather than describe them
	{{edit extended-protected\|Donald Trump\|answered=yes}}
	~~Please add Felon to the introduction page as now Donald Trump is the first Ex-president who is also a felon~~ ] (]) 21:28, 30 ~~May~~ 2024 (UTC)		:] (]) 10:17, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
			*'''Weak oppose''', while it's only a few extra words it's still more to an already-too-big article, and the link to the Trumpism article is there for a reason. — ''']''' <sup>''(])''</sup> 10:37, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
	: This is already in there. ] (]) 21:54, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
	::It is not.
	::It says:
	::"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."
	::It SHOULD say:
	::"Donald John Trump (born June 14, 1946) is an American politician, media personality, businessman, and convicted felon who served as the 45th president of the United States from 2017 to 2021." ] (]) 23:04, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
	:::There is an active discussion as to whether to include "convicted felon" in the first sentence. This is not circumventable. Until that discussion ends the sentence must remain as it is, as the community workshopped that sentence in 2021 and wishes for it to remain unaltered until a discussion concludes otherwise. —](]) 02:24, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
	{{abot}}

			:*'''Weak Oppose''', Agree with same sentiment as @] 's comment above. Seems like redundancy when we have a link that lets readers click on it if they don't understand a concept or definition. This also sets bad precedence to have to define every single political descriptor.
	== RfC: Do we add infobox criminal after conviction? ==
			:] (]) 16:39, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
	{{notavote}}
			*'''Oppose''': Trump's lead is already "huuuge." And considering that ] (which discusses the use of {{tq\|"technical terms or terms of art and jargon specific to the subject matter"}}) asks the question, {{tq\|"On the other hand, do not treat every “scientific” word as a technical term. Ask the question: Is this the only article or one of a very few where the term might be encountered in Misplaced Pages?"}}, and seeing as there is another page entirely dedicated to discussing the topic, and where we're already pushing ] best practices with the length and depth of Trump's ], let's move on.
	Now that he’s been convicted of a crime (in this case 34 counts of falsifying business records), would it be appropriate to add the criminal infobox? I’m not saying to convert from officeholder to criminal, but rather add criminal which would list the charges he was convicted of, his sentence (he hasn’t been sentenced yet, so that’s a moot point right now), and so on.
			:As a side note, ] has some handy recommendations for handling formatting of the word "Trumpism" for those interested. ] (]) 17:13, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

			*'''Support''' : For me this is almost a mandatory addition for a very simple reason, the lead has zero words used to describe Trump's rise to power. Zero. This is not acceptable. These three very simple and short words describe it very well and are widely sourced. The description should take its place at the end of the second paragraph, in a chronological order, to either describe Trumpism or even more directly his first election campaign. The objection that the lead is not convincing. Other things can go. <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 14:41, 8 January 2025 (UTC)</small>
	Now, if this hasn’t already been done, I had been thinking that the category ''American criminals'' could be changed to ''21st century American criminals'' since he was convicted of crimes during the 21st century. If you would prefer to retain the current category, that’s fine by me. ] (]) 21:29, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
			*'''Oppose.''' Misplaced jargon in the leading section of the article leads to unnecessary confusion. ] (]) 19:46, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

			:'''Support''' since this is a pretty major part of what Trump has done,
	:I would like to add my '''strong support''' for the phrase "convicted felon" in the opening sentence. ] (]) 21:34, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
			:And because just ¨Trump started Trumpism¨ isn't a very good description of that, let alone anything. ] ] ] 21:34, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
	::Not a point of discussion. Please re-read the initial statement. ] (]) 21:45, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
	: '''strong support''' for the phrase "convicted felon" in the opening sentence as well.<small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 21:34, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
	::I’m not seeking to remove the phrase “convicted felon” from the opening sentence, but rather put in the criminal infobox showing the charges he was convicted of, his sentence whatever that may be, and whatever else is included that pertains to the case. ] (]) 21:51, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
	:'''Support''' as well ] <sup>]</sup> 21:36, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
	:strong support for the phrase "convicted felon" in the opening sentence. ] (]) 21:36, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
	::It’s a basic fact. I’m not seeking to change that. ] (]) 21:48, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
	::He is a convicted felon. It should be in the first paragraph, or at least much sooner than it currently is, which is buried in paragraph six. ] (]) 21:53, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
	:::The fact that he’s a convicted felon is undisputed. Just saw that the phrase “convicted felon” was removed while typing this, but this discussion isn’t about that, it’s about adding a criminal infobox showing the crimes he was convicted of, the sentence (when he’s sentenced), and other pertinent criminal info. ] (]) 21:59, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
	:I think it important to
	:mention unanimous verdict and guilty on all 37 charges. Is he now a felon or must the sentencing or appeals be considered ? What source is the most impeccable ? — ] <sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub> 21:38, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
	::I thought there were 34 charges. Either way, he was convicted on all counts, making him a convicted felon. As for what source, I couldn’t tell you. I look at all the sources. ] (]) 21:47, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
	::Under principles of United States law, Donald John Trump is now a convicted felon. The sentencing and appeals do not alter this fact until and '''unless''' they result in the conviction being overturned and expunged. ] (]) 21:50, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
	:::I know that, and I’m not trying to change that. All I’m doing is trying to get a criminal infobox that shows the crimes Donald John Trump was convicted of, his sentence (when he is sentenced), and other pertinent info. ] (]) 21:54, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
	:OPPOSE Not needed <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 21:35, 30 May 2024 (UTC)</small>
	::Thank you for your input! Would you like to explain why it's unnecessary? ] (]) 22:49, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
	:'''strong support''' per above ] (]) 21:37, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
	:'''Strong support''' - Obvious fact. ] (]) 21:40, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
	::The use of the phrase “convicted felon” wasn’t up for discussion, it’s an obvious fact as you point out. What I’m asking about is the addition of the criminal infobox showing the charges against him along with his sentence and other criminal info. ] (]) 21:44, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
	:I think his charges should be shown in the infobox so that the reader has easy access, yes. ] (]) Have a good day! 21:54, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
	::Yeah, that’s why I proposed it in the first place. ] (]) 21:56, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
	:::Yes.. and I '''support''' your idea. ] (]) Have a good day! 22:10, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
	:'''Strong Support''' I agree completely, I think we should add the criminal infobox to the article. ] (]) 21:59, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
	:'''Strong Support''' to add the criminal infobox to the article. --] (]) 22:22, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
	:'''Strong support''' the addition of criminal_charges field, which can read something like "]". The criminal_penalty field can be updated once the sentencing goes through. ] (]) 22:40, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
	:'''Strong support''' adding a criminal infobox. He's been convicted just as every other criminal with an infobox. Should probably go at the bottom beneath his existing infoboxes. ] (]) 22:51, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
	:'''Strong Oppose'''. ]: "This template is generally reserved for convicted serial killers, gangsters, mass murderers, old west outlaws, murderers, mafia members, fugitives, FBI 10 Most Wanted, serial rapists, mobsters, and other notorious criminals. Infobox criminal is rarely used where notability is not due '''primarily''' to the person being a convicted criminal." ―] ] 23:19, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
	::"Infobox criminal is '''rarely''' used where notability is not due primarily to the person being a convicted criminal" -- the person in question is highly notable for his status as former president of the United States, which as of late and going forward, will be intertwined with his reputation as a criminal. Therefore, I believe this to be one of the edge cases in which ] can be used.
	::However, I agree with the sentiment, and I would prefer criminal fields to be added to the ] instead (there's a fair amount of precedent in terms of politicians-turned-criminal). ] (]) 00:20, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
	::I would point to notorious criminal. His conviction is international news. I'm not sure how much more notorious one gets. ] (]) 19:43, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
	:::John Dillinger, Al Capone, Ted Bundy, John Christie. One felony conviction—for falsifying documents!—does not make one a notorious criminal, international news or not.{{pb}}Trump was already notorious, already in international news on a regular basis. So you can't say he's in international news ''because of'' this conviction. He's in international news because he's Trump. If one conviction makes one a criminal, there are likely a number of criminals participating in these discussions, including me (I would take offense to the label). Wouldn't it be rich if some of us are hypocritically saying Trump is a criminal as of this conviction, while denying they are? Regardless, you can't put the two debatably true words together and form a whole new concept, "notorious criminal". That is not how language works. ―] ] 21:22, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
	::::Yes but he's also been in the news for years for his litigious and criminal activity. It's also tied into his presidency because this was part of his campaign. I would agree if this had come out of left field. But it really didn't. ] (]) 06:07, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
	:Editors are advised that consensus is not democratic voting. Any consensus assessment should ignore votes without arguments. ―] ] 23:23, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
	:'''Support''' - No reason why not. Donald Trump has a history of criminal controversies, extending before his mainstream notability, and now is convicted, I would say that is reason enough. - ] ] 23:21, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
	:'''Strong oppose''' to the infobox per Mandruss. We can mention that he's a convicted felon in the lead without acting like that's what he is primarily notable for, which is not the case and opens a huge can of BLP worms. ] (] · ]) 23:45, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
	:'''Light support''' - While the criminal infobox clearly suits the article well at this point in time, the current info box honestly does its’ job. A criminal box would still work, though. ] (]) 23:47, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
	::For clarity, the original proposal is to add the criminal infobox, not replace the current infobox. ] (]) Have a good day! 01:53, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
	:'''Strong support''' Donald Trump is, at his core , a criminal. Criminal activities made up the main of his activities throughout his life. Given the present verdict and the recent holding that Trump’s business empire was fraudulent, it would be more appropriate to view him as a criminal than a businessman going forward. Trump is no more a businessman than Al Capone or Tony Soprano.] (]) 00:45, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
	::{{tq\|Donald Trump is, at his core , a criminal.}} Please learn to separate your personal biases and opinions from Misplaced Pages editing. We all have 'em, but good editors do our best to check 'em at the door. ―] ] 01:30, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
	:'''Strong Support''' He has been found guilty ] (]) 11:18, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
	:'''Oppose''' per Mandruss. ] (]) 16:20, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
	:'''Strong Support''' The template has a use case for notorious criminal. ] (]) 19:49, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
	'''Comment''' - We currently have broken Criminal parameters on a Politician infobox. I'd fix it, but I'm on mobile til tomorrow. Somebody please do something! –] ] 00:49, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

			== Edit War ==
	:Thank you for the info. ] (]) 01:03, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
			<!-- START PIN -->{{Pin message\|}}<!-- ] 15:20, 5 January 2025 (UTC) -->{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil\|1736133600}}<!-- END PIN -->
	*'''Strong support'''. It's exactly the sort of useful information would be in the infobox, so that readers don't have to read the whole article searching for it. '']''<sup>]</sup> 09:56, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
			I think there is an edit war going on here. Following the ], Trump left office. Till he won, the title was clear, post-presidency. After he won, an edit war started.
	*'''Support''' use of convicted felon in as many places as possible <sub style="border:1px solid #FFCC00;">]</sub> 16:25, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
			For some weird reason, these are the choices at hand:
	*:No that is not what we do, we should over-egg the cake. ] (]) 16:45, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
			--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
	*:{{ping\|Purplebackpack89}} That sounds like POV pushing. Obviously we should mention it, but mentioning it as much as possible is absurdly excessive. ] (]) 21:49, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
			1. Interpresidency
	*'''Comment''' ] please refer to this discussion in relation to your revert of me at ]. '']''<sup>]</sup> 16:42, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
			2. First post-presidency
	**I see a discussion in progress, not a consensus. There is ] wrt BLP issues. – ] (]) 16:58, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
			3. post-presidency (current)
	*'''Oppose''' ]: {{tq\|Choose this template judiciously. Unwarranted or improper use of this template may violate the Biographies of living persons, Neutral point of view and Privacy policies. This template is generally reserved for convicted serial killers, gangsters, mass murderers, old west outlaws, murderers, mafia members, fugitives, FBI 10 Most Wanted, serial rapists, mobsters, and other notorious criminals. It is also appropriately used in Nolle prosequi cases of perpetrators dying during the commission of the act or shortly thereafter, common in a suicide attack or murder–suicide. Infobox criminal is rarely used where notability is not due primarily to the person being a convicted criminal.}} – ] (]) 16:58, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
			--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
	*'''Oppose''' adding another infobox. A mention could be made in the current infobox, like ], but adding another infobox would make the page more clunky, along with Muboshgu's point above. ] (])<sup><span style="color: green"><small>Ping me!</small></span></sup> 17:19, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
			At first, people used choice number 3. Then the edit war started after the election, and people cannot decide between these choices. We need better security for this article, Extended confirmed is clearly not doing it here. Just please decide. ] (]) 19:11, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
	::This is off-topic here, but IMO the Santos infobox is wrong. Santos wasn't convicted in Brazil. He plea-bargained, and the case didn't go to trial. The terms of the plea-bargain were restitution, and payment of a fine. ]] 17:47, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
			:The situation is neither uncommon nor illegitimate when there is no clear talk page consensus. See ] for another example. It has nothing to do with the level of protection. Regardless, the next level after ECP is full protection, which is not going to happen. ―] ] 19:32, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
	::Refer to ] which had the criminal infobox integrated as a child infobox into the officeholder infobox. There's no need to add a whole full infobox when they can be integrated into each other. '']''<sup>]</sup> 03:47, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
			::Well, you see, Edit protection is next, ensuring only experienced people can do it. Look, i'm just saying we have to be really careful around this particular article mainly from the controversies. I have asked an experienced person to assess the situation. ] (]) 18:38, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
	*'''Oppose''' THis was not his main claim to fame, and it has only been a claim to fame for less than a day (at the time of posting). This should be reserved for people whose notably mainly comes from being a criminal, his does not. It may do, but that is for the future to decide, not ours. ] (]) 17:22, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
			:On January 20, 2025, the title of the section should be changed to "Post-presidency (2021–2025)". If there is a "second post-presidency (2029–)", we can change that to "First post-presidency (2021–2025)". I googled "Inter-presidency" and got a bunch of hits for Inter Milan President Beppe Marotta. ]] 17:10, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
	*:This is tied directly to his election. Meaning his notoriety from being elected president is intertwined with his notoriety for being a criminal. ] (]) 19:52, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
			::"Dormancy (2021–2025)". Or remission. ;) ―] ] 17:45, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
	*'''Oppose'''. ] says the template is "rarely used where notability is not due '''primarily''' to the person being a convicted criminal". Trump was pretty notable before his indictments and this trial and conviction. The conviction currently is headline news, and the sentencing and any future trials will make headline news again, but WP is not a newspaper. It's not as if the article was suppressing mention of the conviction. ]] 17:27, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
			:::He was not dormant, rather pretty active. False claims rised before he finally conceded. Not to be rude, but this title wouldn't be the best. I'll admit, we do need a clear consensus. ] (]) 18:55, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
	* '''Oppose''' per Space4Time, and good catch on Template:Infobox criminal saying "rarely used where notability is not due primarily to the person being a convicted criminal." The same arguments against including in the first sentence flow to this dispute. Donald Trump is '''not''' primarily known for his criminal convictions and his notability is in ''no way'' derived from his criminal convictions. To include this in the infobox would amount to ] and ] because his criminal conviction in New York being in the infobox would not be proportional to the reliable source coverage of Trump or to their proportional coverage in this very article. ]<sup>]</sup> 20:46, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
			:::We thought it was the end of the movie but it was just an intermission. ]] 21:54, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
	*'''Oppose for now''' but this shouldn't be being discussed separately from the lead. If it's determined by that RFC that his criminality (convicted felon) is a large part of his notability... then yes, it should be added, since infoboxes are intended to condense and display key elements of the lead/info that could be in the lead in a "easy to read format". That said, he is not notable for being a convicted felon, and as others have said, while it may merit mention later in the lead, I do not think it is so much of his notability now to make that infobox a legitimate placement at the top of the page. I ''support'' the infobox being included in his criminal conduct/trials sections as appropriate, since I support the addition of infoboxes on pages to summarize the key info of the prose whether they're at the top of the page or not. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (]/]) 21:53, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
			::::Correct, although after "the end of the movie" he was still active. And "Dormancy" was suggested in ] not ]. Dormancy is described as a non-active state, although his activity between 2021 and now is active. ] (]) 23:24, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
	*'''Neutral''' It's going to be appealed, however, that process might not take long. In the meantime, faith dictates it is technically a conviction at the very least. I don't envy the closer(s), best of luck. ] (]) 22:13, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
	*'''Strong ~~Support'''~~ It is a ~~defining~~ ~~moment~~ in ~~American history and Donald trumps life. He is~~ the ~~first and only president that is a convicted felon~~. ] (]) 22:23, 31 ~~May~~ 2024 (UTC)		:I support option 1 as the most accurate of the three. ] (]) 17:21, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
			::The word isn't in any dictionary. ]] 18:07, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
	*'''Strong Support''', due to Trump's status as both a former President of the United States and a convicted felon being completely unique in history. While Template:Infobox criminal is '''rarely''' used except for the articles of people who are primarily known for being a criminal, it's not by accident that the template description says "rarely" and not "never". It was recognized all along that there will be exceptional cases in which somebody is highly notable for some other reason but whose crimes are ''also'' notable enough to merit the infobox being used in their article. And what could be more exceptional that a President of the United States being a convicted felon? — ] <sup>(])</sup> 03:38, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
			Why not use the model of the Cleavland article? ] (]) 19:22, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
	* '''Oppose''' per Muboshgu, Mandruss and, Space4Time. Those who argue the contrary don't seem to realise that the "first US President to be found guilty" are - without seemingly realising it - actually saying the DT is known for being a "''US president'' (who committed a crime)" not for being a criminal (who just happened to be ex-president). The call to use this infobox seems more motivated by the wish to 'make a point' rather than neutrally impart info, which can be communicated in text more efficiently. His conviction is clearly noteworthy, it doesn't remotely approach being the primary cause of his notability, certainly not divorced from his political career, which he broke the law to support. ] (]) 05:33, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
			: That's pretty much what I'm proposing, except for the "election of 18xx" part (we have the campaign/election sections instead) and not knowing how long Trump's second presidency and post-presidency will last. ]] 22:02, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
	: '''Mild support''' I have previously opposed adding "convicted criminal" to the lede sentence of ] but never had any issue adding criminal convictions in the infobox. My only thought would be to perhaps make it a collapsed section for the sake of length. At the same time, Trump's infobox isn't nearly as long as other politicians, such as ]. ] (]) 07:58, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
			::Legally it has to end in 2028. ] (]) 22:04, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::January 20, 2029. He's 78 — we'll see what happens. ]] 22:39, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
			::Problem, it uses First post-presidency. It is already inaccurate but I will not discuss unrelated articles. ] (]) 23:25, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::"§7 First presidency (2017–2021)" could change to "§7 Presidency (2017–2021)"? He only served one term. -] (]) 23:29, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::This is concerning the following section. And I'm not sure if I should say this but I don't think we should start this on the Grover Cleveland talk page. ] (]) 23:41, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::::And I was referring to the Cleveland article when I said First post-presidency. Sorry for not pointing it out. ] (]) 23:42, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
			'''Between presidential terms (2021–2025)'''. Cheers, ] (]) 20:14, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
			:You know, that sounds like a good idea.
			:Any objections? ] (]) 17:04, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
			:Works for me. ] (]) 17:07, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
			:Solution in search of a problem, but meh as long as you wait until after the inauguration — just in case lightning strikes or an Acme anvil falls. ]] 18:14, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
			::Thanks. As far as I'm concerned, anyone can make the change after the inauguration on 1-20-2025. Regards, ] (]) 22:38, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::Well, sounds good to me.
			:::Ok, what should the next steps be?
			:::Also, just curious, who pinned this? ] (]) 15:32, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::{{tq\|who pinned this?}} ―] ] 16:11, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::Huh — looks as though BoB K tried to (because I said "meh"??) and then you did? Can't figure out what happened. My suggestion: unpin. ]] 19:32, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::I care about ''how'' it's pinned. Apathetic on ''whether'' it should be pinned. ―] ] 20:13, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::::As I mentioned in my edit summary, "added template to prevent archiving of this thread until a week after inauguration". I did that because this discussion was about taking an action after the inauguration. Mandruss changed the time from a week after the inauguration to 10 years and made an announcement in a box at the top of the section. Whatever you want to do is fine with me. Regards, ] (]) 15:10, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::::Well it seems all set. ] (]) 02:06, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

			== "]" listed at ] ==
	== RfC on use of "convicted felon" in first sentence ==
			]
	{{anchor\|rfc_3894DD1}}{{Notvote}}
			The redirect <span class="plainlinks"></span> has been listed at ] to determine whether its use and function meets the ]. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at '''{{slink\|Misplaced Pages:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 December 30#Individual 1}}''' until a consensus is reached. <!-- Template:RFDNote --> ] (]) 23:57, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
	<!-- ] 22:01, 4 July 2024 (UTC) -->{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil\|1720130468}}
			:] and ] are also discussed there.<span style="font-family:Segoe Script">]</span><span style="font-size:115%">]</span> 19:44, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
	{{rfc\|pol\|bio\|rfcid=70AC26F}}

			== Are you kidding with the bias in the introduction? ==
	Trump has been convicted of 34 felony counts. Should the {{strong\|first sentence}} of the article be rewritten in some form to include the phrase "convicted felon?" ~] (], ], ]) 21:38, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

			The intro should highlight that he was re-elected by the American people in reaction to the progressive agenda pushed by the current administration, high inflationary periods between 2020-2024, and a desire for better economic performance. This victory was unprecedented given the amount of lawsuits against Trump and the extreme anti-Trump sentiment in the media. ] (]) 05:33, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
	===Discussion (RfC on use of "convicted felon" in first sentence)===

			:Misplaced Pages articles are written based off of what reliable sources say, not based on your ] on why he was elected or how "unprecedented" it is. ] (]) 19:36, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
	:'''Oppose''' "convicted felon" in opening sentence. It should almost certainly be mentioned in the lede, but not the first sentence, as this generally goes against common precedent with regard to individuals who are not primarily known for being felons. Case in point: ], another politician who became a convicted criminal. His conviction is not mentioned in the opening sentence but is still mentioned later in the lede. Even ], who is arguably known for his legal controversies, is not referred to as a "convicted felon" in the opening sentence. To do so with Trump would definitely be undue especially when compared to previous precedent. Adding the criminal infobox is also definitely undue. ] (]) 21:41, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
			::The article doesn't seem to give any reason for Trump's victory. I did a quick google search "" and the first thing I found was . In this source there was Anthony Salvanto, CBS News' executive director of elections and surveys, who said that there were three main factors behind voters' support of Trump: the role of the economy, a steady MAGA base, and out-of-touch democrats. ] (]) 21:31, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
	:: See also ]. ] (]) 21:44, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
			:::That seems like it would fit better in the article on the election than in the article on Trump. ] (]) 21:37, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
	:::French law does not have the concept of 'felon', nor the felony/misdemeanour distinction AFAIK, and the BBC source used doesn't use the word 'felon', nor any variant - partly because British law also lacks the 'felony' concept. The BBC says he was found guilty of corruption, for trying to bribe a judge, ie it names his crime.
			::::Why is that? This is information that is directly related to his career in politics. ] (]) 23:31, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
	:::So apart from the issue of whether Sarkozy is notable for being a politician ''(later found guilty of a crime)'', or a criminal ''(who just incidentally happened to be an ex-president of France)''. The use of the term 'felon' is alien to French/European law and language and ], - ie it is saying ''"he would be a felon if French/UK law had such a term/concept"''. ] (]) 06:00, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
			::Happy to provide sources of you can confirm that you will make the changes. Not sure who the gatekeeper is for what the world views on Misplaced Pages, but I hope is is not just one person. ] (]) 23:32, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
	::OJ Simpson was not a convicted felon. ] 21:49, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
			:::Not how things work here. You suggest a change or addition, which is supported by citation to a source. Discussion will then begin from there on whether or not to include it. ] (]) 00:54, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
	:::] ~] (], ], ]) 21:52, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
	:::~~:neat,~~ ~~but~~ ~~also~~ I ~~think~~ ~~putting~~ it in OJ ~~Simpson's~~ ~~page~~ ~~would~~ be ~~largely~~ ~~misleading~~ ~~because~~ ~~he's~~ ~~primarily~~ ~~known~~ ~~for~~ a ~~trial~~ ~~where~~ he ~~was~~ ~~found~~ ~~not-guilty~~ by a ~~jury~~. ] (]) 21:57, 30 ~~May~~ ~~2024~~ (UTC)		:::There isn't exactly a "gatekeeper for worldviews" on this site, you need sources for statements you want to induct into the article and like what other people said, no original research. ] (]) 03:10, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
			:That kind of introduction is more fitting for Conservapedia, not Misplaced Pages. ] (]) 12:57, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
	:::::One ''might'' argue, however, that OJ’s reputation (admittedly already well-established) was only bolstered for this current generation because of his conviction. Not arguing either way, just throwing that out there. ] (]) 06:31, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
			::{{Ping\|NesserWiki}} ] is extremely ironic, it's not to be taken seriously. On the contrary, what the OP wrote started a discussion that perhaps could be useful (although I don't think it will be useful). ] (]) 01:01, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
	:::@] yes he was, he committed armed robbery and kidnapping and was convicted and sentenced to 33 years in prison. ] (]) 04:08, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
	::On the other hand, you have figures like ] and ] who have that phrasing in their opening sentence. ] (]) 21:59, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
	::Agree with all the points stated here – there's really no justification for it being in the opening sentence (as opposed to the lede generally) ] (]) 22:02, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
	::To be fair, he is known for ''not'' being convicted of a crime '''] <sup>(] • ])</sup>''' 22:04, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
	::I don't see how you can say it should be in the lede but not the first sentence, as the lede paragraph is only one sentence at present. Unless you think there should be a second sentence added just for the conviction or the conviction and some other information? ] (]) 22:33, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
	:::The lede is everything before the 'Personal life' header. --] (]) 22:41, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
	::::What you're referring to is the ]; the term "lede" only refers to a ]. I see people making this mistake all across this thread I just want everyone to be clear about what the proper nomenclature is. ] (]) 23:01, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
	:::::My mistake. Thank you. --] (]) 23:17, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
	:::::] Note I'm not here to comment on the main issue, just about this issue of "lede" a commonly misused used word on Misplaced Pages which has no clear meaning, see ]. I think you made this comment as about your 10th edit, not sure how you would even comment on this. ] ] 13:32, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
	::Object on the grounds many other similarly high profiles profiles of politicians and notable personalities lead with "convicted felon":
	::Politicians:
	::https://en.wikipedia.org/Rod_Blagojevich
	::https://en.wikipedia.org/Sheldon_Silver
	::https://en.wikipedia.org/Michael_Grimm_(politician)
	::https://en.wikipedia.org/Joe_Ganim
	::https://en.wikipedia.org/Paul_Manafort
	::Other famous people (not politicians):
	::https://en.wikipedia.org/Rajat_Gupta
	::https://en.wikipedia.org/John_Kapoor
	::https://en.wikipedia.org/Joe_Exotic
	::https://en.wikipedia.org/Michael_M._Sears
	::https://en.wikipedia.org/Jack_Abramoff ] (]) 06:12, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
	:::How many of the politicians on that list were only able to become politicians in the first place because of their felonies? Trump's felonies bring into question the legitimacy of his presidential election win and so his felony status must be mentioned in the same breath as his presidency (unlike the others on this list). ] (]) 12:59, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
	:::] (]) ] (]) 12:59, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
	:::'''Support''' per argument made by IP. ] (]) 14:12, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
	::Um, hello, Dennis Hastert? Former politician/Speaker of the House, convicted felon and sex offender? Probably the highest-ranking official until Trump to be convicted and it's literally in the first sentence. ] (]) 13:07, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
	:'''Support''' due to being established fact, but the reason i came here is that there should be a comma between "businessman" and "convicted felon" ] (]) 21:49, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
	::That's not in dispute; the issue is whether the inclusion would be undue weight. See ]. ] (]) 21:57, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
	:::We may have to wait and see what the fallout from this is. I have a hard time believing this will not have a major ripple effect that may affect what DJT is best known for. ] (]) 23:40, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
	:::'''Strongly Support'''
	:::Undue weight with regards to what? Misplaced Pages is not a place to make a political point but to communicate facts. The fact is Donald Trump was unequivocally convicted by a jury of his peers in NY State without decent from 34 jurors. This is very relevant to a description of a famous figure, especially considering this is a former US President. Omission or obfuscation is censorship. ] (]) 18:42, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
	::'''Strongly Support'''. The fact he was convicted of election interference in the election he won as president supports that it should be included. If it were unrelated to his status as a previously elected official then it would be arguably undue weight. But his felony is interconnected to his status. ] (]) 05:10, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
	:::The convictions today were for 34 counts of falsifying documents not for election interference ] (]) 08:58, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
	::::Much of a muchness given he's the first president in US history to be convicted of a felony, let alone 34 of them in one go. This is particularly notorious. '']''<sup>]</sup> 09:33, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
	::::The trial is literally about election interference, falsifying documents is how he did it but that doesn't cancel the whole election interference part. ] (]) 09:37, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
	::::In order to find him guilty of the 34 FELONY counts of falsifying business records, the jury needed to find that Trump “conspired to promote or prevent the election of any person to a public office by unlawful means.” And they did. So you’re absolutely wrong that this wasn’t about election interference. That was the essential element that took it from a misdemeanor to a felony. Thank you. ] <sup>]</sup> 14:37, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
	:'''Strong Support''' ] (]) 21:50, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
	:'''Oppose''' far too early to tell if the fact that he got convicted of some crimes contributes equally to notability to the face he is a politician and businessman. My instincts say 'no'. ] (] '''·''' ] '''·''' ]) 21:51, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
	::the businessman would never have become a politician had he not committed the crimes he was convicted of. ] (]) 22:45, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
	:::That's irrelevant to this discussion. He would not have become a criminal if he were not born, but we're not going to put "son of his mom" in the first sentence. ] (]) 22:53, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
	::::I don't consider it irrelevant. If he is "noteworthy" as a businessman, this convictions mean he was a dishonest businessman, which means it is noteworthy. If he is noteworthy as a politician and President, this is noteworthy as being the only US President in history to both be impeached twice and convicted of felony charges. ] (]) 00:33, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
	:::It's still far too early to guess the ramifications of this conviction. It may change what he is best known for being, it may not. ] (]) 23:41, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
	::Your instincts have no place discussing facts. This is a relevant and obvious fact. He HAS 100 % and factually been convicted. Misplaced Pages is not a place to posit some political agenda. ] (]) 18:44, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
	:'''Strong support''' as being both a president and a convicted felon is one of the most notable things in this person's life, if not the history of the US. I also note the RfC above includes several comments expressing strong support for it to be included as well. <span style="font-size:small;"><span style="font-family:monospace;">'''David Palmer'''//</span>]</span> <sup>(])</sup> 21:52, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
	::'''Wait and see''', if that's a thing I'm allowed to say. He has time to appeal his conviction so he may not be a convicted felon when all is said and done. Additionally, it remains to be seen just how big a part of his legacy these convictions will be. Though admittedly a Misplaced Pages fight really shouldn't wait for this guy to die or anything so idk ] (]) 22:56, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
	:::He will still ultimately have been the first US President convicted of a felony, even if it does get overturned on appeal. That's going to be in history books for centuries. ] (]) 01:18, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
	:::Might as well '''do and see''' instead. ] (]) 12:04, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
	::::we don't do that here at wikipedia ] (]) 21:57, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
	:::Perhaps a New York criminal lawyer can confirm, but I think Trump is not actually "convicted" until the judge enters the conviction and the clerk finalizes it, which should happen after sentencing. Until that point, the verdict is not an official conviction. ] (]) 15:20, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
	:::If he is acquitted down the road, the entry can be updated accordingly later. The lack of finality to the case is a non-issue. _Currently_ he is a convicted felon. So _currently_ the article should reflect that. ] (]) 20:35, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
	:'''Oppose''' per the IP editor above. ] is limited to the things that make the subject notable. Trump is notable for being (sorted chronologically) a real estate mogul, a media personality, and a U.S. president. Being the first president to be a convicted felon is now a prominent fact, but it's not the thing he's notable for. It should be featured prominently in the lead but doesn't meet the criteria for a first sentence descriptor. ] (]) 21:52, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
	::He is the '''first and only''' President with a felony conviction. If this isn't notable, and if this isn't as notable as anything else he's notable for, then nothing is notable ] (]) 21:57, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
	::Hard to see why being one of 45 US presidents is notable, but being the only one who is a convicted felon is not notable. If anything logically it is even more notable. ] (]) 22:03, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
	:::'''Strong Support''' ] (]) 01:16, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
	::I posted this above to support including "convicted felon" on
	::on the grounds many other similarly high profiles profiles of politicians and notable personalities lead with "convicted felon":
	::Politicians: ] (]) 06:16, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
	::'''Support''' We should do an independent study about whether "first former president of the US to be convicted of a felony" is among the first things that come to mind when thinking about Trump.
	::I reckon, it will be for a large chunk of people. ] (]) 11:27, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
	::I was looking at other pages for US presidents and it seems Trump's is the only one with a declarative sentence as the lede. I wonder if we changed it to the more normal paragraph it would fit more naturally. So instead of reading, He's a criminal, it approaches it much more naturally like the page for ] does with his resignation. ] (]) 06:01, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
	:'''Strong Support''' ] (]) 21:53, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
	::Thank you for your input! Would you like to explain why you support this? ] (]) 21:59, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
	:'''Oppose:''' Classifying Donald Trump as a convicted felon in the very first sentence of this Misplaced Pages article will cause massive damage to the credibility of Misplaced Pages as a whole. It will also discourage readers from reading further if they are looking for a neutral article to read. I agree with Thebiguglyalien in that the first sentence of a biography should be very limited to the things that make the subject notable. I agree with it being mentioned in the lead, but not for the first sentence. ] (]) 21:55, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
	::Donald Trump being a convicted felon is an objective fact. Stating that would not "cause massive damage to the credibility of Misplaced Pages as a whole" or harm the neutrality of this article. ~] (], ], ]) 21:58, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
	:::{{tq\|Donald Trump being a convicted felon is an objective fact.}} Hardly an argument for inclusion ''in the first sentence''. If it were, it would be the longest sentence in the history of written communication. ―] ] 02:46, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
	::Donald J. Trump is a convicted felon on 34 occasions, that is correct and stating anything else is what is truly partial ] (]) 22:07, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
	::Putting that Donald Trump is a convicted felon is not inherently biased and would not impugn the credibility of Misplaced Pages, it is a statement of fact. And until, and only if, the appeals courts /supreme court rule that the conviction was in error does it remaining in the opening sentence cause a bias. ] (]) 23:12, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
	::@]: How do you figure it hurts the credibility of Misplaced Pages if he's actually convicted of felonies and we DON'T mention something so significant? ] (]) 01:27, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
	::Object on the grounds many other similarly high profiles profiles of politicians and notable personalities lead with "convicted felon":
	::Politicians: ] (]) 06:17, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
	::We're interested in verifiability, not "credibility" as a project. We summarize and compile sources. Any credibility would be a reflection of the cited sources and their relative weights within the article. See e.g. ]. ] (]) 07:19, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
	::I just wanted to '''note''' that the job of editors isn’t to defend the “credibility” of Misplaced Pages, it’s to write a good article. ] (]) 13:27, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
	:<s>NO! He is not a "convicted felon" until he is sentenced. This is how US law works. See, e.g. : {{tqq\|Trump’s guilty verdict does not make him a “convicted felon,” however. This label will not be accurate until after he is sentenced in July.}}. The ''guilty verdict'' is not the same thing as a ''conviction''. It's possible (unlikely, but possible) that the judge will "set aside the verdict." Only a ''judge'' can convict, not a jury. Gotta wait until July. ] (]) 22:29, 30 May 2024 (UTC)</s>
	::He IS a "convicted felon", even before the sentencing. News Outlets are already calling him a "convicted felon" which he would 100% be able to sue them for for libel if it wasn't true.
	::If you have to wait until the appeals process is over then you wouldn't be able to list half of the serial killers listed on the site as having been convicted of anything, as lots of them have ongoing appeals as well. ] (]) 23:16, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
	::This is patently untrue. The jury has found him guilty and the court has accepted and recorded the verdict. In the eyes of the law, he is from this date forward, until and unless his conviction is overturned, a criminal and a convicted felon. ] (]) 00:15, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
	::While a judge could, in theory, overturn a guilty verdict and alter a conviction, he is a convicted felon right now. ] (]) 00:18, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
	::
	::
	::
	::No idea why CNBC is saying the label doesn't apply but they appear to be the only ones. ] (]) 00:21, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
	::Per the Washington Post, Trump's lead attorney requested the judge to set aside the verdict immediately after the final count's verdict was delevered and the jury's duty was completed. The judge denied the request and set the sentancing date for July 11 (I think?). So, the judge is not going to set aside the verdict. That ship has sailed. Waiting until all possible avenues of appeal for the convicted felon would mean that anyone languishing in prison while awaiting an appeal would not have his status as a convicted felon recognized in WP in hundreds, perhaps thousands, of articles ] (]) 01:09, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
	::{{shrug}} Welp, who am I to argue with MSM, they're all calling him a "convicted felon" even though he hasn't been sentenced yet. So '''Support'''. ] (]) 01:54, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
	:::Conviction and sentencing are completely separate legal process. A felon is still a felon, even if he doesn't know the length of their sentence. Being convicted of a felony makes you a felon. Done and done. ] (]) 03:28, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
	:::There's a difference between the '''colloquial''' definition of "convicted" (after the jury verdict) and '''technical''' definition of "convicted" (after the court enters the judgment of conviction and the clerk finalizes it, which happens at/after sentencing). Media is following the colloquial definition. Should Misplaced Pages? ] (]) 15:29, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
	::'''Comment''' – It would not cause "massive damage" to the project's credibility; this is just FUD. If anything, it imbues credibility by showing that the project does not cave to his rabid fanbase who would petulantly decry the article as partial for stating a highly notable (this is the first time this has ever happened to any POTUS ever), objectively true fact about him in the first sentence. Arguably him being a "media personality and businessman" at this point is both ''currently'' less notable and much less likely to be prominently remembered ''in the future'' than what we've seen from him in the courts over the last several years. <b>]</b> ] 03:38, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
	:'''Strong support''' Trump is a convicted felon as of an hour ago. It is relevant to the article and him. ] <small>(], ] and ])</small> 22:29, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
	::Also this will 100% be something he is widely known for in the future, and is honestly American history. ] (]) 23:39, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
	:'''Strongly Support'''
	:I agree it should be shown in the first sentence and known fact. ] (]) 22:30, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
	::Support. It's one of the main, if not THE most notable thing about him. He's the only former president with this ...achievement. ] (]) 00:37, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
	:'''Strong oppose''' per ] on similar articles. A simple at the ] article, which includes figures such as ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], shows that criminal convictions almost never appear in the first sentence of their pages. As the case is already undergoing appeal: it remains to be seen on whether this will be a defining part of Trump's life. At the very least, we should wait to see whether the conviction will be overturned, as the case is already undergoing an appeal and it remains to be seen what will happen. ] (]) 22:32, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
	::Perhaps that should be revisited, and these articles should have these annotations in the first sentence. ] (]) 22:56, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
	::Use Barak Obama page as an example. First sentence is about him as a US President. The second sentence is about something he was particularly special for -- bring first African-American US President. Both sentences are above the portrait.
	::The same should be done for Donald Trump -- first sentence is about him being a US President. The second sentence (still above the portrait) is about him being the first US President convicted of a felony. ] (]) 01:46, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
	:::Donald Trump is notable for being the first and ONLY US President to be convicted of a felony. As such, his felony status warrants highlight early in the article. ] (]) 03:30, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
	::'''Comment''' (While it is more as to do with the lede as a whole than the first sentence per se) Precedent is also to note ''breaks with precedent'' as significant/notable where they (first) occur. As bases for comparison in this matter I would highlight as relevant (with ''emphasis added''):
	::* {{blockquote\|text="He was a member of the Democratic Party and is ''the only U.S. president to have served more than two terms''"\|sign=Sentence 2 of }}
	::* {{blockquote\|text="Nixon's second term ended early when he became ''the only U.S. president to resign from office'', as a result of the Watergate scandal."\|sign=Sentence 4 of }}
	::* {{blockquote\|text="A member of the Democratic Party, ''he was the first African-American president in United States history.''"\|sign=sentence 2 of }}
	::* {{blockquote\|text="This led to conflict with the Republican-dominated Congress, culminating in his impeachment by the House of Representatives in 1868. He was acquitted in the Senate by one vote."\|sign=4th sentence of }}
	::::: while that sentence is not framed specifically around this being the first presidential impeachment, it is included here whereas it is not on ]'s first paragraph
	::While Trump is the first and only US president to have been convicted of a felony, it bears mentioning in similar vein as the above. ] (]) 01:55, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
	:::'''Oppose''' nominator's idea of a label in the first sentence. But support something like this - ie. it should be in the second sentence. <span style="color: #0645AD;">] (/braɪtˈɡæl.ərˌɛs/)<sup>]]</sup></span> 05:16, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
	:::'''Strong support''' because of what's noted in this comment. Donald Trump being the first former president to be convicted of a felony is very notable in its own right and bears mentioning in the first paragraph using this context. Saying "and convicted felon" feels inappropriate to me, but saying something like "the only U.S. president to have been convicted of a felony" provides useful context, clarity, and fits the bar of notability for inclusion in the first paragraph. <templatestyles src="Template:Color/styles.css" /><span class="tmp-color" style="color:#006400">''']''' <sub>''(he/him)''</sub></span> (]) 05:32, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
	:::'''Strong support'''. Good point here and below from the same user: ] ] (]) 07:24, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
	::You stated, "the case is already undergoing appeal", which is patently untrue. There can be no appeal until the court has sentenced the convicted felon, Trump. The convicted felon has 30 days after the sentencing to file an appeal. Please do not make further misrepresentation of the facts. ] (]) 02:52, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
	:'''Support''' There are two simple facts: 1 - he is a felon. That's irrefutable. 2 - It is of historic significance that a former president is now a felon. Neither of these facts are either controversial or up for debate. ] (]) 22:32, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
	:'''Strong support''' because it's notable and being a convicted felon is of top importance to the article's subject. ] (]) 22:36, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
	:'''Support''' If not in the first sentence, certainly in the first paragraph. It’s more than notable enough. ] (]) 22:37, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
	:'''Strong Support''' because Trump's felony conviction is notorious by virtue of being the first felony conviction (technically the first 34 felony convictions) of a former US POTUS. That level of notoriety makes this something that is an undeniable part of what Trump's legacy will be moving forward, and deserves to be noted in the lede. ] (]) 22:49, 30 May 2024 (UTC) ] (]) 22:49, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
	::A former United States President of the United States? ] (]) 01:28, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
	:'''Strong support.''' Per ] "The lead section should summarise with due weight the life and works of the person." I believe that the conviction of Donald Trump qualifies for this. ] (]) 22:57, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
	:'''Oppose''', but I would be in support of something more nuanced & detailed '''in a new second sentence within the lede'''. For example, I propose that the full lede should look something like this:
	:"Donald John Trump (born June 14, 1946) is an American politician, media personality, and businessman who served as the 45th president of the United States from 2017 to 2021. He is also the first president in United States history to be convicted of a felony crime (pending appeal)."
	:It obviously doesn't have to be the exact new sentence I wrote above, but I do think that it is important enough to warrant adding a second sentence to the lede. The way I see it, the first sentence in the lede of an article about a notable human should work to summarize them as a person (i.e. their important "titles", like "scientist"/"president"/etc.), with any subsequent sentence(s) specifying notable things that they are especially notable for (i.e. what has happened to them/what have they done that is important enough to include in the lede but that isn't necessarily a ''title'').
	:Obviously, one could make the good-faith argument that "convicted felon" ''is'' a title, but I think that this article in particular needs to be as unbiased as is physically possible due to the controversial nature of the person - and "convicted felon" as a title feels too negatively-charged for something that requires caution above and beyond what is normal. (for the record, I don't like the guy - but that doesn't matter in the context of this situation, as I believe it is our job to state facts about the subject at hand as objectively as possible). ] (]) 23:00, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
	::'''Edit/Addendum''' I did not mean to challenge the objective truth that Donald Trump is a convicted felon (he most certainly is); as such, my last parenthesized comment should have used the phrase "... about the subject at hand as ''neutrally'' as possible" (or something to that affect; the point is that my use of the term ''objectively'' was erroneous & inaccurate to what I was actually trying to say). ] (]) 23:21, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
	:::'''Edit to my edit:''' something to that ''effect''***, not ''affect''; credibility ruined, life over. ] (]) 23:24, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
	::I like the idea of a second sentence, but I can also understand concerns about Misplaced Pages's credibility and bias. Perhaps a second sentence mentioning he is the first President '''to be impeached twice'''? That would be factual, unique, and mentions his issues with the law without bringing current convictions into it. ] (]) 01:19, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
	:::WP's credibility and bias aren't put into question when statements of fact are made. Why not both? "First President to be impeached twice and be convicted of multiple felonies upon leaving office." ] (]) 03:36, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
	::@]: "Pending appeal" suggestions that have been mentioned would show obvious bias, imho. In my time here, I've never seen "pending appeal" put in the lede when someone is a convicted felon; it seems to be a novel suggestion primarily used in the case of Donald Trump. In legalistic terms, someone is convicted until an appeal/review/pardon/etc. overturns that original conviction, so unless we really want to go through each notable felon's case and find out whether they've exhausted all their appeals, I don't find it needed at all. ] (]) 01:40, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
	:::@AG202: I think you make a valid point here, and it definitely would be an exception for Donald Trump if it were included - though I do think that this particular article warrants some deviation from the norm due to its nature (not that my suggestion is the end-all-be-all solution, or that "(pending appeal)" absolutely needs to be included; I'm speaking more generally here).
	:::Admittedly, I'm not an expert on legal matters - so I definitely think deferring judgement on this to those amongst us who are more knowledgeable on that subject (i.e. 1000% not me) is the way to go. I was moreso just trying to be as fair/nuanced as possible given my non-comprehensive understanding of what's going on; again, I don't like or support the guy - I just feel strongly that this article should be handled very carefully, so I was trying to include all of the relevant stops therein. ] (]) 02:34, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
	::Why do you believe that his status as a businessman is notable enough for the opening paragraph, while being the first and only US President to be convicted of a felony is somehow not? ] (]) 03:34, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
	:'''Oppose''' because of a few things. The biggest justification for putting "convicted felon" as the lead is that it WILL be notable. This is not yet what he is mostly known for.
	:While many will see him as a felon, there are a large amount of people who will see it as a hit piece. The usage of the term "convicted felon" has clear political motives and we still have no clue how the felony will affect his reputation or if it will be notable. It shouldn't be there (yet) ] (]) 23:03, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
	::'''IT IS NOTABLE NOW''', and unless felony convictions for Presidents become routine, it will '''always''' be notable (and even in such a ridiculous hypothetical, being the first is still notable). ] (]) 00:25, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
	:::No, being a "convicted felon" must be tied directly and heavily to Trump's reputation, not the reputation of the presidency itself, in order to be considered worthy of being in the introduction. That's why it's important to wait. ] (]) 00:47, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
	::::What do you believe needs to happen before it's acceptable to include a statement of fact and notable description in the lede? ] (]) 03:38, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
	::::State your reasons please. ] (]) 04:52, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
	:'''Strong Support''' This is a historic outcome in the United States, quite noteworthy. He isn't terribly noteworthy outside of NYC for being a competent real estate dealer; he notably has failed several times at this (e.g casinos). He was technically President of the US, but did not win the popular vote and is widely considered one of the worst presidents of all time. His conviction is quite noteworthy. ] (]) 23:09, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
	::It is indeed a historic outcome. So historic an outcome that it already gets its own article. But does it warrant being in the very first sentence? I would argue it doesn't. It should be in a second sentence in the first paragraph, since Trump is known as a president first and a criminal second, at least as of now. ] (]) 16:39, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
	:'''Strong support''' because it is a major part of history. Donald Trump is the first president in the history of the United States to be found guilty of a felony. It is relevant to any use of his Misplaced Pages page that he is both a former president and a felon. Anyone coming to Trump's Misplaced Pages page to see if he was found guilty should see that he is a felon in the first sentence. ] (]) 23:12, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
	:'''weak oppose''' mostly because while it's a big deal that he's the only american president to have ever been convicted of a felony, or 34, that still isn't the first thing that comes to mind. his status as 1. former president and 2. american celebrity are pre-eminent. however something in line with @]'s thoughts would work. it ought to be in the first paragraph or two ] (]) 23:17, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
	:'''Strong Support''' First sentence is meant to be a one line notability statement, and being a super high profile and only US President to become a convicted felon is supremely notable and probably more notable than being a 'media personality'. I would concede that it might be in the best interest of neutrality to somehow indicate that the felonies are under appeal (maybe a superscript note?), but the fact remains he is currently a convicted felon unless the appeals courts overturn said conviction. ] (]) 23:18, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
	:'''Support''' since it's a very notable development, about a U.S. president no less. ] (]) 23:19, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
	:'''Oppose''' because it raises concerns about recency bias and neutrality. In the grand scheme, this trial is not nearly as notable as his political and business careers, especially since this guy has been in the news every single day since 2015. ] (]) 23:22, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
	::This would be a special exception for Trump, as he is now factually the first and only US President to be convicted of multiple felonies. There are no reputable sources of bias or neutrality to reference, as all sources that make those claims have a very heavy political bias that leans only in one direction. That is bias.
	::Donald Trump's unique position as a felonious former US President is far more notable than his business practices, as the only notable business actions unique to Trump are the same actions that led to his felon status. There are hundreds of thousands of business people in the United States, but Donald Trump is the ONLY US President to also become a felon after leaving office. ] (]) 03:43, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
	::'''Comment''' – If we're going that route, I would actually argue that, in the grand scheme, Trump's 34 felony convictions for election interference will be far, far more relevant in effectively any future study of Trump than the fact that he was a businessman. A biography of him would no doubt extensively cover that aspect of him, but consider Ronald Reagan, for instance. Is the fact that he was an actor notable? No doubt. Was him being an actor the thing most people write about in reliable sources and remember him for? The amount of material on Reagan's performance as POTUS and the amount on his time as an actor almost assuredly can't even be compared; the chasm is just too wide, and in my opinion, it's pretty obvious the same is true of Trump. As a bit of a litmus test, any middle school history book giving Trump the light of day may passingly mention that he's a real estate mogul, but the absolute bulk of the text would be the absolute chaos that was his presidency and the litany of litigation he was caught up in. <b>]</b> ] 03:48, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
	::How does it raise concerns about recency bias and neutrality? ] (]) 04:53, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
	::Trump's felony convictions are inextricably linked to both his business and political careers, as the convictions relate to fraudulent business records '''and''' were crimes he committed precisely because he began a political career. Even more importantly that that, his status as both a President of the United States and a convicted felon is '''completely unique in history'''. I'm not sure how it can get more notable than that. As such, '''Strong Support''' for including "convicted felon" in the infobox. — ] <sup>(])</sup> 03:30, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
	:It should be in the first sentence and associated with his being president. This may be the most life defining description, only president convicted of felony(ies). ] (]) 23:28, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
	:'''Strong Support''' . Either in the first sentence or add a second. The second sentence of Barrack Obama's page points out how he is the first African American president, why would the first felon not garner an important spot in the opening paragraph? ] (]) 23:30, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
	::I agree. Before Barack Obama, there had never been an African American president, so he made history as the president. Donald Trump made history by becoming the first felon as a former president. ] (]) 23:48, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
	:'''Strong Support. ''' This is a fact; we don't change facts based on the opinions of partisan keyboard warriors. ] (]) 23:38, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
	:* '''Oppose''' far too soon to say if it's key to his notability. ] (]) 23:49, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
	:*:It is not. It is extraordinarily notable right now. I'd like to know how said notability will lessen over time. If anything I think it's credible to say the notability will increase over time. ] (]) 00:31, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
	::The RfC is not about the veracity of the claim. The RfC is about whether Trump should be called a convicted felon in the first sentence of the lede of this article. ] (]) ] (]) 09:20, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
	:@] '''Strong Support'''. Not necessarily in the first sentence, but in the first paragraph due to the historical significance of the fact. ] (]) 23:57, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
	:'''Strong support''' Before I explain why, I do want to say I personally despise Trump, so there is a COI.
	:Donald Trump is the first president to be convicted of a felony, much less 34! That is extremely notable, much more than his business (which, ironically, is the reason for the 34 felony convictions).
	:To avoid a notification explosion, I didn't subscribe to this topic, so if you want to discuss anything, please @ me. ] (]) 00:06, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
	:'''Oppose''' mentioning on the first sentence per @] and precedent for other world leaders; while its worth mentioning in the lead, we sadly lack a ]. ] (]) 00:07, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
	::Donald John Trump is the first President of the United States in American history to be convicted of a felony. How is this not extraordinarily notable. How is this less notable than anything else in the lede. How will this notability ever diminish. Enquiring minds want to know. ] (]) 00:35, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
	::What other world leaders? What precedent? What is the relevance? ] (]) 04:54, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
	:'''Strong support''' This is incredibly notable. As a note, ] has the crime mentioned in the first line. ] (]) 00:16, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
	:'''support''' but also happy to '''wait and see.''' I am not convinced by arguments of neutrality or relevancy. it is historically significant that he is the first former united states president ever convicted of a felony - that is ''incredibly relevant'' to his career, no matter what the future holds. It is a central issue of his campaign and obviously of great interest. At a bare minimum it should be in the first paragraph.
	:My only concern is that he is not technically a convicted felon until his sentence is laid down - so I'm okay waiting until then. ] (]) 00:18, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
	::Per the US Sentencing Guidelines: "IMPORTANT NOTE: WHERE DEFENDANT IS CONVICTED VIA TRIAL OR PLEA AFTER ARREST BUT PRIOR TO PLEA OR SENTENCING ON THE INSTANT OFFENSE - THAT CONVICTION IS COUNTABLE FOR CRIMINAL HISTORY DETERMINATION."
	::SOURCE: https://www.ussc.gov/sites/default/files/pdf/training/annual-national-training-seminar/2011/004c_Calc_Criminal_History_Outline.pdf
	::(Page 1) ] (]) 03:54, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
	:'''Strong support''' because it is now of a similar notoriety and historical importance that Donald Trump is a "media personality" than the fact that he is a convicted felon. Contrary to what KlayCax mentioned, there is plenty of ]
	:on the matter. For example, ] (former the 49th governor of Alabama), ] (former Treasurer of Pennsylvania) and ] (politician) (former 65th Speaker of the Alabama House of Representatives) all have "convicted felon" in the first sentence of their respective articles.
	:Specifically for Hubbard, a similarly small section of his article is dedicated to his conviction, which albeit being related to state ethics laws, is the ending of a 22 years career, and is rightfully pointed as of importance in the first sentence.'''Strong support''' because it is now of a similar notoriety and historical importance that Donald Trump is a "media personality" than the fact that he is a convicted felon. Contrary to whatKlayCax mentioned, there is plenty of ]
	:] (]) 01:07, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
	:]] ] (]) 01:07, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
	:'''Strong Support''' Today, a former US president and presidential candidate is a convicted felon for the first time in history. This fact now defines who Trump is. In 100 years, I don't believe we'll remember Trump for being a businessman or a media personality, these things are completely irrelevant in comparison to the importance that he's a former US president who is also a felon. It is an unbiased neutral observation of fact to mention that Trump is a convicted felon and the obvious importance of it means that it should appear in the opening sentence of an article summarizing things about the man. ] (]) 01:20, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
	::'''Support''': A counter-argument to this is on the list here: https://en.wikipedia.org/List_of_American_federal_politicians_convicted_of_crimes
	::In the large majority of cases here, the mention to convictions is present in the first paragraph. Felon is a charged them but not unprecedented/ ] (]) 22:17, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
	:::Donald Trump is the only person in US History to hold the office of US President and later be convicted of multiple felonies. The felony is far more notable to Trump than any other trait, as it's unique to him. ] (]) 04:00, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
	:::None of the politicians on that list were elected because of their felonies. Trump won his presidential election by a very thin margin. It seems possible that if Trump hadn't committed this felony, Daniels would have gone public and Trump would have lost the vote. It's arguable that Trump is only a politician because he's a felon. This is why the felony conviction needs to be in the first sentence here, but might not need to be in other felon politicians' pages. ] (]) 12:44, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
	:This subject was recently discussed at a recent {{sectionlink\|WT:MOSBIO\|RfC: "convicted felon" / "convicted sex offender" in the lead sentence}}, and the general consensus (disclaimer: I participated) seems to be that no, we should almost never say "felon" in the opening sentence ''unless'' the person is primarily notable for their criminal activity. And even then, we should state ''what'' they were convicted for, because "felony" can cover everything from civil disobedience to serial murder. Is there any reason to make an exception here? ] (]) 21:55, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
	::I'll pose @] comment as a potential solution. We could do something like "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. He is also the first president in United States history to be convicted of a felony crime (pending appeal) for his financial fraud in his illegal hush money payments to Stormy Daniels." ] (]) 23:08, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
	::I would argue he is known for being a felon because it is immediately relevant to the presidential race this year. The combination of being a former president and a felon is what makes it important, so they should be written together in the same sentence. It could read, "Donald John Trump (born June 14, 1946) is an American politician, media personality, businessman, and felon who served as the 45th president of the United States from 2017 to 2021. On May 30, 2024, he became the first president in United States history to be convicted of a felony crime (pending appeal) for his financial fraud in his illegal hush money payments to Stormy Daniels." ] (]) 23:16, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
	:'''Strong support''' -- the first American president to be a convicted felon is noteworthy as such. ] (]) 21:55, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
	:'''Oppose''' per IP. It should certainly be in the lede, but not the very first sentence. Being the first President convicted of felonies is notable enough for the lede but is not what makes Trump himself famous.
	:] (]) 21:56, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
	:Nope. Whilst it's certainly a verifiable fact that should be stated in the lede, it should not be a first sentence descriptor. A first sentence descriptor should not be ]. ] (]) Have a good day! 21:58, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
	::In terms of a !vote, '''oppose'''. ] (]) Have a good day! 22:13, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
	:'''Strong Support''' As a self-described law and order politician, who has called for his opponents to be locked up, his being a felon is very much relevant. (The average US president has now been found guilty with 0.7556 felonies, in case you were wondering). ] 21:59, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
	:: Let me emphasis this point: 45 people have been president of America. Several of them were businessmen, etc. Exactly one of those 45 people has been a convicted felon. ] 22:40, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
	:::That's not what makes a person notable. The problem with his status isn't that it isn't notable or relevant; just that it doesn't warrant being in the first sentence. Trump is also one of only a few presidents who have met with North Korea but that isn't in the first sentence either. ] (]) 23:10, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
	::::You are correct that being a convicted felon does not make one notable in and of itself. But being the very first President to be convicted of a felony is earth-shattering. '''Strongly support''' adding "convicted felon" or "the first President to be convicted of a felony" to the lede. ] (]) 00:42, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
	:'''Oppose''', but I would say that if the question was asked about any article on Misplaced Pages. On the other hand, if it belongs in any articles at all, it belongs here. ]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 22:01, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
	::Your premises support the opposite of your conclusion. ] (]) 04:56, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
	:I '''support''' this as long as it reads factually and encyclopedic. We have precedence for wording along the lines of {{xt\|first American president convicted of a felony after leaving office}} with an appropriate blue link. ] <sup>]·]'']</sup> 22:02, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
	:'''Strong support''' adding it. The arguments that he's not known for it are irrelevant. He is and will forever be known as the first president convicted of a crime. It's going to be in the first sentence of his obit. It should be added.
	:Also the argument that people will be turned off by seeing it and not read his article is irrelevant. Misplaced Pages is about facts. He is a convicted felon. That is a fact. Now until or unless it's overturned it should be added. ] (]) 22:04, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
	:'''Strong support''' If Trump is a "businessman" with most of his businesses failing, he's most ''definitely'' a convicted felon. It's absolutely notable as he's the first president to be convicted of a felony. It should be the first line in the lede now. It should be documented across history, forever. ] (]) 22:04, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
	:'''Strong Support''' given that being the first and only President in United States history is significant and notable. ] (]) 22:06, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
	:'''Strong support. ''' The first former president ever to be convicted of a felony, and possible election interference which tipped in his favour in 2016 as he was successful in catch and kill the story after the AH tapes were made public. If the story had come out it would have ended his chances. ANd he committed the crimes to hide the payments to Daniels. ] (]) 22:07, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
	:'''Strong support''' It is a critical fact; not iincluding it is misleading by omission
	: Weak '''oppose''' per ]: Mr. Trump's being the only former president to also be a convicted felon is ''highly'' notable, but, an hour out from the reading of the verdict, it's far less important than the other things mentioned in the first sentence. Also, for the sake of Misplaced Pages's credibility, I'd prefer our jubilation not spill out into the article. <span style="font-weight:bold">]]</span> 22:07, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
	::We should be careful not to avoid statements of fact out of concern that some opposed would feel it's biased.
	::And I don't believe any other feature of Trump is as uniquely notable than his position as the first US President to also be a felon. We have plenty other politicians, businessmen, and US Presidents. Trump is the only person in history to be notable for being a former President with a felony record. ] (]) 04:10, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
	:'''Comment''' We don't have a policy on whether it is good practice to use "convicted felon" in the first sentence, but we do have ] which I personally find thoughtful and nuanced, and which speaks directly to this issue. <span style="font-family:times; text-shadow: 0 0 .2em #7af">~] <small>(])</small></span> 22:16, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
	:'''Support''' Donald Trump has for a very long time now been involved in various trials, which has been picked up countless times by reliable sources. The very first sentence of the article ] reads as following:
	::From the 1970s until he was elected president in 2016, Donald Trump and his businesses were involved in over 4,000 legal cases in United States federal and state courts, including battles with casino patrons, million-dollar real estate lawsuits, personal defamation lawsuits, and over 100 business tax disputes.
	:The sheer number of legal cases Trump has been involved in suggests that the legal system is a highly notable aspect of Trump himself. And as the recent felony conviction directly relates to a legal case he has been at the centre of for a long time, I believe it is only fair and notable to mention his new status as a convicted felon in the opening sentence of the lede. --] <b>(])</b> 22:08, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
	:'''Support'''
	:Mr Donald J. Trump is a convicted felon.
	:Not mentioning this may omit relevant information to the reader. ] (]) 22:10, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
	::The subject of this RFC is not whether or not it should be mentioned, but whether or not it should be in the first sentence of the article. ~] (], ], ]) 22:11, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
	:::I feel so bad for you being the OP where no one understands what's being asked ] (]) 23:13, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
	:'''Strong support. ''' The first former president ever to be convicted of a felony, and possible election interference in 2016. He was successful in catch and kill the story after the AH tapes were made public. His own campaign team had said that it would he incredibly damaging to this campaign. And he committed the crimes to hide the payments to Daniels. ] (]) 22:12, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
	:'''Patience''' I'm nearly always against ]. I think it will eventually make sense in the first sentence as it will likely end up being part of the most historically important fact about him. ] (]) 22:14, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
	::It already is one of the most historically important facts about him. That horse is out of the barn. ] (]) 22:19, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
	:'''Oppose''' for now. The first sentence should be for what he is primarily known for. Just because he is a felon doesn't mean that that's his main point of notability. It should be mentioned in the lead, just not the first sentence. ] (]) 22:17, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
	::There is no trait of Donald Trump's that is as unique notable to him as that of being both a twice-impeached President and also the only former President in history to also later become a felon. Every other trait mentioned in the opening sentence is shared with many other people. Donald Trump is the only felonious President. ] (]) 04:13, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
	::Are there any other felons on wikipedia who are not notable for being felons? Please link. ] (]) 04:57, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
	:'''Strong support''' I recommend others look at the ]. Of the five politicians mentioned there who were convicted of felonies (], ], ], ], and ]), three have their felonies mentioned in the first sentence (Druyun, Traficant, and Grimm), and the other two have their felonies mentioned in the lede paragraph. As the current lede paragraph for Trump is only one sentence, it seems reasonable to place the fact of his conviction there. ] (]) 22:19, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
	:'''Strong oppose''' if "convicted felon" is simply listed alongside "American politician, media personality, and businessman" to appear as if Trump is as well known for being a convicted felon as the other three. I get it. A lot of us, including myself, despise the guy, but we can't use Misplaced Pages to make ourselves feel fuzzy. Listing all those things together may technically be truthful, but it would be a blatant misrepresentation of Trump's career as to this point. We do not even know yet if these charges will leave a large impact on his legacy. If anything, I would '''support''' an edit along the lines of "the 45th president of the United States from 2017 to 2021, and became the ]." ] (]) 22:21, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
	::thank you boss, how very based ] (]) 01:45, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
	::It isn’t about him being a felon in the abstract, it’s about the fact that he got the presidency BY engaging in a criminal conspiracy. Trump’s entire presidency was declared illegal yesterday. ] (]) 12:00, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
	:'''Support''' We have no other president or ex-president who's ever been convicted of a felony let alone 34 of them. We are obligated to call attention to that early in the article.
	:Oppose per the precedent of ]. ] (]) 22:12, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
	:'''Oppose''' I have opposed the use of "convicted felon" or "convicted sex offender" in biographies ranging from ], ], ], ], and others. See from ] for more. I maintain my consistency here. – ] (]) 22:17, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
	:'''Oppose especially if the same sentence fails to explain it’s being appealed'''. The decision won’t become final until appeals are exhausted, or the conviction is overturned. I strongly oppose mentioning this in the lead sentence without this explanation that it’s not a final decision yet.] (]) 22:25, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
	::@] It is a matter of fact that Trump is now "a convicted felon" until an appeal courts (possibly but no guarantee) may say otherwise. <u>And there is nothing more final than a jury verdict.</u> The possibility of a court decision being reversed has nothing to do with the finality of it all. Otherwise people in prison already serving time for their crimes that are appealing the courts again AND again through the "Innocence project" and other means" (since there is no limit how often you can try to petition the court) would make it impossible for us to ever properly include that notable information on a wikipedia page since according to your own warped logic the decision isn't final until a neverending appeals process ceases (which in theory never ends until the defendant says otherwise, or dies).
	::Your misleading fallacious logic is beyond absurd. And looking at your editing history, and constant editwarring over topics involving Trump, you are likely too biased to meaningfully weigh in. But I will take the bait.
	::No, the decision "is final" because in "'''a trial by a jury of peers''', their verdict is a fundamental principle of democracy, which must be respected." The judge was already soon after in a motion by the defense to throw the case out, for which he refused. The simple fact(s) that a judge can nullify a decision at some point, or an appeal court CAN overturn a verdict, does NOT mean the verdict itself is not final. That is a very Trumpian way of looking at it, sure (read: dishonest). But the truth of the matter is that appeal courts are not a round 2 for convictions. In fact, they rely upon errors or rare constitutional issues to succeed if at all, which statistically is rare when you see how many cases are actually overturned on appeal. That the jury was unanimous on all counts and the fact that the defense didn't even bother to put up much or defense (which was their choice) only strengthens a case like this.
	::But more importantly, you are deliberately ignoring HOW the justice system works. The presumption of innocence is OFFICIALLY GONE once you or anyone is convicted of a crime. Sentencing will proceed regardless of the any possible appeal, and often punishment will commence concurrent with the appeals process. Now, if somehow Trump doesn't manage to get this overturned or delayed in the appeals process THEN we can surely update the article to acknowledge the change. ] (]) 17:12, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
	::I would only support that if we changed all articles mentioning convictions to that standard. Trump should not receive special treatment. ] (]) 20:13, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
	:{{strikethrough\|'''Comment''' I appeared to have accidentally erased a bunch of replies when writing my own, but I am unable to restore them due to the high number of recent edits. Can anyone help me in this regard? I'm terribly sorry for this mistake, and I have no idea what happened. --] <b>(])</b> 22:21, 30 May 2024 (UTC)}}
	:'''Strong Support''' As others have noted, being the first US President convicted of felony crimes could not possibly be more significant and deserves significant placement. ] (]) 22:23, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
	:Last month's RfC that {{u\|Suffusion of Yellow}} notes provides a nice benchmark, though I imagine this one will have much higher interest and participation so I suspect it can only provide initial guidance (what have other editors recently thought without the "Trump" of it all). I tend to agree with what ''I perceive as'' the consensus there, that it comes down to whether being a convicted felon is a central feature of the person's notability. Only time will tell --- until roughly an hour ago it was not a feature of Donald Trump at all, whereas a century from now it may be a primary way that he is remembered ... or not. I think the guidelines on writing an encyclopedia article and ], and on ], suggest that we should err on the side of putting less weight on this than its current volume of coverage might suggest. On the other hand, removing it from the lead entirely sounds like overkill. I think a good solution for the moment is to have a sentence acknowledging his criminal conviction '''in the lead, but not in the first sentence'''. I also, incidentally, think the lead needs quite a lot of work, but that's a separate question from this RfC - ] (]) 22:23, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
	:'''Strong Support''' ] (]) 22:26, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
	*'''Leaning oppose''' - Donald Trump's recent conviction very likely is not as notable as his political career, media career, or business career, or the fact that he was president for four years. Adding "convicted felon" to the lede would shift it, in my view, into non-neutrality. He can still appeal the conviction, can't he? Maybe once he faces actual consequences his conviction will be notable enough to mention in the lede sentence. ] (]'''-''']) 22:27, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
	*:He is a convicted felon. That is a plain statement of fact. How does that introduce bias, when there is no mention of anything other than the conviction? Would you feel it's more appropriate if his unique status as 'the first former President to later be convicted of multiple felonies' is listed instead of merely 'convicted felon'?
	*:And yes, while you can appeal a conviction, it does not expunge the conviction. The record is simply sealed and not visible to the public. Regardless of appeal, Donald Trump will always be the first former President convicted of a felony. Adding "...which was later overturned on appeal." would be accurate and complete, if that update were needed at a later date. ] (]) 04:17, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
	*::Since the beginning of his notability decades in the past until only a few hours ago, he never was a convicted felon. He isn't notable because he's a felon; he is notable because he's Donald Trump. So how notable is the fact that he's a convicted felon? Donald Trump has been known as a businessman (being a billionaire, ], etc.) a media personality (as host of The Apprentice and The Celebrity Apprentice, in addition to numerous books he's had published, including The Art of the Deal), and a politician (having ran for president in two elections, winning the latter and becoming president of one of the world's most powerful countries for four years). I don't see how being convicted in a single case (out of four cases) without even being sentenced is as notable as any of the things I just mentioned. ] (]'''-''']) 09:29, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
	:'''Support''' He is the first American president to be convicted of a felony, that itself is very notable. ] (]) 22:28, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
	*'''Support''' Donald Trump is a convicted felon now, which immediately becomes one of the most notable things about his presidency and post-presidential life. If one opposes this being in the first sentence, we should discuss a broader policy of removing "convicted felon" from pages, which essentially hits every convicted person immediately. There is no exception for being a politician, as ] and ] show us, among many others. ] (]) 22:31, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
	*:The problem isn't whether Trump is a convicted felon; he is. The problem is whether it belongs in the very first sentence, next to his careers in business, media, and politics, which he is definitely more well known for, at least as of 23:30 UTC when I'm writing this. ] (]) 23:30, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
	*'''Support''' This is what he is notable for now and forever. Seriously, we're going to be reading stories about his criminal trials and outcomes for years, just as we have been for years already. This is notability, way more than the relatively fleeting mentions in the careers of other ex-heads of state. We can add up the stories and keep a running total of the usage of the phrase, I guess, but I predict it's going to be a long and long-enduring list. --] (]) 22:37, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
	*:Currently, although politician is by far his most notable position, he is currently more notable as a convicted felon than a media personality or a businessman. ] (]) 01:01, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
	*'''Strong Oppose'''. First sentence? Seriously?{{pb}}'''Adolf Hitler{{efn\|Pronunciation: {{IPA-de\|ˈaːdɔlf ˈhɪtlɐ\|lang\|GT AH AMS.ogg}}}}''' (20 April 1889 – 30 April 1945) was an Austrian-born German politician and genocidal maniac who was the ] of ] from 1933 until ] in 1945.{{pb}}There's plenty of RS support for that, but it doesn't get much less encyclopedic. Eighty years on, those editors are less prone to letting their editorial judgment be driven by emotion. I hate Trump too, but I love Misplaced Pages more. This is in fact an encyclopedia, not a political battleground. ―] ] 01:00, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
	*:Oh, look, ]. ] (]) 22:55, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
	*::Yep. Very astute of you. Beats your "must be known in the introductory sentence" argument below, which isn't actually an argument at all. ―] ] 23:38, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
	*:What point are you trying to make? Are you trying to say that "convicted felon" is just as biased as "genocidal maniac"? ] (]) 16:50, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
	*::The point I am trying to make is that the first sentence of an encyclopedic BLP is not for inflammatory, highly politicized labels and characterizations—regardless of any arguments about historical significance, etc. This is holy ground. ―] ] 20:23, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
	*'''Weak oppose''' - I am not a supporter of Trump. However, the inclusion of 'convicted felon' directly in the lede implies that being a convicted felon is what he's notable for, which is incorrect. Trump is more notable as a politician and media personality, rather than a convicted felon. However, the reason why my opposition is weak is because I would support an inclusion of the conviction lower down in the lede paragraphs, since the charges are obviously relevant to his ongoing legal troubles. Those who support the inclusion should note that Trump can appeal the conviction, and he will not be sentenced until July. ] (]) 22:50, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
	*'''Strong Support''' - I tried to add this, but apparently there was not a consensus. Since he is a convicted felon, it must be known in the introductory sentence. ] (]) 22:51, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
	*'''Strong Support''' - This is a substantial fact that has never before applied to a former US president in the nearly 2 and a half centuries of the nation's existence. ] (]) 22:58, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
	*'''Oppose''' - as this place isn't a Newsroom. Besides, he's appealing the ruling. ] (]) 23:00, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
	*:Even if a conviction is overturned on appeal, the conviction itself is not expunged. The relevant portions of their criminal record are instead sealed.
	*:A conviction is a permanent legal process. The conviction is not expunged from someone's record upon a successful appeal. Rather, the person's record is sealed as it relates to the overturned conviction.
	*:But the conviction remains, from a legal perspective.
	*:Donald Trump will forever be the first US President convicted of a felony after leaving office. It would be appropriate to add something along the lines of "..., which was later successfully overturned on appeal.", if later updates were required.
	*:But it is completely factual and unbiased to state that Trump was convicted of multiple felonies. That is now a permanent component of US history. ] (]) 04:23, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
	*'''Strong Support''' - we always post that someone is a convicted felon in the lead, when it's notable. -- ]] 23:05, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
	*'''Strong Oppose''' This being in the first sentence, echoing KlayCax's ] point, would be unprecedented unless it's a person most notable for a specific crime, and even then you would be more descriptive than simply stating "felon". That info will still remain in the Lead Section where it can be more appropriately elaborated. <b style="background:linear-gradient(90deg,#F20,#F70);text-shadow:#F20 0 0 7px">]⠀]</b> 23:06, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
	:Hi Politicdude - we agree. Was I the wrong comment? ] (]) 23:10, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
	:'''Support''' - Normally, I would lean against it, but since the conviction is directly related to his presidency, a conspiracy to cover up, it should be in the first sentence.] (]) 23:20, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
	:'''Oppose''' - Coming out of Misplaced Pages editing retirement for this. It's enough to have the information in the lede. It doesn't have to be in the first sentence. ] (]) 23:29, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
	::What is your reason for believing it shouldn't be in the lede? Trump's status of the only US President in history to be convicted of multiple felonies is unique to him, something that cannot be said of the other descriptors in the lede. He is already highly notable for that fact, and will be regardless of any other accomplishments. ] (]) 04:27, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
	:::Because it's not what he's widely known for-- yet. ] (]) 16:51, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
	::::It's international news. The entire world knows he's been convicted. I respectfully disagree that he isn't widely known for it. ] (]) 20:17, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
	*'''Support''' - The first sentence of biographical articles includes this information. People pointing out the example of Nicholas Sarkozy are working from a bad angle. Sarkozy is not well known for being a criminal, and with his history of legal troubles and now, conviction, Donald Trump is. Also, why should we exclude world leaders from having this information in the lede? It goes against ].
	: Side note, can we do something about these random IPs and unsigned comments? Non-confirmed Wiki editors are putting in their two cents and it is a bit disorganized. - ] ] 23:17, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
	*:Inexperienced editors are not disallowed from participating in discussions. While their input may not be well-aligned with our values and policies, that is not grounds for removal{{--}}the closer will lessen the weight of these comments appropriately. ] (] '''·''' ] '''·''' ]) 23:26, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
	*:The info box at the top of this section says
	*:"Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: <small>— ] (] • ]) has made ] outside this topic. </small>; suspected canvassed users: <small>— '''Note''': An editor has expressed a concern that ] (] • ]) has been ] to this discussion. </small>; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: <small>— ] (] • ]) is ]. </small> or <!-- Template:Csp --><small>— {{noping2\|username}} is a confirmed ] of {{noping2\|{{{2}}}}}. </small>."
	*:so there seems to be a way to note those accounts/comments that seem to be used to vote in violation to the spirit of the RfC. not sure if this is something every editor should do.
	*:] (]) 23:31, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
	*'''Strong Support''' per {{u\|Kingerikthesecond\|KingErikII}}'s point. ] (]) 23:42, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
	*'''Support''' - His felony conviction will be in the first line of his bio in contrast with his Presidency. ] includes many office holders who list their felon status in the first or second sentence. ], ] and ] are three examples. ] (])
	*'''Oppose''' for BLP reasons, as not one of the things he is primarily known for, and for risks of ]/recency bias, although it should definitely be mentioned lower in the lead. ] (] · ]) 23:40, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
	*'''Strong support''' It is a major, historical event and distinction in American history. ] (]) 23:42, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
	*'''Strong support'''. This isn't covered by BLP; this is a thing that was actually, definitively proven in a court of law, and by not including it in the first sentence like we would for anybody else, we're giving Trump a double standard in fear of criticism. Any other person would have "and convicted felon" in the lead sentence, no question. And more importantly, this conviction is a landmark in the judicial history of the United States, making it even more important. <b>]</b> ] 23:53, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
	*:'''Comment''' "''Any other person would have "and convicted felon" in the lead sentence, no question.''" is absolutely untrue.
	*:"...and convicted felon" or other mention(s) of substantial criminal behavior is not mentioned in the introductory sentence on the articles of several notable people who are convicted/sentenced felons, including ], ], ], ], among several others. Unless the fact that these individuals have been convicted felons is added to the introductory sentence of each article lede of other notable people convicted of a felony, this argument cannot be used as reasoning to propose adding it to this article.
	*:Don't take this the wrong way; I'm positive that we view Donald Trump very similarly, but we shouldn't let that get in the way of WP guidelines on neutrality. ] (]) 00:19, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
	*::And were those people's felony trials landmarks in United States legal history? Didn't think so. Also, that should ''absolutely'' be in R. Kelly's lead, no question.<b>]</b> ] 03:22, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
	*::And were any of the washed up names you mentioned a first former president to be convicted? No.
	*::These are actors he was a president. No comparison. ] (]) 04:49, 31 May 2024 (UTC) <small>— ] (] • ]) has made ] outside this topic. </small>
	*:::Indicating criminal status in the lede shouldn't be limited to politicians; ] and ] in particular are very well-known for their crimes and yet they are not significantly mentioned in the lede. Just to make things clear, I do '''Support''' having Trump's felony conviction mentioned in the lede, even in the introductory sentence after the mention of his presidency. ] (]) 18:11, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
	*'''Lean Oppose / Wait''' per {{u\|Chaotic Enby}} and ] reasoning, at least for now. ] for ] reasons to add it in the first-line introduction (though still should be mentioned in lede for its historical significance), but add if a time comes in the future where Trump's conviction does become an event in which he is significantly known for. ] (]) 23:57, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
	*'''Strong support'''. He needs to be described as a convicted felon. This is not trivial. As someone said above, it is "one of the most notable things about his presidency and post-presidential life". Far more notable than his past career as a media personality, for example. His life has been defined by these criminal investigations for years (which is even more remarkable due to him having been president), the first felon president, etc. etc.--] (]) 00:03, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
	*'''Support'''. Donald Trump is notable for successfully becoming the 45th President of the United States. He committed the in order to secure the Presidency. Therefore, causally, it is appropriate to mentioning his “convicted felon” label since the felony crimes he committed facilitated his achieving notability as President. ]] 00:08, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
	*'''Mild support''' per general practice in similar articles. (Strongly support retaining it somewhere in the lead.) I would favor a more general RfC on whether biographical articles should ever mention convictions in the first sentence that are not integral to the subject's notability. I note that the Blagojevich article has been to remove "convicted felon" in the first sentence, but this remains a very widespread practice even with politicians with much more substantial political careers than Trump's, see e.g. ]. If it's ''ever'' permissible to do this for an article on someone who is not primarily known ''for'' criming, then it should certainly be done for such a historically significant conviction as these 34 -- but I'm not sure it's ever a great idea from an encyclopedic standpoint. -- ] (]) 00:13, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
	*'''Oppose''' Criminal convictions do not become final until appeals have run out and are vacated if the person dies before then: "the state should not label one as guilty until he has exhausted his opportunity to appeal." Also, calling people convicted felons is a violation of neutral tone and places undue weight on an aspect of Trump's life whose signficance has yet to be determined. Furthermore, the obvious bias in the suggested text would make readers question the accuracy and objectivity of the article. ] (]) 00:19, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
	*'''Wait''' — I think that making such a decision during breaking news is a bad idea. This is a large RfC, which may thus carry a lot of weight, so I'm concerned that making such a decision in the heat of the moment will be here for a long time, even though the significance of the event may fade or gain. Good luck. ] (]) 00:26, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
	*'''Oppose''' - not because it's not due for the lead (the criminal conviction is due for the lead), but because it is not due for the first sentence. WP policy is clear that the first sentence of the lead should contain what the person is most notable for. Trump is not notable for being a convicted felon. He is notable because he was president, a successful (even if by deception/lies/fraud) businessman, etc, and a TV personality. His notability is not from him getting a guilty verdict today. That can be revisited at a later date when the "dust has settled" so to speak. To clarify, it is '''not''' non-neutral to call him a convicted felon just because he has the right of appeal - he was convicted, and we don't have to wait for him to exhaust appeals to say such. It's also not a problem of bias or not - if he was notable primarily or only for being a convicted felon, then it would be due to include it in the first sentence. But he isn't. Put it farther down in the lead (as it already has been). Any attempt to put it in the first sentence is putting "we must make sure readers know this" above "what is he actually notable for", and that's not okay - I get that Trump and other politics articles are quite polarized due to their real world implication, but we are an encyclopedia, not a political news beat. (multiple edit conflicts resolved during this) -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (]/]) 00:28, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
	*:The notability is the fact that he's the first US president ever convicted of a single felony, let alone 34 felonies. ] (]) 08:35, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
	*:Going to note for posterity, and for responding to the IP who replied to me, that the supports so far seem entirely based on either ] or ]. Almost none of the supports so far have addressed actual policy arguments made by the oppose !votes and of the ones that have tried to, they've said that in their ''opinion'' the fact that he has been convicted is "more notable" than anything else. I trust that the closer of this discussion will assign appropriate weight to the arguments being made that do not adequately address our policies and guidelines regarding what goes in the first sentence of a lead. Someone's personal opinion over whether this is going to be notable or not should not have any weight in this discussion - a discussion can be had at a later point to assess whether his conviction in a NY state case was a major portion of his notability, but it is clear from the oppose arguments that it is not yet actually a reason for his notability as a person, period. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (]/]) 21:23, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
	*'''Oppose''' I personally fall on the side that what's mentioned in the first sentence of the lede should be the things that individual is primarily known for being (usually professions). People whose notability derives exclusively from having committed a crime are the only ones who deserve "convicted felon" or something similar in their lede, in my opinion. In other words, if you're using ], then having the conviction in the lede probably makes sense.
	:As an editor focused on ], I worry of the precedent this sets for politicians in other countries convicted of alleged crimes. While claims of a "rigged" or "unfair" judiciary, I think, are pretty unwarranted in the U.S., that's not the case in other nations. Should ] have had "convicted criminal" in his lede? ] (]) 00:26, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
	::'''Comment''' I would like to add that I wouldn't be against adding the information prominently early on in the lede, as has been suggested by other users. Something along the lines of: "A member of the Republican Party, he was the first U.S. president to be criminally convicted." (With a bit more polish, obviously). ] (]) 02:11, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
	:'''strong agree. ''' he is the first former-president convicted of a felony. it his most notable feat and accomplishment. no other, past or living, can claim the same feat. of course there are other convicted democrats or republicans. but none have been president--this sets him apart.
	:part of listing descriptives about something to to uniquely identify it. trump is a convicted felon and former president. this sets him apart from all other US presidents. ] (]) 01:38, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
	::and sets him apart from all other felons. none of been president. ] (]) 01:43, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
	:'''Expand''' the header. Use Barak Obama page as a reference. His first sentence mentions him being the US President. His second sentence mentions his unique notoriety as the first African-American President.
	:Same should be done for Donald Trump -- the first sentence is about him being elected as US President, and the second -- him being the first US President convicted of a felony. Both sentences should go above the portrait, just like for Barak Obama. ] (]) 01:38, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
	:*'''Oppose''': ] There are other convicted politicians such as ] but felon is not in the leade. At the very least, it mentions he was convicted of felonies not that "is a felon".
	:] (]) 01:52, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
	::'''Due weight'''. His conviction is of such magnitude that it is absolutely appropriate to put it in the opening sentence, and that holds true regardless of politic point of view. ] (]) 02:32, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
	:::^political point of view, not "politic". ] (]) 02:37, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
	:'''Strong oppose''' This will only blacken the name of Misplaced Pages and further divide the information-space. If reality has a liberal bias, as Colbert says, do you need these semantic games and pot-shots? It is easier for Trump supporters to read a few paragraphs of this borderline hit-piece, dismiss it, and return to their media ecosystem, than to deny the events and scandals of the past eight years which the article could have brought to their consideration, if it had not chased them away with these carefully chosen barbed words, which nameless editors write to swell their chests and win the acclaim of their fellows. You can compare ] with ], ] with ], etc, etc. There is much already said here about Trump's dozens of ongoing cases and shady dealings, we can leave it here erring on the side of caution with regard to BLP policy and possible appeals ] (]) 01:58, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
	:We should probably figure out how to standardize this for politicians with criminal convictions
	:*], ], ], and ] mention it in the first sentence of their lede.
	:*], ], ], and ] mention it in their ledes' first paragraphs, but not the first sentence
	:*], ], and ] mention it at the end of their ledes
	:] (]) 02:51, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
	::One difference is that those politicians were imprisoned. ] (]) 11:50, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
	:'''Comment/Support''' for the convictions being mentioned in a different first paragraph that looks more like Nixon or Obama's than the barebones one we have now ] (]) 03:53, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
	:'''Strong support ''' The fact that there’s a debate about adding this factual information into the first sentence on an encyclopedic page of a former and ONLY president who has been found guilty of 34 felonies by a jury of his peers is gross negligence on behalf of what this site stands for. The edit history alone since the verdict was announced is abominable. The current facts are just that - facts. As of TODAY, he’s a convicted felon. It needs to be added in the first sentence. If “businessman” is there, “convicted felon” sets historical precedent. ] (]) 04:09, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
	:'''Strong support''' for listing "convicted felon" before "media personality". A former (and possibly future) U.S. president having been convinced is highly notable. Comparisons with other convicted politicians are faulty; the trial and conviction of Trump have received widespread coverage and analysis, far beyond what most (if any) other people receive. ] (]) 05:16, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
	:'''Strong Support.''' This is of historical significance. A US President has never been convicted of a felony before. ] (]) 05:18, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
	:'''Strong Support.''' Not only is Donald Trump the only president chraged with a felony offense and then convicted, but listing a felony conviction in the first lines of a wikipedia page is fairly standard for most notable individuals. I fail to see why it should be pushed to another section of his article, regardless of how polorized the conviction is along political lines. ] (]) 05:38, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
	:'''Strong support''' ] ] 06:22, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
	:'''Strong Support''' for listing this as suggested, because it is one of the most notable things on Donald Trump, apart from the status of former president. This is a historic first for a former US president, and thus especially notable. ] (]) 06:56, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
	UTC) <small>— ] (] • ]) has made ] outside this topic. </small>
	*'''Support''' It has now been ruled that Donald Trump obtained the presidency in 2016 by means of a criminal scheme in gross, felonious violation of campaign finance laws. Trump’s illegal presidency, which has now been proven in a court of law beyond a reasonable doubt to a jury of his peers, is the most notable thing about him, and should be presented to the reader in the first sentence of the article. The first sentence should not only say that Trump is a felon, but should explain to the reader that Trump obtained the presidency by means of this criminal scheme. ] (]) 00:35, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
	*::'''Comment ''' This isn't the place to soapbox about politics. This is an encyclopedic website, not X or Facebook. ] (]) 01:15, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
	*:::This is not a soapbox. The point is the article needs to state that Trump was convicted of engaging in a criminal scheme to obtain the presidency. Merely saying he is a convicted felon deprives readers of the needed context. ] (]) 01:51, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
	*::::brother, he didn't "obtain the presidency" by paying a few hundred thousand dollars to his lawyer, to be paid forward to a washed-up 'adult actress'
	*::::did biden top up his campaign fund with 10% for the big guy, or is this not notable ? ] (]) 02:01, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
	*:::::Cope harder. Trump was convicted of engaging in an illegal conspiracy in violation of campaign finance laws to obtain the presidency. The first sentence of the article should reflect that. It should not simply say that Trump is a felon and a criminal; it should state that Trump became president by way of these crimes. ] (]) 11:41, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
	*'''Strong support'''. His later sentencing has nothing to do with this. His conviction is a fake and extremely notable, not only for him but for the nation. ] applies, so we should state it clearly. -- ] (]) (''''']''''') 00:40, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
	*'''Support'''- Per above. ] (]) 00:52, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
	*'''Support''': The label is both accurate and notable. This should—and will—be remembered. I also feel that it has a strong connection to the occupations listed in the opening sentence. ] (]) 01:06, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
	:'''Strong oppose''' this standard is not applied evenly to convicted felons of the Democratic party. Please reference Chakah Fattah, Corrine Brown, Anthony Weiner. An unevenly applied standard here implies bias, and diminishes the credibility of the site. <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 01:11, 31 May 2024 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Xsign -->
	::Please read ]. There are other, actually valid reasons to oppose inclusion of "felon" in the first sentence. ] (<small><sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub></small>) 04:40, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
	:::] is about the creation and deletion of articles on a given subject. That's not what is at issue here, this is a style discussion. It is appropriate to discuss the consensus on similar style discussions from other articles and communities in the project.
	:::] (]) 13:26, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
	::Cute but none of the names you mention were former presidents. This isn’t a tit for tat on dems and repubs. It’s a FACT and he is a 34x CONVICTED FORMER PRESIDENT. It must be in the first sentence. ] (]) 04:55, 31 May 2024 (UTC) <small>— ] (] • ]) has made ] outside this topic. </small>
	*'''Oppose''' I am always opposed to the use of "convicted felon" in the first sentence for people who are not exclusively known as criminals. I think it is lazy writing. ] (]) 01:12, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
	*'''Oppose''' - {{sbb}} Mention the conviction in some way in the first ''paragraph''? Sure. First ''sentence''? No. There is no conceivable way that something which ''happened today'' would have so much ]. — <samp>] <sup style="font-size:80%;">]</sup></samp> \\ 01:13, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
	*'''Strong oppose.''' WP:BLP applies here and so does the current ] The opening sentence of the lead should refer exclusively to what a person is most known for. Trump being a convicted felon should absolutely be mentioned in the lead but not the first sentence. On a side note, I have to add my voice to the others praising @]'s proposed solution. It's the most logical solution. ] (]) 01:25, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
	*:'''Comment''' - And as per that same consensus, the article ] still includes direct note to them being a convicted felon in the first sentence. While I agree that it should be what he is most notable for, is Trump not going to be notable for being the first President of the United States to have been found guilty of a crime? Especially noting that that crime is several felonies. It should absolutely read as such in the first sentence, even citing ]. ] (]) 01:55, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
	* '''Strong Support''' I’m sorry but NOT including it would be simply asinine. First former president convicted ever, and yes this is big part of what he’s now known for, sources calling him that etc. etc. etc. Hard to take arguments against this seriously tbh.<small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 01:38, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
	*'''Weak Oppose''' - From what I've seen on biography pages across Misplaced Pages, the standard isn't consistent for any sort of page in regard to convicted crimes in paragraphs. It's subjective if he is most known for everything before his conviction or being convicted as a former president. I wouldn't think it'd be appropriate to make it very prominent as the first sentence, but I would believe it would be appropriate on the first paragraph, per above. ] (]) 01:39, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
	* '''Support''' for the "convicted felon" statement in the initial sentence, but '''strong oppose''' for any mention of "pending appeals" in the lede for reasons I've just mentioned elsewhere, but that I'll add here as well: "Pending appeal" suggestions that have been mentioned would show obvious bias, imho. In my time here, I've never seen "pending appeal" put in the lede when someone is a convicted felon; it seems to be a novel suggestion primarily used in the case of Donald Trump. In legalistic terms, someone is convicted until an appeal/review/pardon/etc. overturns that original conviction, so unless we really want to go through each notable felon's case and find out whether they've exhausted all their appeals, we shouldn't use it. ] (]) 01:43, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
	* '''Strong Support''' for convicted felon being in the first sentence. As mentioned by other users, any other person who was convicted of felonies would have it read that they are a convicted felon in their first sentence, especially when summarising his different occupations. Not including this would be ridiculous whenever considering further issues about it. This also is a major thing, he is the first President of the United States to be convicted of a crime, and a felony at that, and it should read it in the first sentence. ] (]) 01:51, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
	* '''Oppose''', but I support an earlier mention with the full context. Trump's status as the first president convicted of crimes is important, by which I mean that sources place a lot of weight on that status, thus the conviction itself is worth mentioning. In many cases, "convicted felon" is a waste of space, since the conviction is far less notable than the crime that led to the conviction, but that doesn't apply to Trump. Here, the crimes are also important, and we would serve our readers better by mentioning both, as sources also do. He was convicted of falsifying business records in furtherance of his presidential election campaign. In that context, just "convicted felon" isn't enough, and a prominent mention of the crimes themselves is due. The current line in the last paragraph is good, but it needs to mention the context of the criminal conduct. I'd support moving the line as early as the first paragraph, just not the first sentence. {{pb}}RfCs like this are destined to be tough, and I wish the eventual closer(s) all the best in evaluating consensus. I hope they'll do their diligence in disregarding comments with no basis in—or some direct conflict with—policies and guidelines. As an example, I'm not sure what we're supposed to glean from "per above" comments in this already overcrowded mess, but it can't be seen as a quality argument. ] (] / ]) 01:56, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
	*:This is very well stated and I agree with this as an expression of the less-well-worded comment I made above. An earlier mention than the last paragraph, sure. First sentence, no. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (]/]) 02:03, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
	*:I completely agree with this position. The fact that he is the first US president to be convicted of crimes is significant, but I don't think it fits in the first sentence. I think the most reasonable way to include it would be as a second sentence in the lede. ] (]) 07:19, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
	*'''Support'''. This is the first former USA president convicted of felony ''and'' this is the first presidential nominee from major party convicted of felony. "First" means <u>the first in the entire USA history, not just in modern USA politics.</u> He will be remembered for that and especially if he will be elected President again, regardless to the conviction, which is likely. Expanding this info to provide more context (as suggested by some people above) is fine. ] (]) 02:20, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
	* '''Oppose''' for many of the previous arguments, per ], ] and ], and also I feel as if people are misunderstanding the purpose of this discussion. Yes, Trump being a convicted felon is an objective fact, but nobody is arguing for that fact's omission from the article. It being a fact is irrelevant when it comes to the very first sentence, which should focus on the most important details about an individual's life. Does Trump's conviction meet that criteria? We don't even know if he will get prison time yet. Otherwise, if we used this "objective fact" justification, then why is this not the case for the articles for ] or ], for instance? I'm not really sure him being the first convicted US president weighs in favour of being in the first sentence either. Trump is a first in many cases: he's the first US president to have no prior elected office or military experience; he's the first US president to be impeached twice; etc. None of this is mentioned in the first sentence either. It should be mentioned in the lead section, absolutely, but the very first sentence? No. ] (]) 02:43, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
	*:'''Comment''' – Because unlike Mick Jagger or Lindsay Lohan, IP editor, their felony convictions were not landmarks in the judicial history of the United States. <b>]</b> ] 03:21, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
	*::You missed my point. I mentioned them because it makes the "objective fact" justification weak. Neither of their convictions are significant to their overall biographies, that's just common sense. For Trump, it's debatable whether this meets the criteria and is a case of ]. ] (]) 03:29, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
	*:::While I understand what you mean that it's not technically possible to predict future notability, 1) ] does not cover this whatsoever despite the fact that it keeps being referenced within this RfC (he is objectively a convicted felon, and whether that will remain notable into the future is not covered by CRYSTALBALL nor, in my opinion, is it in the spirit of it), and 2) it's completely obvious to me and I think anyone else observing that Trump has guaranteed that his legacy is now and will continue to be far more tied up in his litigation and his criminal dealings than his presence as a media figure – something which we do include in the lead sentence. <b>]</b> ] 03:59, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
	*::This article is not about the "judicial history of the United States", it is about Donald Trump. Everyone has many firsts in their lifetimes - virtually none of those firsts are notable at all, and of those that are notable, virtually none are the ''sole'' or ''primary'' reason for the topic's notability. He is not solely or primarily notable for that, and thus it doesn't get in the first sentence. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (]/]) 04:22, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
	*:He's also the first U.S. president not descended from slave-owners, but that's not in the lead. ] (]) 11:53, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
	*::It’s not like he was convicted of a parking violation. You can’t mention that he was president without also stating in the same sentence that he was convicted of criminal acts in order to obtain the presidency. He became president purely via his crimes. Please familiarize yourself with the sources before commenting ] (]) 12:05, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
	*'''Support''' per above. Just to add to the list of politicians with "convicted felon" or a mention of their criminal convictions in the first sentence: ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ]. Also, perhaps more comparable to this case are ] and ], notable and very prominent in their respective fields before their criminal convictions but nonetheless both have convicted criminal in their lead sentence. Trump's conviction is historic; as others have noted, the fact that he is the first president to be convicted will still be widely known decades from now. ] (]) 03:05, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
	*'''Support''' His status as a convicted felon is at least as important as his being a "businessman." Keep both or lose both. ] (])
	*'''Weak support''' if "businessman" and "media personality" are kept in the lead sentence. I would however prefer if the first sentence was more akin to e.g. ] and only mentioned the presidency, which is singularly important to the biography of anyone who's served in that role. Other descriptors including "convicted felon" should be in a new second sentence. —]]] 03:03, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
	*:I disagree with your assertion that serving as president is "singularly important" for any occupant of that office.
	*:{{Ping\|Siroxo}} For instance, George Washington's work as a general is perhaps far more important to the history of America than his presidency (would there be an America without his leadership in the Revolutionary War?). Same with Ulysses S. Grant (winning the Civil War is more important than his presidency). Same with Eisenhower's time as general (helping win World War II for the allied powers is more consequential to world history than his presidency). And most certainly, William Henry Harrison's tenure as a military officer is of greater consequence than his month as president. John Quincy Adams' tenure as secretary of state is probably just as (if not more) consequential than his term as president. And Ulysses S. Grant's nine years as chief justice of the U.S. Supreme Court is pretty darn notable alongside his single term as president.
	*:Trump's time as a businessman/media personality is a defining characteristic of how he was known for decades to the public. Just like key to Reagan's biography is that he was for decades known for being an actor. ] (]) 03:33, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
	*'''Support''' Like others said, keep his other titles. His "convicted felon" title would be accurate since he was convicted of a felony. This change would simply reflect the facts. ] (]) 03:10, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
	*'''Strong Support''' The label is both accurate and something worth mentioning. This will be always be remembered as he is first president to be convicted. ]<sup>]</sup> 03:21, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
	*:His conviction will indeed be prominently mentioned in the lead. Just not in the first sentence. He is the first and only US president to be impeached twice by the House of Representatives and will be remembered as such, but "twice-impeached" does not appear in the first sentence either. ] (<small><sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub></small>) 04:35, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
	*'''No''' per my comments in this ], along with {{u\|Masem}} and {{u\|Zaereth}}. ] (]) 03:22, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
	*'''Yes''' a former president of the United States being convicted of 34 felonies is a major and notable historical event and part of Trump's biography. ] (]) 03:33, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
	*'''Strong oppose''' - It belongs in the lede, but not the opening sentence. That would be a ] issue, and it would also contradict consensus developed in similar cases. Other editors have already pointed out ] and ]. I'd also like to point out about ], which resulted in "convicted felon" being removed from the opening sentence. I know everyone is excited about the conviction, but let's remember ]. Let's allow time to pass, and, if being a convicted felon turns out to be one of the central reasons for his notability (as determined by the ] of RS), then we can revisit this question at a later date. ] (]) 03:39, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
	*:<small> You may want to fix that piped link ] (<small><sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub></small>) 04:32, 31 May 2024 (UTC) </small>
	* '''Oppose''' per the IP. "Convicted felon" or simply "felon" should only be considered to be in the first sentence of a biographical article when the individual is ''primarily'' known for their felony conviction or criminal activity and when the ] is reflective of that, and even under these parameters, I think caution should be taken with adding such a descriptor, and in the case of Trump, neither of these parameters are present anyway. Trump is primarily known for this political activity and to a lesser degree his media and business career, not his felony convictions. Furthermore, adding "convicted felon" is almost certainly ]. Now, of course, his felony convictions should be mentioned in the lead section, as it is now. ]<sup>]</sup> 03:50, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
	*'''Oppose''' to avoid recency bias and undue weight. ] was the first US president to be arrested, but that doesn't even appear in his article. So even if Trump is the first to be convicted of felonies, putting it in the very first sentence of the article is excessive. Let it be in the last sentence of the first paragraph. ] (<small><sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub></small>) 04:28, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
	*:I'll also add that "convicted felon" is empty and meaningless all by itself. Many people are convicted of many things. Any mention of the felony should also include a short description of ''what he was convicted of''. Like it or not, one man's criminal is another man's freedom fighter, which is why a conviction of a crime does not by itself mean anything. And because such a description will fall afoul of ] if placed in the very first sentence, it should be mentioned later in the lead - probably alongside his two impeachments by the US House, which is also a first. ] (<small><sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub></small>) 04:51, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
	*:In the case of ] there is both an entire other article concerning his arrests (]), as well as disputed historicity of them. Furthermore, Donald Trump is the first U.S. president to be arrested after or during their presidency as well as the first president to be convicted of a crime after or during their presidency. This kind of significant landmark is not as minor as a president who was arrested for speeding years before ever holding political power, this is an active candidate and former President of the United States being convicted for a crime. In another article from a non-US President who was convicted and it mentions in the first sentence there is the South Korean president ], of which it directly mentions her corruption charge in the first sentence. Also I would like to specifically cite that your mention of "one man's criminal is another man's freedom fighter, which is why a conviction of a crime does not by itself mean anything" is not encyclopaedic, since it is kind of like stating that "one man's conspiracy is another man's truth so Misplaced Pages shouldn't focus on conspiracies." Just because something is controversial does not mean that it is not important, see ]. ] (]) 05:07, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
	*'''Support''' per ], ], ], ], and I'm sure others who have similar language in their ledes. <b>]</b> <small>(] • ])</small> 04:39, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
	* {{ec}} '''Oppose'''. Undue; being a convicted felon does not significantly contribute to Trump's notability. ] (]) 04:40, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
	*:I highly disagree with this notion, since his conviction in this is a landmark in not just United States history, but in judicial history within the United States. As cited in many other issues it's very common to include convicted felon within the first section on an article, and in this instance it is not just a minor note, but it is a landmark major decision in all of United States history. ] (]) 04:59, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
	*:As the ONLY former president to be convicted of thirty four felonies, it sure does. First sentence necessary. ] (]) 04:59, 31 May 2024 (UTC) <small>— ] (] • ]) has made ] outside this topic. </small>
	*'''Oppose''' Does not belong in the lede sentence but clearly belongs in the lede in discussing his current legal situation. Remember that this is not the most significant charges against him. We are not required to stuff the lede sentence with everything a person is notable for (which for Trump is a huge list at this point), and position his conviction which just happened today over anything else is undue weight from a temporal standpoint. Over time that might change, particularly if these other charges drop more convictions. --] (]) 04:45, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
	*'''Support'''. A lot of the oppose logic being used here is very US-centric. He might be notable as a media personality and businessman in the US, but around the world he is far more notable as a convicted felon. So unless all but politician/former president is being removed, convicted felon must be added. <]<small> (])</small> 04:56, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
	*:"US-centric" I would argue the same is true of much of the support arguments. Nicolas Sarkozy is the first French president to be convicted, that does not warrant it being mentioned in the first sentence however. ] (]) 10:29, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
	*:Where in the world is Trump more notable as a convicted felon? That’s quite a claim, to put it lightly. ] (]) 12:00, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
	*'''Oppose'''. He's not mostly notable as a felon, and many similar examples (e.g. ], who similarly was known as a television personality and actually served time) do not use this framing. If we use it here, please update her article as well. ] (]) 05:11, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
	*'''Support'''. Either in first sentence or second sentence (and certainly the first paragraph). First president, current or former, to ever be (criminally) convicted is pretty notable. I like how someone above compared to how Obama's article mentions that he's the first African American president. ] (]) 05:27, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
	*:Difference is Obama was the first African American president from the moment if his inauguration. Trump isn't even a sitting president anymore. One is a race, the other is circumstantial. It's silly to compare the two in such a manner. ] (]) 10:08, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
	* '''Strong Support''' - I was fairly neutral on it but reading through much of this discussion many opposing point out that it should be in the lede, but not the first sentence, ignoring that the lede as it stands is only one sentence long. It makes much more sense to add it to the opening sentence instead of adding a second there, so support. ] (]) 05:32, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
	* '''Strong Support With A Condition''' I endorse the inclusion of the descriptor in the lead; however, it is prudent to delay its addition until after his sentencing, as he is not technically a felon until that point. Trump and his enterprises are significant for their involvement in criminal activities and can be characterized as criminal enterprises. Acknowledging this reality aligns with a straightforward and accurate portrayal of the situation. adding such to the lead is par for the course here on Misplaced Pages when such notable people are convicted on such notable crimes. ] (]) 05:51, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
	*'''Weak oppose''' in first sentence. "It's notable because he's the first, so let's include it in a way that doesn't even mention he's the first" is nonsensical. But I'd support including it in the first paragraph (''not'' "convicted felon", but "He is the first American president to be convicted of a felony", so the important point is made explicitly and not implicitly). edit: also endorse everything Firefangledfeathers said ] (]) 06:21, 31 May 2024 (UTC) <ins><small>edited 18:26, 31 May 2024 (UTC)</small></ins>
	*'''Strongly oppose''' Adding "Convicted felony" in the first sentence would be considered ] and unfair. That's not good for Misplaced Pages. ] (]) 06:33, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
	*:Regardless on one's opinion on whether or not this inclusion meets the notability threshold, it is wildly ridiculous to assert that mention of a widely-publicized criminal conviction in this context constitutes libel when it is also thoroughly covered in other places on Misplaced Pages. <templatestyles src="Template:Color/styles.css" /><span class="tmp-color" style="color:#006400">''']''' <sub>''(he/him)''</sub></span> (]) 07:14, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
	*:It in no way is libellous to state that a person who has been convicted on several felony counts is a convicted felon. I don't see how this is "not good for Misplaced Pages" and "libelous " to state that a convicted felon is a convicted felon. ] (]) 09:19, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
	*'''Strongest possible oppose'''. No one's article should ever say "convicted felon" in the first sentence. No one is notable for committing a felony, they are notable for having committed a specific crime. If it's not why they're notable it shouldn't be in the lead. Sure, it's a first, but there are 1000 technical firsts for every president and we don't put them in the lead. ] (]) 06:42, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
	*:As stated by {{ping\|GSK}}, the articles of ], ], ], and ] all state that they are convicted felons in the first line or state their crime in the lead. Furthermore, while none of those officials are the first ever representatives or respective other political offices' first officeholders to be convicted of a crime, Donald Trump is the first ever President of the United States to be convicted of a felony or other crime after or during office. ] (]) 09:22, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
	*::Agreed. The conviction itself is notable, not just the fact that Trump has committed crimes. ] (]) 10:07, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
	*'''Strong support'''. Donald Trump has been convicted of 34 felony counts and he is notorious for being the first American president which this has happened to. There is an abundance of ] reflecting this and it is end result of high profile trial which recieved pleny of world-wide attention. It would therefore be ] to cover this in the lede, with a preference for it being in the first sentence given how historic this is. <s>To not cover it would be censorship, which we should avoird per ].</s> '']''<sup>]</sup> 07:50, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
	*:This is a discussion about the first sentence of the lead. Citing ] doesn't make sense in the context of this RFC. ] (]) 17:54, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
	*'''Strong oppose''' as it's disproportionate ] and a case of ]. It's not the primary thing he's known for (not even close, in fact), so doesn't have a place in the literal first sentence. There's no doubt it should be mentioned elsewhere in the lead, however. — ''']''' <sup>''(])''</sup> 08:16, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
	*'''Strongest possible oppose'''. A recent ''(MOS??)'' discussion covered this very point, I agreed there with those that argued that {{tq\| No one's article should ever say "convicted felon" in the first sentence …they are notable for having committed a specific crime}}, as PARAKANYAA says above ''(unless of course they are 'career criminals whose crimes are too numerous to specify)''. Describing someone as a 'felon' ''(or 'sex offender' or other generic terms)'' is very uninformative, you might as well say 'bad person', if you don't record the crime they have been convicted for. If the verdict is worth mentioning, then the crime is worth specifying. I also agree with editors who argue here that in this instance{{tq\| the criminal conviction is due for the lead, but … it is not due for the first sentence … Trump is not notable for being a convicted felon.}}. Second para at the earliest, covering the nature of the charges, including any ''first ex-President to have been convicted'' claims.] (]) 09:38, 31 May 2024 (UTC) … ''addendum'' btw, as someone else points out, much of the world ''(inc the UK)'' has no idea what a 'felon' is, apart from knowing that it is somehow vaguely connected to crime. The felony/misdemeanour distinction and the terminology are US-centric and possibly even US-specific. The whole world can understand specified charges covering specified crimes, but editors favouring 'felon' are not seeking to impart info to a global readership, simply to attach a label the import of which will only ever be understood by a 'local' audience.] (]) 15:48, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
	* It's been twelve hours. Why hasn't this RfC been closed in favor of the request? There is a very clear course of action that needs to be taken. By delaying, a message is being sent here that incontrovertible facts do not matter. Every minute of inactivity screams that disingenuous fauxtests of "undue weight" and "non-neutrality" matter much more than being an actual encyclopedia. Admins, stop treating this like a plebiscite and do the right thing already.] (]) 09:24, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
	*:Chill. RfCs can take time, especially on extremely prominent and contentious articles such as this one. ]. — ''']''' <sup>''(])''</sup> 09:34, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
	*::Yes, no rush here. '']''<sup>]</sup> 09:38, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
	*::Donald John Trump is the first American President in history to be convicted of a felony. What 👏 is 👏 the 👏 controversy 👏 here? ] (]) 09:40, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
	*:::The debate isn't ''whether'' it should be mentioned, but ''where''. This is one of the most significant articles on the site, and the very first line of it is the most prominent. ] on this article, and this shouldn't be an exception. There's no rush. — ''']''' <sup>''(])''</sup> 09:49, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
	*::::And how is his conviction not a '''titanic''' milestone? How could anyone but a partisan hack want to bury this lede? ] (]) 09:53, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
	*:::::This RfC is not to decide if the conviction is noteworthy or important, but instead its descriptive utility in the first sentence of a biography on Donald Trump.
	*:::::I understand that a lot of people have a passionate reaction this recent news, but throwing names only adds more fire and noise to these sprawling discussions. ] <b style="background:#63506a">⠀]⠀]⠀</b> 12:18, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
	*::::Delaying acknowledgment of lede-worthy notability is denying notability here. It is, as other editors have noted, asinine. The thumb-twiddling is honestly embarrassing. ] (]) 10:02, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
	*:::::Again, ]. We don't close this quickly on something so monumental unless it's a case of ], which it isn't. — ''']''' <sup>''(])''</sup> 10:13, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
	*'''oppose''' This (no matter how many charges) in truth one conviction. Whilst he may have committed other felonies, this is his only conviction for them. So I am unsure if this really counts as a defining characteristic, at least according to our polices, and the law. ] (]) 09:32, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
	*:The fact that he's been convicted at all is historic. '']''<sup>]</sup> 09:35, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
	*::Maybe, so we could say something like "the first former president to be convicted of felonies" (though they may yet be overturned on appeal), but it is still not a defining characteristic of his whole life (for a start, he is still alive). This is not over till the highest court in the land says it is. ] (]) 09:42, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
	*:::I don't see why we couldn't say something along the lines of "the first former president to be convicted of felonies". It still conveys that he's a convicted felon and adds material for why that fact is of note. '']''<sup>]</sup> 09:49, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
	*:Donald Trump is the first ever President of the United States to be convicted of a crime, as well despite there being only one conviction, as said by {{ping\|GSK}}, the articles of ], ], ], and ] all also state they are convicted of a crime, and they were also not the first in their office to be convicted. ] (]) 09:44, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
	*::I have stated my reason, give me the courtesy of not trying to change my mind with ] arguments, two wrongs do not make a right. This RFFC is too long to try and hunt down replies. ] (]) 10:00, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
	*:::I'm not using ] here, I'm citing other related United States political figures in which it mentions their felon status in the lead. I'm not trying some "two wrongs make a right" situation here, I am citing other articles which use the same formatting as is proposed on this article. ] (]) 10:03, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
	*'''Oppose''' per ]. I could give policy/guideline etc arguments, but others have already done this extensively. Therefore, I will give a more teleological comment. In my opinion, there should be no hurry to attach the label of "convicted felon" in the lede of any article, until the appeal process is finished. Simply because of a combination of recency, neutrality, and the spirit of biography of living people. But in this particular case: it will cause more material damage to the public opinion of the encyclopedia's reliability, if this gets overturned. This is something that was built through much effort. And for what? Nothing. No information is lost from excluding- at this time contentious, even though objectively true (something noone is denying) statement that Trump is a convicted felon- from the first sentence of the lede. I regret that I have to make a comment like this, instead of having some other discussion on whether the label "convicted felon" should be included in the ledes of BLPs until the appeal process is exhausted. However, Misplaced Pages is not completely isolated from the external world. We should try to not bite off more than we can chew. At the end of the day, ]. ] (]) 09:40, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
	*:I do want to reply to all elements of this so I just want to specifically comment on this fully that:
	*:#While I do know and understand that it may be seen as damaging to the reliability, but as you stated it is objectively true currently. Furthermore while I understand where you are coming from in regards to the appeals process, Trump has both not yet officially filed an appeal (though this most likely will change) and Misplaced Pages will have made sure to host the most correct data at the times it was written.
	*:#I will state that while I do understand the comment that "something no one is denying" in regards to the objectively true nature of the addition, I would both caution it as a slippery slope to then intentionally not include objectively true information due to controversy around it (]), and I would state that while you most assuredly have not stated it to be false, I have seen at least one user in this RfC attempt to claim that it would be libellous to state that he was convicted.
	*:#I think that, as per previous articles (see ], ], ], and ] as commented earlier by {{ping\|GSK}}) it should be put in the lead that he has been convicted. As stated by {{ping\|TarnishedPath}}, the fact that Donald Trump has been convicted at all is most assuredly historic, and I think that such a piece should be especially stated in the lead.
	*:Overall, while I understand your critique on this, I do not think that it has the sound finally on this, since I think that the ] doesn't apply here, noting that this is not a case in which it degrades the article, and it includes factual information within the article. ] (]) 09:51, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
	*::Trump has not yet officially filed an appeal, that's correct, and it's also true that he most likely will make an appeal, as you said. Misplaced Pages is not 24/7 live reporting, so there's no pressure to immediately make a change in this regard one way or the other.
	*::It is not a slippery slope, because no information is being excluded. What's being discussed is a certain characterisation of information, and specifically in the first sentence of the lead. This information is already covered in the 6th paragraph of the lead.
	*::Sure, but the fact that he has been convicted is already in the lead.
	*::IAR applies because it will cause material damage to the public opinion of the encyclopedia's reliability, if this gets overturned in the near future- for no good reason. It does not help maintain or improve Misplaced Pages. This is a mentality of having to add a keyword to the lead the moment it can be verifiably added, which is not always wise. ] (]) 10:05, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
	*:::I entirely disagree with your notion that presenting correct information at any present time would damage the credibility of Misplaced Pages. Also the direct and easily accessible information is being not included. It's trying to avoid controversy by trying to then avoid stating any fact in the beginning. Also I agree that it is not immediately pressured, but I also think that as it is true at the moment it should be included. It would be one thing if this was an obscure politician, but it is another thing that this is presently being looked at by millions, thus giving it a level of higher gravitas on what information goes where. Also in my citations on the four articles, I am stating that all four use that the individual was convicted of a crime in the lead sentence, not just in the lead. ] (]) 13:19, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
	*'''Support''' mention in '''lede''', but not in first sentence. Lede should mention conviction, not necessarily say use 'convicted felon' as a descriptor. ] (]) 10:00, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
	*'''Support''', I see a lot of insisting that being a felon is, or will not be the primary thing Trump is known for. I don’t think this is true.
	*'''Oppose''', at this time. Trump being the first American president to be a convicted felon is not yet his primary cause of notoriety, and doesn't belong in the first sentence but elsewhere in the lede. Putting it in the first sentence may be appropriate at a later date, but not now. It does not yet seem like a neutral frame. (And I dislike Trump as much as anybody.) Eivind Eklund, 10:29, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

			== Unjustified removal of Operation Warp Speed? ==
	Trump is the first former president to be charged with a felony (and this is only the first of the many indictments he is facing) and he will be the first felon to be a major party’s presidential nominee this election year. This is undoubtedly one of the most significant events in American politics, and if we want to follow the 10yearrule, we ought to include it in the first sentence. ] (]) 09:59, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
	*'''Support'''. Donald Trump is now convicted felon. It is unprecedented for USA history, however, many other democratic countries already have that in they history. To not put words "convicted felon" in first sentence is, in my opinion, open attempt of hiding this important information from public view. A huge portion of people in USA are not following news and not interested in politics. They might not know this important information which might change they opinion about how they will vote. So, basically, hiding words "convicted felon" down the article is bold and open attempt to hide the truth and change the outcome of future elections in USA. People should know truth. Truth is very important. ] (]) 10:54, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
	*:This comment does not ]. I doubt anyone opposing is doing so to suppress the truth (no one is proposing it isn't mentioned in the lead at all); the arguments are mostly about ]. — ''']''' <sup>''(])''</sup> 11:00, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
	*::I'm sorry but after russian wikipedia from 2006 up to 2022 have admin that was agent of russian military intelligence and run Sock puppet account it is common for many people NOT assume good faith. Until 2022 russian wikipedia was run as loudspeaker of Kremlin propaganda. Now banned admins was filling it with lies and propaganda as well as doxing users (for which some admin were later receive global ban). So in this very important topic, after i learn what debacle and charade was not just users, but admins in ru-wikipedia, i think i have the right to not automatically assume good faith on very important topics like this. ] (]) 12:30, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

			{{u\|Space4Time3Continuum2x}} decided to mention of Operation Warp Speed from the page and said that the "last discussion" was "inconclusive". I'm a little confused here, given the ] they cited includes a number of editors agreeing that inclusion of OWS was warranted, but not much discussion about it at all.

			The discussion also seems irrelevant given multiple reliable sources are saying OWS was a trump accomplishment. If it's in an RS and ], I don't think it's sound to wipe stuff because of some vague mentions on an archived talk page?
	Some poor sod will, have to close this, that means reading this, can we just make our arguments, and not try to argue with anyone else's, as a courtesy to the closer? ] (]) 10:43, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
	* '''Comment''': "convicted felon" does not seem the appropriate phrase. Other articles where people have been found guilty of crime have had what crime they have been convicted of: i.e. ]'s lead says that he is "an American former film producer and convicted sex offender". If it is to be included it should reflect the crime he is convicted of rather than "convicted felon" which does not particularise any crime. ] (]) 11:41, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

			E.g. according to Vox: : {{tq\|"One of the biggest accomplishments of the Trump administration — and yes, there were accomplishments — was Operation Warp Speed, the public-private effort to rapidly develop Covid vaccines"}}
	'''Support''' Not only is the subject a felon, but he is the first US president to be convicted of a crime, and a first convicted felon to be a nominee of a major party. It is not ] to mention such a historic and unprecedented fact. Actually, in my estimation, not mentioning it would be close to lying by omission, especially since many readers often simply skim read first few sentances of the lede. ] 11:44, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
	:{{tq\| not mentioning it would be close to lying by omission, especially since many readers often simply skim read first few sentances of the lede}} It's not lying by omission as no one's arguing it shouldn't be in the lead ''at all'', just not in the lead sentence. I also don't think we can account nor compensate for the reading habits of visitors. — ''']''' <sup>''(])''</sup> 11:55, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
	::We can easily compensate for the reading habits of visitors by adding crucially important information in first sentence - just like was done with articles about convicted felons ] or ]. ] (]) 12:42, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
	*'''Oppose'''. ] says we should cover "The main reason the person is notable", which we do - he was notable as a businessman and media personality for several years, he is now notable as a politician who was once the president and is trying to be the president again. "Convicted felon", as funny as it would be to have in the opening sentence, is not something he is notable for. Other politicians with "convicted felon" that've been mentioned above had nowhere near the high profile of Trump and often became much more notable ''because'' of their convictions. With Trump? This isn't the case. It's not that we're censoring it or whatever, as we deal with his litany of legal troubles in two of the five paragraphs of the lede. ''']''' <sup>(] - ])</sup> 12:07, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
	*:I agree that most of his notability is derived from his becoming a US President. However, he was of falsifying New York business records '''in order to achieve said notability'''. Specifically, from the ''People of New York vs. Donald Trump'' indictment: “”. In other words, Trump became a felon in order to become President. I would be hard-pressed to find a reputable source that denies the conviction and its link to Trumpʼs 2016 presidential campaign. If a bank robber donated their ill-gotten gains in order to gain notoriety as a philanthropist, it would be dishonest to highlight their philanthropy before what made them wealthy in the first place. ]] 04:46, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
	*'''Support''', though I would back a wait if necessary. ] does say that we should be covering the main reason why the subject of an article is notable, but I think that Ser!'s arguments can actually support the case. The 34 felony convictions are now one of the main reasons why Mr. Trump is notable. Alternatively, I would support the inclusion of his felony conviction in a separate sentence in the first paragraph, if consensus seems to support its inclusion early in the lead but not specifically in the first sentence. Given that Mr. Trump is probably one of the most complex figures to ever come into fame, it is difficult to write a single sentence which covers everything he is known for in Misplaced Pages's preferred style, but given the weight of the charges, and how extensively world media covered it (per WP:DUE), this is a piece of information which deserves to be elevated to one of the primary points about Mr. Trump. <b><span style="color:#0080FB">Invading</span><span style="color:#0668E1">Invader</span></b> (], ]) 12:23, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
	**I'm usually wary of responding to other's comments on RfCs for fear of ], but as my name's been mentioned, I just want to pitch in that I disagree on this one. The felony convictions are notable, not a shadow of a doubt, but I don't think they are a reason Trump himself <i>is</i> notable. He was already probably the most notable person on the planet, so the felony thing is just another brick in (if you'll excuse the inapt metaphor) the wall. For me it all circles back to "what he's done is notable, but hasn't made him notable", hence my disagreement on the lede. I fully agree with your proposed alternative of including it in a sentence in the first paragraph, because undoubtedly being the first president to be convicted is a very notable thing - just not as a defining role of what makes him notable in the lede.<span id="Ser!:1717158761547:TalkFTTCLNDonald_Trump" class="FTTCmt"> — ''']''' <sup>(] - ])</sup> 12:32, 31 May 2024 (UTC)</span>
	:'''Support''' Simply because being a former president who is also a convicted felon is extremely noteworthy. ] (]) 13:18, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
	comment many seem to be missing the point that Trump became president by means of this criminal scheme. This is not some unrelated matter to his presidency. This is how he became president. Hence in mentioning his presidency, we ought to say that he became president as a result of these crimes he was later convicted for. ] (]) 13:21, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
	*'''Soft Support''' for inclusion in first sentence. I believe his felon status is relevant enough to be included in the first sentence, however I acknowledge that could just be recency bias at play. '''Strong Support''' for inclusion in the lede, for what should be obvious reasons. ] (]) 13:34, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
	*'''Oppose'''. The fact that he is the first US president to get convicted of a crime deserves its own sentence in the introduction. ] (]) 13:51, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
	*'''Oppose''' - I would like to take this opportunity to criticise the concept of criminality being included in the introduction of a particular person, regardless of who it is about. I do not know whether there is a policy on this topic on WP, someone please let me know if there is.
	# It is an American-centric concept. The English-language terms "felon" and "felony" are virtually unused outside the United States, and it both confuses foreign readers and establishes an overtly American writing style that is completely non-encyclopaedic.
	# It places undue authority on US courts as the undisputed source for this status. Again, an American-centric approach as foreign courts are almost never used for a person's criminal status, and in fact most editors would be openly against political dissidents in authoritarian countries being labelled as "felons", criminals, spies, etc.
	# It violates NPOV and directly advertises a person's criminality as an important point, despite criminality being universally considered a negative thing.
	# In relation to the previous two points, it could be potentially libellous. If the conviction is issued by a court of debatable reliability, and especially if it is overturned later, it could be seen as an attempt to defame the person.
	# It isn't relevant and again pushes the American-centric narrative that criminality is the most important information about someone. If a person is solely known for an action that is also crime, the that action should be presented without reference to judicial conviction. ] (]) 14:32, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
	*The fact this is even considered shows the state of this site. --] (]) 14:42, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
	*'''Oppose''' adding the label "convicted felon" per ]. Suggest instead to add the first sentence of the last paragraph as a second sentence to the first paragraph: {{tq2\|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. In May 2024, a jury in New York found Trump guilty on 34 felony counts of falsifying business records.}} I'm not convinced that we should go into the details ("related to a hush-money payment to Stormy Daniels, making Trump the first former U.S. president to be convicted of a crime") in the lead. ]] 14:46, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
	*:I see no problem with your suggestion and agree that the lede is not the place to go into the specifics regarding the crimes being related to hush money payments to Stormy. '']''<sup>]</sup> 04:03, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
	*'''Strong support''' for inclusion in the opening paragraph but neutral on whether to extend the existing sentence or to add a second one. Also neutral on whether to say "convicted felon" or something like "convicted of a felony". This clearly an absolutely key defining fact on a par with the others already included in the first paragraph. This is something that will still be regarded as a key fact about him in a hundred years time. --] (]) 15:02, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
	*'''Oppose''' for the first sentence, but support for the first paragraph. There are many public figures with criminal convictions, but we only mention it in the opening sentence if that outweighs the notability of what they were famous for. From an encyclopedic standpoint, Trump is most notable for being president of USA. In a distant second are his notability as a real estate owner, media personality, and criminal. —] <small>(] • ])</small> 15:08, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
	*'''Support'''; the fact he is the first, and only, American president to be guilty of felony crimes – and that these felony crimes helped him become president – is as noteworthy as his pre-presidential career. ''']''' (]) 15:10, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
	*'''Oppose''': I think we need to mention his conviction in the lede, but I don't think "convicted felon" is ''ever'' appropriate for a first sentence. Even for people primarily known for committing crimes, there is almost always a better descriptor (for example you could specify the crime with "fraudster," "murderer," etc.). "Convicted felon" is vague and does not give specificity that "fraudster" would (but to be clear, not advocating adding "fraudster" here, just an example). Especially on BLPs, I think we should eschew "convicted felon" in the first sentence and either use a more specific descriptor in the first sentence or just mention convictions later in the lede. ] (]) 15:17, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
	*:I agree exactly; if I were the boss, the MOS would strongly discourage "convicted felon" just as you say. ]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 05:12, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
	*'''Strong support''' as the first US President to be criminally convicted, especially as Trump's legal history is so extensive that we currently have an ] article. Alternatively, this criminal conviction could be mentioned in a second sentence of the first paragraph to match ]'s article finishing its opening paragraph with Johnson's unique status as the first president to be impeached. ] ( ] ) 15:21, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
	*'''Support''' for updating the first sentence, with conditions—I think "convicted felon" is too vague and would prefer something like "convicted fraudster." Even if we don't update the first sentence, we should ''absolutely'' include a note about the conviction prominently in the lede, as per the examples highlighted by ]. The arguments about appeals, are, I think, immaterial at this time—whether or not the case gets overturned in the future (which we can't know, ], etc.), the notable fact is that the former President was convicted of a crime. ] (]) 15:58, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
	*'''Support''' including it in the opening sentence or at the very least the second sentence of the lede. The conviction isn't what makes Trump notable, but the conviction itself is notable (historic actually). It needs to be front and center in some way. --] (]) 16:05, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
	*'''Oppose''' I've been on Misplaced Pages too long because the first thing I thought of when Trump was convicted is that someone will be opening up a RFC on this very topic. Many of the support votes can be discounted since there's really no policy basis for something that happened yesterday to be notable enough to justify inclusion into the lead sentence. Per ] we should not {{tq\|overload the first sentence by describing everything notable about the subject. Instead, spread the relevant information out over the entire lead.}} Also, ] says the first sentence should include {{tq\|the main reason the person is notable}}. Trump is notable for many things, but being a convicted felon is not the most notable thing about him. To argue otherwise ignores ]. This RFC should be closed just based on simple to understand policy. There's no logical policy argument to justify putting something that happened yesterday to a highly notable person, a former US president, in the lead sentence. Adding "strong" to a comment doesn't erase policy. ] (]) 16:24, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
	*:{{Check mark}} ]<sup>]</sup> 21:02, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
	*'''Strong oppose'''. Putting it in the first sentence would mean that it is one of the most important things he is known for, and that isn't the case with Trump. --] (]) 16:28, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
	*'''Oppose''': First sentence is for what makes the subject notable. Trump is notable for being the POTUS, among other things and not for being a felon. This might change later on, but for now, this change shouldn't be made. I do support a mention somewhere in the lead, and it currently seems fine as is. ] (])<sup><span style="color: green"><small>Ping me!</small></span></sup> 17:16, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
	*:Nope. We've had many people become President. Yes, it is notable for an individual to become President. But you want to know what is even more notable than that? To be the FIRST President in the entire history American to be a "convicted felon" who was convicted for felony "election interference" in trying to rig the 2016 election-- for which he was found guilty for on ALL counts. ] (]) 17:44, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
	*'''Strongly support''' the inclusion in the first sentence that Trump is both "a convicted felon" and "the first President to be convicted of multiple felony counts" (30+ to be exact).

			Per : {{tq\|"Operation Warp Speed, a Trump administration initiative to manufacture COVID-19 vaccines as fast as possible, should be lauded as a successful endeavour in what has otherwise been a poor effort to deal with the coronavirus, experts say"}}
	:Just like Obama is the first Black President, Trump is the first President in the entire history of American to be "a convicted felon" who was convicted of multiple counts. That is now the most notable thing about him historically and journalistically-speaking. If that is not notable, then nothing is.

			says OWS was a Trump accomplishment, while also being clear that Trump was an anti-science president who sometimes hindered the pandemic response.
	:This should be included in the paragraph IMMEDIATELY. And if the RFC finds otherwise, then be moved. It should not be the other way around as Trump no longer enjoys his presumption of innocence, and any harm to his reputation by the facts presented are his fault and not our's for simply reporting it.

			It probably deserves a brief mention in the lead as I put .
	:(FACT) Trump is a convicted felon.

			It would be great if other users could please weigh in.
	:(FACT) Trump is the first President to be convicted of crimes.

			] (]) 23:24, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
	:(FACT) Given the felony status of Trump's conviction, and he was unananimously convicted by a jury of his peers for trying to use a falsification-documents & campaign finance 'criminal' scheme to conceal hushmoney payments to a 'porn-star' to withhold vital information to the American public with the intent to interfere (and basically rig) an President election as it was Trump's fear that his affair with a 'porn-star' would ruin his reputuation to the degree that he would lose his election. To be clear, that is what he was accused of. And the jury made it clear on ALL COUNTS that they bought into this allegtion and convicted him quickly on this serious crime alleged.

			:It's probably worth a brief mention in the article body – like a sentence. A fuller treatment of the topic belongs in ], ], and obviously ]. – ] (] <b>·</b> ]) 01:50, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
	:Let's do our job people, and not withhold information from readers (especially the low-information ones) that may infer that our timidness here reflects that there is somehow something wrong about Trump's very fair verdict.
			::{{tq\|"A brief mention – like a sentence"}}? If numerous reliable sources are calling this a major achievement with substantial discussion, a paragraph is more realistic. There are 12 entire paragraphs about COVID, some of it rather trivial in nature – but a single sentence for a multi-billion dollar policy implemented by a US president that has been praised by experts and sources? ] (]) 04:06, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
			:CNN seems to have agreed with you. "President Donald Trump finally has something legitimate to take credit for in his coronavirus response: A vaccine that appears poised to reach Americans in record time." ] (]) 01:53, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
			::Thanks, that's a good source to use. ] (]) 04:08, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::That CNN source, , and , don't support the laudatory text you proposed ({{tq\|The program has been characterized as one of Trump's most significant accomplishments by medical experts for enabling the development of effective vaccines in record time}}). They mention the 15 years of research and development of messenger RNA (mRNA) vaccine technology before the pandemic hit, Trump's interference and politicizing of the process, and his promise of many more doses by the end of 2020 than the goals set by the contracts with the vaccine manufacturers. ]] 20:45, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
			:I would support a brief, neutrally worded one-sentence mention of Operation Warp Speed. Further detail should be reserved for the respective pages covering that topic. ] (]) 04:27, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

			'''Reincluded:''' I have the paragraph and small mention in lead. I also took a look at the Obama article, which includes mention of the ACA as his "most significant accomplishment" per the ], so I think if the reliable sources describe this as Trumps, that deserved a mention in body. ] (]) 04:41, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
	:This should be a no-braining and facts are facts. The RFC here is being weaponized simply to ] this factual information to protect a convicted felon. If this information is embarassing and hurtful to the subject, then that's on him. We are simply reporting on it. We are not editorializing, nor are we saying "he is corrupt" or "a bad person". There are actually many famous convicted felons who have grown from their experience, and are highly respected. So it not our job to play the PR for Trump and his campaign.

			:This is more than a mention in the body - it should be shortened. If there is a concern that some of the other COVID-related content is trivial, then condensing that would be a better approach. ] (]) 05:09, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
	:Ironically Trump was convicted on ALL COUNTS for using dishonest criminal schemes to withhold vital information from the public because it might hurt his election chances. He was convicted for felony election interference, which was the central accusation here by a unanimous decision by a jury of his peers.
			::Two sentences is hardly "more than a mention". The reliable sources describe this as a major achievement of his presidency and a major component of his COVID-19 response. Misplaced Pages reflects the RS. It seems some of the editors chiming in think "consensus" depends on opinion and a vote count. That is false. ] (]) 20:43, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::{{tq\|That is false.}} Is that a "My arguments are stronger, so I win" argument? ―] ] 21:00, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::No, consensus building is important. But it is also important that Misplaced Pages editors arguments are based in policy/guidelines/reasoning. Misplaced Pages is supposed to reflect ], and I haven't heard a good argument as to why restriction to a single sentence is appropriate, given the way OWS has been extensively covered in the reliable sources. ] (]) 21:11, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::I'm just being practical, as that's how I roll. Based on my 11 years around here, a large part of it at this article, I'd generously estimate that one in four editors participating at this article actually meets that standard of collaborativeness (my mind doesn't change easily, so I wouldn't count myself as one of them). We can agree on ideals, but we still have to resolve issues. ―] ] 21:54, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
			:You didn't just reinsert the paragraph after six hours (see "Warning: active arbitration remedies" banner at the top of this talk page), you also added a clause to the lead. I've reverted. The discussion so far supports a brief, e.g., one-sentence mention in the body. Developing an effective vaccine was only part of it; research and development was well under way in several countries by the time of Trump's announcement. <s>Producing and delivering the</s> The production and delivery of a the Trump administration announced on May 15, 2020, was an unrealistic goal and . (Cue .) ]] 12:40, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
			::A full delete of the section seems to be more than what Nikkimaria asked for above, maybe to shorten that material which was just deleted by some percentage might be better than the full delete. ] (]) 15:24, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
			::{{u\|Space4Time3Continuum2x}}, I find this reasoning to restrict it to ''one sentence'' unjustified. Misplaced Pages reflects reliable sources. Consensus is made based upon validity of the argument per editing guidelines, and not because one editor ''thinks'' that this should be restricted to one sentence. Overriding and disputing the reliable sources seems like a major overstep. This is covered in the RS as a major component to the pandemic response, and a major achievement of his presidency.

			::And to clarify, I did not “reinsert the paragraph”, I wrote a new one. Second, the part in the lead was in my original . The lead summarizes his response to COVID, and this was a major component of that response.
	:'''''In America, trial by a jury of peers is a fundamental principle of democracy, which must be respected.'' More importantly, Trump no longer enjoys the presumption of innocence following his verdict.
	'''
	:It is embarassing and appaling that wikipedia is finding itself basically enabling a convicted felon into gaslighting the public by ]ing this page.

			::Can you actually cite me reasoning/guidelines/policy that would favour your interpretation of restricting coverage to a single sentence, given that multiple ] explicitly refer to this as his chief achievement?
	:Here's the thing: compared to other pages involving powerful men like Harvey Weinstein we have no problem including in the first paragraph that they are convicted felon if that is the facts here.
			::] (]) 20:49, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::I stand corrected. I hadn't noticed the text in the lead the first time around. Mention in the lead hasn't received any support in this discussion, and the rewritten text is no improvement on the first iteration. It's actually worse. The first sentence is based on a primary source (OWS); second sentence see . ]] 20:58, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::{{tq\|reasoning/guidelines/policy ... single sentence}} — not a question of guidelines or policy, it's where the consensus seems to be headed. Several editors in this discussion said they prefer a brief, short, or one-sentence mention, also neutral. ]] 21:07, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::Regarding your comment above. Just because mRNA technology predates Trump isn't a reason for editors to make their ''own conclusions'' that OWS wasn't really an achievement at all. OWS may well have been imperfect, but multiple ] ''still'' describe it as his chief achievement. E.g. Vox quite recently .
			::::It would be appropriate to add a sentence to the end of the two sentence paragraph that I added, clarifying any of the critique of Trump regarding OWS, provided they are in ].
			::::In addition to the Vox source, the source did support: {{tq\|"Health experts broadly agree that the Trump administration’s national vaccine strategy was a success. The Trump administration was willing to invest in new vaccine technologies, foot the bill for large, expensive clinical studies and simultaneously pay for manufacturing vaccine candidates before it was clear they would prove effective and safe"}} ] (]) 21:08, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::You`re cherry picking a random quote ] (]) 21:23, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::::I highlighted '''multiple''' ] above which are clear that OWS was perhaps his sole accomplishment as president. I'm not going to argue with people who don't understand how Misplaced Pages works. Questioning multiple reliable sources is not appropriate. It's verifiable (]) and in multiple reliable sources. ] (]) 21:39, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::::A handful of random quotes taken out of context ] (]) 21:43, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::::::Do you have any countervailing evidence, then? I haven't chimed in here because I wanted to see how this developed, but it seems Zenomonoz is arguing for RS and policy…the assertion that this should be arbitrarily restricted to one sentence (and the unhelpful removal in the meantime) doesn't improve the article.
			:::::::::<br>
			:::::::::How do biographical sources treat OWS? ] (]) 22:59, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::::::That would require an effort on my part..I agree..I believe the reference should be expanded upon regarding trump dragging his feet every moment of the pandemic and is now taking credit for ending it..as did reagan taking credit for the wall coming down ] (]) 00:35, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::::::::That's good. We should get into the nuances. ] (]) 00:54, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::::::::{{tq\|"I believe the reference should be expanded upon regarding trump dragging his feet every moment of the pandemic"}}, if you actually read the COVID-19 section you would know there is already extensive coverage of trump "dragging his feet". It's frustrating that users are chiming in to say we must restrict mention of a major program he implemented during the pandemic to a single sentence, despite its heavy coverage in multiple reliable sources. No reasoning provided. Quoting multiple RS sources is the opposite of "cherrypicking", by the way. ] (]) 05:57, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::::I would also like to offer my agreement with @Zenomonoz that the listed references indicate notability of the bill itself and is representative of the most notable policy associated with his Presidency. It warrants some mention of inclusion as the references provided do appear to all validate its importance both nationally and with respect to his presidency. ] (]) 05:33, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
			*Considering that the major source of the vaccine was Pfizer, which was never a part of Warp Speed, and an immigrant who got the Nobel Prize for ages of research behind the vaccine; but had to leave the country for lack of funds -- a very brief mention somewhere may be OK. But that's all. More than that is an insult to those that spent decades in vaccine efforts -- and Trump's new Health Czar is anti-vaccine. ] (]) 01:21, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:{{tq\|"More than that is an insult to those that spent decades in vaccine efforts -- and Trump's new Health Czar is anti-vaccine"}} – your reasoning does not seem relevant. Misplaced Pages reflects ], it isn't up to users to be making editorial decisions because they think it's an "insult" to people who worked on vaccines, or because of details surrounding the Pfizer vaccine. OWS funded numerous other vaccines, and scientific experts agree it was largely a success per the ]. A later pending appointment of RFK has zero bearing on OWS and what the sources said about OWS. ] (]) 06:07, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
			:The precise quotation from Pfizer is now added to the ] article. ] (]) 01:49, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
			::Thanks. An accurate documentation: ] (]) 02:04, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::I rewrote one of the added sentences over there per the given source , "Three experts agreed that the U.S. government's conditional advance order 'played an important role in expediting Pfizer’s vaccine development process' and one expert disagreed." As it originally was added with "Experts disagreed", seemed to express more disagreement than the source presented and that there was a larger sample. Thanks. ] (]) 11:55, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::I just your rewrite for failing verification. CNN wrote: {{tq\|Three experts told CNN that this purchase promise '''may have played''' an important role in expediting Pfizer’s vaccine development process.}} Your text: {{tq\|Three experts agreed that the U.S. government's conditional advance order "played an important role in expediting Pfizer’s vaccine development process"}}. I bolded the important words missing from your quote. The CNN article also mentions other uncertainties, such as Pfizer and BioNTech's purchase agreements with other countries. ]] 15:13, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::Here again is my edit , which didn't change the quote that was there. I think what I had should be restored with the extra part "may have”, all of which is supported by the given source. In other words I think it should be like this, "Three experts agreed that the U.S. government's conditional advance order 'may have played an important role in expediting Pfizer’s vaccine development process' and one expert disagreed." Cheers, ] (]) 16:11, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::CNN asked four experts — selected on what basis out of how many? The purchase was contingent on the vaccine's FDA approval, so it was Pfizer/BioNTech taking the risk of paying for development, clinical trials, building the production facilities — seems they were fairly certain that they would succeed. ]] 16:33, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::::Space, we are not going to start questioning the reliability of sources like CNN, nor committing OR. I agree with Bob's proposal, and will insert the amended quote tomorrow. ] (]) 23:53, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::::Yes. A small paragraph about OWS is justified to go back in. It's covered extensively in reliable sources. Space (but mostly other users) have been questioning reliable sources ] and carrying out ] in the comments here. I received stern warnings for that when I was new to Misplaced Pages. This his all boils down to "what do the reliable sources say?". If there's extensive coverage in RS, it can be included. If users want to include RS mention of any criticism of Trump and OWS, that can be included too. Per the sources, OWS is a major part of the Trump admin COVID response. What do the reliable sources say? ] (]) 06:28, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::::::I agree. I would also suggest that editors look at the rather large section and note what is currently there without OWS. Thanks. ] (]) 10:01, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
			Within the context of how trump and his cronies handled the pandemic ] (]) 21:06, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

			== New official portrait <span class="anchor" id="When Trump's new potrait is taken during his second term, should that replace the photo of his last Presidential potrait?"></span> ==
	:Again, it is ] enough that Obama was the first black president that we report it front and center.
			{{small\|Original heading: "When Trump's new potrait is taken during his second term, should that replace the photo of his last Presidential potrait?" ―] ] 12:59, 3 January 2025 (UTC)}}

			I don't believe there is a standard for this exact situation yet on here, given that Trump is only the second person to serve two non-consecutive terms as POTUS. Although, newer potraits tend be used over older ones on pages for other politicians. Overall, I'm curious as to what you all think should happen. ] (]) 12:54, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
	:That Trump "is an American politician, media personality, and businessman" could, to play devil's advocate, be argued (on some of similar logic here offered by naysayers here), that we NOT include any of those labels in the first sentence given he was unexceptional in any of those fields, and basically a failure on all fronts given his many bankrupcies, the loss of the President election in 2020 (which was fair and square) and his cancellation of his show. Yet, it would be absurd NOT to mention this.
			:For infoboxes for politicians, Misplaced Pages uses the most recent official portrait. ―] ] 13:05, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
			:There is a precedent with Barack Obama. We use the most recent, second White House portrait which is closer to how he currently looks (salt-and-pepper rather than his earlier black hair). https://petapixel.com/2013/01/18/a-closer-look-at-obamas-new-official-presidential-portrait/ ] (]) 08:25, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

			== Making this article fully protected ==
	:Again, just like Obama is the first Black President, Trump is the first President in the entire history of American to be "a convicted felon" who was convicted of multiple counts. That is now the most notable thing about him historically and journalistically-speaking. If that is not notable, then nothing is.
	] (]) 17:41, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

			when he is instated, there will be a wave of people (i think) that will try to edit it, and even bots. i find it necessary to make it fully protected (gold lock) ] (]) 13:46, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
	:'''Weak oppose''' per ], ], ], et al. I agree that if it's worth mentioning, it's worth specifying, so if we're going to include something in the first sentence, "convicted fraudster" is better than "convicted felon." I'm not sure whether it belongs in the first sentence as of now, but I think it's probably worth mentioning in the second sentence. It shouldn't stand alone in the same way as Donald Guy's examples, at least not yet. So the first paragraph might look something like:
			:Pages are not protected preemptively... - ] (]) 17:32, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
	::'''Donald John Trump''' (born June 14, 1946) is an American politician, media personality, and businessman who served as the 45th ] from 2017 to 2021. A member of the ], he is known for ] over that party's politics beginning in the mid-2010s, as well as being the first former president to be convicted of a crime{{efn\|The case is pending appeal.}}.
			:It's called ] ] (]) 21:13, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
	:And perhaps later, it would be more justified to place "convicted fraudster" after "businessman." But I'm not sure that's warranted yet. ] (]) 17:44, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
			::i know, but i think there will be a large vandalism wave, maybe one we cant actually control. over the next 4 years we will definitely see vandalism, which will be extremely annoying and tedious to defend against. ] (]) 21:15, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
	*'''Oppose''' "convicted felon" in opening sentence. This isn't even arguable. Please provide one article where we say convicted felon in the opening sentence. Neither ], ], nor ] say convicted felon in the opening sentence or even in the lead. This discussion should be closed immediately. <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) </small>
			::is there anything that actually is fully protected? ] (]) 21:16, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
	:*That's easy. ]. --]] 21:28, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
			:::Not in this life...I would prefer to see the page taken down completely for 24 hours than it freezing due to edit conflict but that`s censorship as well ] (]) 22:03, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::ok ] (]) 10:27, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
			:The article survived the election with the current protection. It will likewise survive the inauguration. In the absolute worst case, we could always restore a days-old revision. ―] ] 00:09, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

			== Donald trump is now president. ==
	*'''Oppose''' per IP, Di, and others. '''〜''' <span style="font-family:Big Caslon;border-radius:9em;padding:0 7px;background:#437a4b">]</span> ] 18:31, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

			Change from President-elect to President. ] (]) 18:40, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
	:'''Weak Oppose''' It's clear that this is something that is somewhat inconsistent in its applications, but as many other users here have mentioned, generally it is included in the first sentence if the fact that the person is a convict is one of the most notable reasons they are famous. I am sure in 20-30 years the fact Trump was the first US president ever convicted of a felony, but just a day after it happened seems very rushed. It should absolutely be included in the lede, maybe even a 2nd sentence, but right now is just rushing to be able to say it for the sake of being able to say it. ] (]) 18:42, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

			:@] you have to wait 14 more days... ] ] 18:42, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
	*'''Support''' Even besides all the points already mentioned, 34 is uhh... quite a few. ] (]) 19:28, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
	*'''Strong Oppose''' it's just not what he~~'s notable for to the point that it should be in the~~ ~~opening~~ ~~sentence.~~ ] (]) 20:29, 31 ~~May~~ ~~2024~~ (UTC)		:has he been inaugurated? ] (]) 18:43, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
			:No, he is not. His term will start at noon on the 20th. Just like Biden's started at noon on 20 January 2021. Just like Trump's previous term started at noon on 20 January 2017. --] (]) (]) 19:26, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
	*'''Support''' <sub style="border:1px solid #FFCC00;">]</sub> 20:29, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
			:No he's not, wdym???? He'll be the president starting from Jan 20. There's still two weeks left ] (]) 11:43, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
			:I find titles for Presidents and other politicians in Misplaced Pages articles to be inconsistent. For example in President Biden’s article, one can see President Barack Obama and former president Donald Trump in the article, and political titles should be used more.
			:The Twentieth Amendment uses the term, “President-elect,” as you are using here, yet Misplaced Pages in this article, and in the article, “President-elect,” uses “president-elect,” “President,” is not capitalized.
			:The fact is people were more formal when I was younger, a President had the title of President the rest of his life. ] (]) 10:21, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

			== Reduce number of citations ==
	*'''Strong Support''' I've read through the oppose side and it seems to be mostly based on Precedent, Crystal Ball, and Notoriety. I think all three are actually satisfied though. The precedent we do have for leaders, especially American ones supports putting it in the first sentence. It exists for example in Dennis Hastert's page. I think Crystal Ball is satisfied for the same reason Notoriety is satisfied. It is already international news. Donald Trump is the first American President to be convicted of a felony. I can support different wording, but this is definitely something we should be mentioning. As to whether it is something he is notorious for, we have had years of investigations and there are multiple court trials going on right now. All of this is also international news. And this trial specifically looked at charges of fraud in relation to his election campaign in 2020. Not mentioning this would be like calling any convicted white collar criminal a businessman without further clarification.] (]) 20:31, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
	*'''Comment''': I agree the middle ground to this is an expanded first paragraph, but this would require some working out. It would need to be at least 4-5 comprehensive sentences about Trump, not just the existing sentence plus "In May 2024, he was convicted of a crime" as has been suggested by some. ]<sup>]</sup> 20:53, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
	*'''Strong support.''' Failing to report that he is the first and only US president convicted of a felony in the <del>lede</del> <ins>lede sentence</ins> is like failing to report that ] was assassinated in the <del>lede</del> <ins>lede aentence</ins> to that article. It a fact so remarkable, important, and basic as to defy any possible explanation for omission short of a desire to deny reality. ] (]) 21:32, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
	*:{{ping\|Msnicki}} I don't see anybody saying we shouldn't report this in the lead. Please read the section heading. ―] ] 21:38, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
	*::{{ping\|Mandruss}} At the moment, it's not anywhere in the lede paragraph, never mind the first sentence. But to your point, I've clarified my comment to say the mention should go in the first sentence. It's that important. ] (]) 21:54, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
	*'''Oppose''' It should obviously be mentioned in the lead, but putting it in the first sentence is UNDUE. We need to give it more time and see if it becomes one of the defining aspects of Trump's life. The push to immediately give it this much prominence is clear recentism. I could potentially support including it in the second or third sentence instead. ] (]) 21:46, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
	*:If you want it in the first paragraph it would logically go at the end. Right now that paragraph is chronologically sorted. We also do not have to add the exact proposed words to the first sentence. I can read something like, "... And is the first US president to be convicted of a felony." To say this is just Recentism is unwarranted in my opinion though. If nothing else this will be studied as part of a sea change in American Politics, just like Richard Nixon's resignation. ] (]) 22:17, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
	*'''Strong support''' It's a fact (]), and as mentioned numerous times above, it's noteworthy as he is the only president to be convicted of a felony. I also think this discussion needs to be organized a bit, it has become hard to follow. ] (]) 22:00, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
	:There's a weird argument for slight support. Specifically because if we don't include it in the first paragraph somewhere, either the first sentence or in a new second sentence, there are going to be edit wars for the next 2-6 years. ] (]) 22:01, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
	:'''Strong Support''' using "convicted felon" in the opening sentence. Since no other president, former or otherwise, has been charged with, let alone convicted of felonies, this is an extremely distinguishing fact about his legacy. Not including it would be like mentioning that Neil Armstrong was an astronaut, but leaving out that he was the first person to walk on the moon. ] (]) 20:23, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
	*'''Strong support''' - Because the convictions are an extraoridnarily unique characteristic of this former president. The convictions are very unusual for any leader of any country, and common sense suggests that the convictions should be prominently mentioned in the lede. ] (]) 22:24, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
	*'''Comment''' If I counted correctly, we're at 111 "support" and 70 "oppose" !votes right now. ] (] · ]) 22:44, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
	*:The closer may judge that the minority has stronger arguments, making such tallies a bit pointless. ―] ] 22:49, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
	*::Especially given that the oppose arguments have generally been based on policy and precedent, while the support !votes have, at least 50%, been based on nothing. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (]/]) 22:51, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
	*::Definitely, and I myself voted "Oppose", it's mostly just to have a rough idea of how the numbers are going. I'm preemptively sorry for whoever will have to close this. ] (] · ]) 01:19, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
	*:Eh, after quickly skimming the discussion thus far, it seems a decent chunk of that 111 are IPs and single-purpose or brand-new accounts. ] (]) 22:57, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

			This article, without a doubt, should be reduced its citations. 800+ is too much. There are a very few sentences without 2 or more citations. We don't need thousands of citations to prove something. What we need is a reliable source, that we can absolutely rely on, and I can say we can rely on each citation in this article. Where Trump starts his new presidential term, there would of course be a new section for that term, and there for sure be more than 200 citations at the end of that term, and later his post-presidency. This article is already long enough, which I for sure couldn't read within 5 hours. Too much citations. Plus, Trump is one of the most influential people in the U.S. and the world, which makes no doubt that there won't be any misinformation or what did not happen in this article, I mean we don't need 800+ citations, if not fixed the problem, by October 2025, 900 citations in this article. ] (]) 19:01, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
	* '''Expand the the first paragraph/Weak oppose''' Most other convicted politicans don’t have it in the first sentence, however it’s notable enough to add a second sentence to the first paragraph. ] (]) 22:46, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
	*'''Strong support''' - Obviously there's enough reporting on this. Precedent: lots of Misplaced Pages Bios have this in the first sentence. This one should be no different. It's a historic status too - no president has ever been convicted of a felony before. Easily worth mentioning for that fact alone. ] (]) 22:53, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
	*:Any precedent arguments work equally well both ways. Lots have similar things in the first sentence, lots of others don't. Don't cherry-pick. ―] ] 23:12, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
	*::They do not work the same both ways, as several examples from similar cases of American politicians being charged and convicted with felonies show it in the first sentence, for example ], ], ], ], and ]. As well it is not an inaccurate description of him. Also I agree with {{ping\|Cepeili}} in their comment that the first paragraph should be expanded as well, since currently it is extremely brief and does not explain much concerning him, which is unlike several other former presidents (See ]) ] (]) 04:45, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
	*:::], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ]. That stops short of the Bush41 presidency, and I could go on. Did I not just ask you NOT to cherry-pick? (Best look again at Dean and Brown; beyond being seriously flawed, your argument is only 60% correct. Brown had it for eight minutes the other day, before it was reverted.) Sure, if you want to stretch my AGF, you could tailor the parameters so as to disqualify many of the above examples, claiming irrelevant distinctions. I've seen it before. ―] ] 05:41, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
	*'''Eh, no''' per the "we can't even call Osama a terrorist in his first sentence'' argument. Being convicted of a crime makes him a felon, but it doesn't automatically make it life-defining. Mention it somewhere in the lede is fine. ] (]) 23:01, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
	*'''Strongly support (with a slight change)''' - it's self-evidently extremely important information about the man, and to omit it would be blatantly contrary to ]. But it should be "convicted fraudster" rather than "convicted felon", so that it's more informative as to the specific crimes he's been convicted of (to date). ] (]) 23:56, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

	:~~Support,~~ ~~largely~~ ~~because~~ it ~~appears~~ to be ~~fairly~~ ~~normal~~ on ~~other~~ ~~politicians’~~ ~~pages,~~ ~~and~~ it ~~truly~~ ~~probably~~ is ~~one~~ of ~~the~~ ~~most~~ ~~noteworthy~~ ~~things~~ ~~about~~ ~~him~~. ] (]) 01:09, 1 ~~June~~ ~~2024~~ (UTC)		:I do agree that we should delete excess citations, such as where two or three citations are used at the end of a sentence where one will do. – ] (]) 20:54, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
			:{{tq\| This article is already long enough, which I for sure couldn't read within 5 hours. Too much citations.}} What does number of citations have to do with article length? Would you read every citation?{{pb}}While obvious OVERCITE should be avoided, I have no problem with the current number of citations and I think the hard PEIS limit should be the primary limiter. (See ].) ―] ] 21:04, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
	:* '''Comment''' Certainly include it on the page, but perhaps not in the first sentence until a bit of time has passed so we're sure it sticks. I would suggest waiting until after the election dust has settled so tensions aren't quite as high, and this might be less viral. I don't feel strongly on this either way, and don't envy the position of whoever has to make the call. They deserves a barnstar, maybe we can have one made for the occasion.
			::The article size is daunting also, its over 400Kb in size. If the article were reduced in size, then the number of cites could be significantly reduced as well. ] (]) 01:48, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
	:] <sup> (]) </sup> 04:35, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
	::Yes, the Donald Trump Closer's Barnstar, decorated with colorful shields and spears. ―] ] 04:39, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

			== Indictment Dismissal ==
	*'''Comment''' —
	*::American politician, 2 decades
	*::media personality, 5 decades
	*::businessman, 5 decades
	*::convicted felon, 0.0003 decades
	:] (]) 03:17, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
	::How many presidents have been convicted on felony charge? 1/46. It’s notable. It needs inclusion. ] (]) 05:51, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
	:'''Strong Support''' for using “convicted felon” in the opening sentence. It’s unprecedented for a former President and major political party nominee, which makes it sufficiently relevant. Furthermore, Misplaced Pages guidelines and precedent make it clear that it would be included in the page of anyone else. ] (]) 05:47, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
	::{{ping\|PencilSticks0823}} Anyone else except and many more. I fail to understand how people can be so reckless with precedent claims, and I would expect a competent closer to discount any such claims lacking actual evidence (which doesn't mean a handful of cherry-picked examples). ―] ] 07:04, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
	:'''Oppose''' As per ] and possibly touching-on ]. As to the first point, other Wikipedians have pointed-out that when one’s notability is derived from other sources ''prior'' to the conviction, it is rarely — if ever - used in the first sentence. As to ] it’s kind of obvious, no? I saw someone suggest that since other famous individuals whom have been convicted after achieving notability do NOT have their convictions in the first sentence, ''we should go and review ALL of those articles''. This flies in the face of the entire purpose of ], in my opinion, and I’m sure ] would have something to say about it. Interesting to note that the ] article had this discussion and, despite the majority of his notability for most of the world stemming from his conviction, it was decided that his notability prior to his conviction was enough to not warrant the inclusion of his criminal conviction in the first sentence/article short description. ] (]) 06:44, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

			The last sentence in the lead currently says: "He faced more felony indictments related to his interference in the 2020 election and his handling of classified documents, which were dismissed after his victory in the 2024 election." However, the classified documents case was dismissed by Aileen Cannon before the Nov election because she ruled Jack Smith was unlawfully appointed. See AP article source: https://apnews.com/article/trump-classified-documents-smith-c66d5ffb7ba86c1b991f95e89bdeba0c. So, this sentence should be revised. Apparently, Jack Smith dropped his appeal of this ruling, but that does not change the fact that this case was dismissed last summer. ] (]) 02:45, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
	*'''Strong Support''': He is a convicted felon. The removal of a statement stating such in the first sentence would be an act in violation of Misplaced Pages’s guidelines. We are not the former-President’s PR team. The fact this is even in need of a discussion is sad and questionable. Might as well ask “should we bar the inclusion of facts for this man just because he was the President?” The answer to which is NO. ] (]) 05:48, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
	'''Weak Support''': His conviction is historically significant, being the first US president convicted of a felony. As a non-American, Donald Trump's illegal activity during the 2016 election is, indeed, one of the ''main things he's known for where I live''(on the west coast of Canada). Maybe in much of the States he's known for other things, but, as far as I'm concerned, his criminal activity is a defining trait. I know the conviction is very recent, but the controversy surrounding it has been ongoing for a long time. It is clearly distinct from other political controversies in that he has actually been convicted*. It seems notable enough for first-sentence inclusion to me. Anyway, it's only a weak support because others have pointed out that this may be ], and because I worry (perhaps excessively) about my own biases. If it's not to be included in the first sentence, then perhaps somewhere else in the first paragraph (which would need to be expanded to be multi-sentence)? ] (]) 07:28, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

			==The late president's article==
	*'''Comment''': If anyone's wondering why there's a lot of IP users/new SPAs coming here to support this RfC, I think it might be because it was mentioned on CNN? . Not exactly ]-ing, but something people should be aware of. Regards, ] (]) 08:35, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
			Looking at the article for the late ], the Misplaced Pages article for him has a substantial section about his medical history as 'Personal life' and 'Health' which appears at the bottom of the article. The section at the Jimmy Carter article looks comprehensive and respectful. The Trump article, however, seems to put the Personal life section and Health section all the way near the top of the article which seems like an odd place to put this information. When I looked at the article for Washington, then the Personal life section is also put towards the bottom of the article. Should the 'Personal life' section and 'Health' for Trump be moved to the bottom of the article as seems to be the standard practice for Misplaced Pages president articles such as Washington and Carter? ] (]) 16:12, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
	*:Also perhaps from this post from ]? Viewed by 1 million people, apparently: https://x.com/OccupyDemocrats/status/1796303015990976969 ] (]) 08:49, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

			:Interesting point, My only input is that it might have to do with the weight the information holds in contrast to the rest of the content in the article? Is there any MOS format that suggests that personal life/health might be better located at the bottom of an article? ] (]) 17:43, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
	==Criminal information infobox template ==
			::Part of the problem maybe that Carter was kind of a notable politician who happened to also be a businessman, whereas Trump was a notable businessman who (or maybe a celebrity) who happened to become a pelican. So the article grew organically. ] (]) 17:46, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
	{{atopy
			:::Autocorrect or some kind of avian easteregg? ] (]) 18:01, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
	\| status =
			::::One was created from the off as about a politician, one grew into one about a politician. ] (]) 18:05, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
	\| result = There's current discussion on this at ]. Please discuss there if you wish. '']''<sup>]</sup> 10:00, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
			:::::"pelican"? ] (]) 18:20, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
	}}
			::::::It looks like Slatersteven was trying to type "politician" rather than 'pelikan', which he can edit into his comment if he wants to. I'm also finding that the president's article for ] also has Personal life section which appears near the end of the article, as opposed to the Trump article which for some reason has put it at the top of the article. The Misplaced Pages preference for Washington, Jimmy Carter, and now John Quincy Adams, see to all be placing the Personal life section towards the end of the article. Should the Trump article be consistent with the other president articles on Misplaced Pages and place the Personal life section towards the end of the article? ] (]) 00:34, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::::I don't see why not. Most people probably don't come to this page to read about DJT's schooling. ] (]) 01:33, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
			:No. Trump's private life is part of his tabloid persona, and other presidents' articles (e.g., Lincoln and Obama) have long early life sections that go into details about their families. ]] 21:07, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
			::That sounds ok for the Marriages part of Private life, but the Health subsection of Private life really does not seem to belong at the top of the article. Jimmy Carter, Washington, and JQA all place Private life to the bottom of the article. Is there really much advantage to reading about Trump's golf life at the top of the current article when it could better be located towards the bottom of the Table of Contents. ] (]) 21:31, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::Where towards the bottom would you put it? Teetotalism, sleep and exercise habits are also part of his public persona. The "healthiest president ever" claim was part of the 2016 campaign, and the removal of the medical records happened during the first presidency. ]] 13:15, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::My thoughts might suggest the best place for that Private life Health section to be placed right before the Assessments section towards the bottom of the article. His golf life appears significantly less important than reading about his business life and his media life at the top of the article. ] (]) 20:51, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
			:The difference here is Trump’s ] politics. Status quo is fine ] (]) 22:05, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
			::Actually, Erdogan’s, Orban’s, and Chavez’s articles have Personal life at the bottom, so I’ll support following those ] (]) 22:13, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

			== Proposal to supersede consensus #50 <span class="anchor" id="RfC to supersede consensus #50"></span> ==
			{{not a ballot}}
			Do you support or oppose the lede sentence to now read: {{tq\|Donald John Trump (born June 14, 1946) is an American politician, media personality, businessman, and criminal who served as the 45th ] from 2017 to 2021.}}? ] (]) 16:39, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
			*'''Support''' His sentencing today has met ] requirement that {{tq\|a conviction has been secured for that crime}}, support adding {{tq\|and criminal}} in the lede sentence per consistency with other ] articles.] (]) 16:39, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
			:As in: "'''Mark Robert Michael Wahlberg''' (born June 5, 1971), formerly known by his stage name '''Marky Mark''', is an American actor, former rapper, and criminal"?
			*:—] 16:55, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
			:Or: "'''Marshall Bruce Mathers III''' (born October 17, 1972), known professionally as '''Eminem''' (stylized as '''EMINƎM'''), is an American rapper, songwriter, record producer, and criminal.—] 16:58, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
			::That would be undue, his criminal characterization has not received sustained widespread coverage, unlike the president-elect. ] (]) 17:00, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::Criminal characterization? What does that mean? —] 17:04, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
			::@] Ridiculous and fallacious, as in the slippery slope fallacy, or a ] as you are creating here.
			::How many celebrities or even gangster rappers do you know that have been convicted of crimes? More than I can count. So, not notable.
			::But what if the crimes themselves are so notable they outweigh the other ] aspects of a public person, as in the case of Harvey Weinstein? Yes, notable.
			::Now, how many Presidents in US history can YOU COUNT that have been convicted of multiple felonies, ones that are related to election interference? Only one. And just like it is notable to objectively state as notable fact that Barack Obama is the first black President elected in US history, it is more than relevant to mention (in the opening sentence) that Trump is the first convicted felon/criminal elected to become President of the United States, especially considering that American democracy has as its bedrock the rule of law as enforced by convictions of juries of their peers, with even Trump himself making it his legacy to publicly argue that he is literally (and should be) above the law as President. So there is no other way around this. It is ] on all counts as prescribed by etiquette surrounding ]. ] (]) 21:59, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::The Obama article doesn't even include "African American" in the first sentence, that's only in the second sentence. —] 22:30, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::@] So then include it in the second sentence. That's a good compromise. But you are against that as well it would seem, so why bother with that ]? ] (]) 22:45, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::This request for comment (please read ]) is not about the second sentence, it's about the first sentence, as worded in the proposal. This isn't a negotiation for us to come to a compromise. What is being responded to is the proposal, as stated in the question. Editors are, each individually, to the best of their ability, giving arguments for why the proposal should be implemented or not. And, in any case, what would that second sentence be like while reusing the exact language from the proposal: "And, in addition, he is a criminal"? —] 22:51, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::@] I'm sure that as long as it is included in the first of second sentence as either "the first convicted felon" or "the first convicted criminal" to be elected to the office of Presidency, then that is well within the ballpark here.
			::::::The larger debate is that now that the highest law in the land from the SCOTUS doesn't think Donald Trump is exceptional here, and now that sentencing has concluded, he is a convicted criminal/felon as a matter of empirical verifiable fact. This isn't about the time he shoplifted a DVD player as 21 year old (joking) about 30+ serious felonies.
			::::::I can buy that argument that this is more than relevant and necessary to place this objective factual information as front and center as possible given its newsworthiness and historic importance. Misplaced Pages is first and foremost about both.
			::::::I maintain neutrality only because the RFC won't be decided on a vote count, or our arguments here, but arbitrarily by an admin coming in to decide on a whim or which way the wind is blowing it would seem. Fair point on both sides as there is no mechanism for this unprecedented moment. ] (]) 23:00, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::::You're in no position to be sure of anything as someone who clearly hasn't dealt with these things for long enough on Misplaced Pages and don't understand how decisions are made. You need to be less sure about what you're telling yourself, and more sure about what people who know what they are talking about are telling you. They are telling you things such as: {{tq\|This request for comment (please read ]) is not about the second sentence, it's about the first sentence, as worded in the proposal. This isn't a negotiation for us to come to a compromise. What is being responded to is the proposal, as stated in the question. Editors are, each individually, to the best of their ability, giving arguments for why the proposal should be implemented or not. }} What you claim to be the debate is not the debate here and now in this talk section. The "debate" question is as follows: {{tq\|Do you support or oppose the lede sentence to now read: Donald John Trump (born June 14, 1946) is an American politician, media personality, businessman, and criminal who served as the 45th president of the United States from 2017 to 2021.?}} —] 23:28, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:The conviction was secured in May 2024. January 10th was sentencing, which has no bearing on conviction. ] (]) 17:56, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:BLPCRIME says nothing about ''placement'' of content. It allows ''inclusion'' of content, and the article already does that. Your policy claim is invalid. ―] ] 18:17, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
			*'''Oppose''' for the same reasons as the last time we discussed this. I don't see why a no-penalty sentence would make it more likely we add it in the opening sentence. It's already mentioned later in the lead, so this is ]. — ''']''' <sup>''(])''</sup> 16:49, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:We don't get to determine whether a no-penalty sentence is due or not, it has received wide coverage in reliable sources to the extent that they keep reporting him as the first felon to become president. ] (]) 16:59, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
			*::We do get to decide if it's due in the first sentence, and ] arguments make it undue. — ''']''' <sup>''(])''</sup> 22:01, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
			*'''Oppose'''. Not first-sentence material.—] 16:49, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
			*'''Oppose''' Per the last time. ] (]) 16:50, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
			*'''Support''' It is a factual verifiable statement..he is a convicted felon...it`s spelled lead ] (]) 17:28, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:. —] 17:31, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:It's spelled lede, as in bury the lede, or the most important and relevant part of a story. Which, trump being the first convicted felon elected as president of the US, is very relevant. ] (]) 18:00, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:This isn’t a question of whether it's true. Lots of things about Trump are true, and they can't all go in the first sentence. — ''']''' <sup>''(])''</sup> 22:02, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
			::*The says:
			:::{{tqb\|"Some use the spelling lede. At AP, we side with the Poynter Institute’s Roy Peter Clark in viewing lede as jargon-like spelling while lead reminds us to lead readers into the story."}} So it's correct to spell it either way. -] (])
			:The article is not about him it`s about trump ] (]) 17:34, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
			::Oh right, thanks, I forgot —] 17:38, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
			*'''Oppose''' putting it in the first sentence like that. It needs context that can happen later in the lead, but not the first sentence. – ] (]) 17:42, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:It's first sentence material, as he is now the first convicted felon in US history to be elected president, which in and of itself is noteworthy. ] (]) 17:54, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
			*::Being sentenced to an "unconditional discharge", i.e. literally nothing, is not "first sentence material". – ] (]) 17:59, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:::As the first convicted felon to be elected president, it is first sentence material. ] (]) 18:01, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
			*::::Is not. John Adams was the first president not to own slaves. Not in the first sentence. —] 18:31, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
			*::::] was the first to be impeached. Not in the first sentence. —] 18:41, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:::::Thanks for the counter-examples, but I think it's sufficient to say that {{tq\|As the first convicted felon to be elected president, it is first sentence material.}} lacks policy basis. ―] ] 18:45, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
			*::::::I think being the first convicted felon to be elected president does not mean much, but being extensively covered as such by reliable sources does mean much, especially when he is portrayed as a career criminal with hundreds of felony charges. ] (]) 19:07, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
			*::::::Thanks for the feedback. The examples serve as illustration of editorial practices, for those unaware of what they look like in reality. —] 21:55, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:How about the second? ] (]) 03:53, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
			*'''Oppose''' per Czello, Muboshgu, etc. ―] ] 17:57, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
			*'''Oppose''' The felony conviction is a minor aspect of his career, not important enough for the first sentence. It is already mentioned later in the lead. ] (]) 19:09, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:The first ever president of the United States receiving a felony is a minor aspect of his career? ] (]) 19:45, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
			*'''Support''' Passes ] as stated earlier. However, I would change criminal to "convicted felon". A lot of former discussion against this suggested we wait until his sentence was official. It now is. ] (]) 19:40, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
			*: ―] ] 19:49, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
			*'''Comment''' - Can we please let people have their say, without telling them they are wrong, the closer will judge that, it is not for us to say. ] (]) 18:04, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
			*: I guess it depends on the relevance of ] .. he`s a convicted criminal,,it's got nothing to do with Andrew Johnson or anyone else's impeachment..at least Nixon was smart enough to not get caught...trump is by definition a criminal but you think it's irrelevant...what can a moral or ethical person say to that ? ] (]) 19:13, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
			*::It is not moral or ethical to put words in others' mouths during content discussions. Nobody has said {{tq\|it's irrelevant}}. ―] ] 19:35, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
			*'''Oppose''' placing it in the first sentence (in the ). Please mention in the lead at a later spot. -] (]) 19:24, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
			*'''Oppose''' the first sentence. Later in the lead I think is merited as it is a first and very heavily covered by RS. (Likely to stay that way as it is reported he's fund raising on it.) ] (]) 19:35, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
			*'''Oppose''' in the opening sentence as this is not reflected across wikipedia for other politicians who are convicted criminals. One key example being ] who was Italian PM convicted of multiple crimes including a 4 year sentence for tax fraud which is mentioned in his 4th opening paragraph not the opening sentence. ] (]) 19:55, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
			*'''Oppose''' The proposal is for a "crime label" for which there is an essay: ]. As listed by the essay, Misplaced Pages has had vast and lengthy arguments over crime labels, where in countless RFC's such labels are nearly universally unsuccessful. Or at least there has to be an obvious rationale for it. Basically, they are misleading, vague, and poor writing. In the present case, it smacks of simple name calling. Far better to just include a brief description of the criminal instance in the lead. I would, however, be in favor of a new section in the article bringing together all of Trump's sundry criminal and civil episodes; such a section may well then suggest an appropriate label. ] (]) 20:52, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
			*'''Comment''' - It's beyond relevant..it's the only thing he will be remembered for in the end...a rich criminal who bought his way into power at the bequest of those more sinister than him ] (]) 21:02, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
			**{{Ping\|Anonymous8206}} Trump became president twice (2016, 2024) democratically (US elections are democratic), to claim otherwise is simply wrong. ] (]) 02:36, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
			*'''Oppose''' for the time being. I doubt this is what he'll be consistently noted as, but could be proven wrong. ] (]) 21:09, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
			*'''Strong Support''' This is absolutely first sentence material and possibly one of the most textbook ] pieces of information in wikipedia history as far as the ] goes, according our rules governing it.{{pb}}FACT- Trump was now officially sentenced for multiple felony crimes. That makes him the FIRST convicted felon (by a jury of his peers) to be elected President. Just like in the Obama wikipedia article, it mentions "Obama being the first African-American elected", this is equally notable. This is a first. And even the American Supreme Court allowed for Trump to be sentenced, so there is no question legally of where this stands.{{pb}}Of course, there are politically biased editors making ridiculous arguments against this in violation of etiquette and rules of wikipedia. And many examples listed AGAINST THIS are fueled by fallacious reasoning, or use petty examples that simply don't match here. The only reason to exclude this is because Trump is not only above the law in this country but above our rules apparently for ideological reasoning here.{{pb}}Again, no convicted felon in history was EVER elected President. And this is for multiple notable felony crimes involving a scheme to interfere in the democratic election, which is WHY NY law was able to amplify misdemeanor crimes into a felony crime scheme verdict/finding. Perhaps if the American SCOTUS down the road overturns this we can revisit this.{{pb}}And to be clear, if Biden was ever convicted of a crime or any democratic President then I too would strong support mention of that in the first sentence.{{pb}}However, the idea that if enough biased editors come here to OPPOSE THIS that we will allow for mob rule to override rules of what is ] is a sad day for wikipedia, and proof that our community fails in upholding journalistic standards that we claim we uphold. If enough biased editors set up an RFC vote for a pro flat-earth position or a Holocaust denial position, would be both sides that?! Of course not, as wikipedia is clear on ] thinking, which is what is driving a delay on including this very important notable information per the standards of ].{{pb}}That it is buried in the article is a lame fallacious way around what is at heart here. That we treat all people and biographies the same regardless of political power. A President being convicted of serious crimes is every bit as notable (if not more so) than race or gender as it makes wikipedia come off as more concerned about notability about the color of one's skin that one's choices and behavior. No, this is a test of whether we can truly be objective about the facts and the mission of wikipedia, or if we simply cower in the face of fear of being unpopular. ] (]) 21:06, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:See ] and ]. State your case without accusing others of incompetence or bad faith, even if unnamed. ―] ] 21:19, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
			*::@] No, the "unnamed" part is actually important here for it to be ], as there are exceptions to the rule when I'm in the right to call a ] a spade given the stakes and clear violation of ] in an effort (albeit intentional or otherwise) to carve out an exception for a convicted criminal here who is now leading a democratic country.
			*::This also happens to be that great rare example of ]. The AGF guideline recognizes that one can easily misjudge another's intentions or motives, and thus urges caution in that area. Ironically, the very act of citing AGF can suggest an assumption of bad faith, since one is assuming that the other is not also assuming good faith.
			*::Some disputes are exceptional, whether it is climate-change denial, holocaust denialism, arguing for a flat-earth, or in this case a plain and simple case of being in denial of stating ] facts in a way that our rules surrounding ] demands. The aforementioned reasons I've stated are the only honest empirical reasons for ]ing this content in the way we are doing now (by burying it and treating a powerful figure like Trump as some exception to the rules). Otherwise, matters of lesser importance (like mentioning Kamala Harris as the first female Vice President, or Obama as the first black President, in the first sentence of an article) should also be removed as we are making a statement as a community (intention or otherwise) about where our priorities lie insofar as what is ] and what is not.
			*::Precedence should decide, not the emotion of the moment, and the process regarding Trump's convicted guilt has been allowed to play out long enough here that it is time to do right by the community, and follow our own precedents and rules. ] (]) 21:36, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:::Unlike you, I have years-long experience with many of the Opposing editors here, including myself. Unlike you, I happen to know that we are ''anything but'' biased in favor of Trump. That kills your whole argument, and clearly shows the need for adherence to ]. You need to cease this line of argument or risk admin action. ―] ] 21:54, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
			*::::@] Disagreeing with you as forcibly as you are disagreeing with me is not worthy of an ], but if you must please go right ahead. As for the record, when reviewing your own history, . And you are literally going around this thread making it a point to comment on many others with whom you don't agree (who did not consent to your opinion on the matter, with multiple arguments), trying to convince made-up minds that clearly won't change based upon your emotionally-reasoned attempts. So, what of your bulverism here?!
			*::::At best, we agree to disagree, so nothing is "killed" here. And there is no truly unbiased person politically-speaking in any walks of life. There are countless examples of it on wikipedia, as you already know.
			*::::As for this RFC vote, I've spoken my mind, and made my case, voted, so I plan to move on, and I'm done here. Are you? ] (]) 22:05, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:::::{{tq\|Disagreeing with you as forcibly as you are disagreeing with me}} See ]. I am not the one persistently violating accepted principles of talk page behavior here. {{tq\|not spotless when it comes to your own behavior}} Laughable. Congratulations on ferreting out my one block in 11 years, from {{frac\|9\|1\|2}} years ago. Great detective work. {{tq\|I plan to move on}} Good call. {{tq\|I'm done here. Are you?}} I'm done if you are. ―] ] 22:14, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:::::
			*:::The content isn't being censored at all, that's a very silly suggestion. It's still included, just not in the literal first sentence.
			*:::And yes, implying people are voting no because of "political bias" is an assumption of bad faith, so cool it. — ''']''' <sup>''(])''</sup> 22:07, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
			*::::@] I stand by my vote, and my reasoning behind it. ] (]) 22:11, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
			*::::@] P.S. And I'm not talking about whether it should belong in the article or not. I'm talking about whether this is ] by way of suppressing it in the opening sentence insofar as precedence, and etiquette surrounding ] and ] are concerned. If we are to find Barack Obama's skin color notable enough to mention in the opening sentence of his biography ''as a first for Presidents'', then mentioning "the first convicted criminal/felon to be elected President" is certainly more than notable for the same empirical reasons and as a matter of wikipedia precedence. ] (]) 22:15, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:::::I know, I'm saying it not being in the first sentence is not censorship. Additionally, what other articles do is not particularly relevant to this article. Other stuff, whataboutism, etc. — ''']''' <sup>''(])''</sup> 22:21, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
			*::::::@] Not to butt in, BUT (no pun intended) ''you did mention'' to the OP that it was "included in the body" as YOUR retort about an RFC literally about whether it is worthy to include this pertinent information front and center, not whether or not it should be included period. So that much was clear from the OP and those taking his/her/their position on this.
			*::::::And that retort is a popular dodge/red-herring in this debate and the one before it, as fallacies have been mentioned.
			*::::::I'm neutral on this row.
			*::::::But it does appear you are not IMO. ] (]) 22:49, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:::::::Sorry but I'm not quite following your point. My position has always been that it shouldn't be in the opening sentence, but is acceptable later in the lede (as it is currently). So no, I'm not neutral on this.
			*:::::::The retort I made isn't a dodge - consensus is decided locally; what's is Obama's lede is apples and oranges. — ''']''' <sup>''(])''</sup> 23:11, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
			*::::::::@] How so? lol It IS significant in a country like America where after hundreds of years of elections of white 'lawabiding' men a black man is elected President for the same reason that a convicted criminal with 34+ felony convictions is elected. It is historic, newsworthy, and very much a defining part of his legacy. He literally ran on that distinction.
			*::::::::And consensus isn't god when it comes to undeniable history or empirical fact as far as a certain bottom goes even by wikipedia standards. If a local consensus suddenly decided the world was flat, an admin could overrule that as you know consensus be damned. You are not providing a compelling reason not to include it front and center other than you think it somehow is unfair and even disparaging against the subject, and outside the norms. Well, so is a democratic country like America electing its first convicted criminal in its hundreds of years as lawful democracy.
			*::::::::Misplaced Pages is not beyond its own flaws, and editors are within their rights to call it out when they they have compelling case to do so. Do with that what you will, but it's not a violation of good faith given the exceptional circumstances here for some to challenge your thinking. That's my neutral point of view in this. Food for thought. ] (]) 23:24, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:::::::::{{tq\|If a local consensus suddenly decided the world was flat, an admin could overrule that as you know consensus be damned.}} That's actually false. A closer can override the numbers if the minority has a stronger policy basis. There is no Misplaced Pages policy that the world is spherical. But this point is academic since flat-earth arguments would never have a majority and could never have a stronger policy basis. ―] ] 00:03, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:::::::::It's significant enough to go into the lead, which it already is. It's not defining enough to be in the first sentence.
			*:::::::::I never said it shouldn't be included because it's disparaging against the subject. There seems to be an odd trend among some voting 'support' to believe those of us opposing it are sympathetic to Trump (I mean, take a look at this article and try to argue it's pro-Trump, lol). ''This'' is what's a violation of good faith.
			*:::::::::As for your views on consensus, Mandruss has very effectively addressed that. — ''']''' <sup>''(])''</sup> 09:04, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
			*::::::::::@] Mandruss has not. And neither of you are admins. So your opinions count as much as anyone other users. Your are flirting with ] language, so respect the POVs of others, and that includes the OP you are addressing. ] (]) 13:37, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

			* Yes please take users to ANI or their talk page, do not discuss user conduct here. ] (]) 22:08, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

			*'''Support''' Forget about conviction. We've never had a POTUS who was even criminally indicted.] (]) 22:43, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
	At what point will the Criminal Information infobox template be added? There is long precedent to have that template added to the infobox of convicted criminals and this case would be no different. At this point we have perfectly valid information to include in the "Criminal Status", "Convictions", and the "Criminal Penalty" field would be something to the effect of "awaiting sentencing July 11, 2024". ] (]) 00:53, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
			*:You are talking about "We" on a global site here. This site is not meant to be America centric or an American encylopida. Worldwide leaders have been convicted of crimes and it is not in their lead sentence and this shouldn't be any different see ] ] (]) 23:06, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
	*FYI those fields are currently in the infobox, but they don't display because there Politician infobox doesn't accept them. Unfortunately I'm on mobile and can't fix it at the moment. –] ] 00:57, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
			*::@] That's a bad example.
	*:They’re accepted on the page for ] and ]. ] (]) 02:10, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
			*::It is a first for an American President, leader of the world's only remaining superpower and long-standing democracy.
			*::The notability between a little known Italian leader and the President of a nuclear superpower could not be any more difference in what is ].
			*::According to ] ''"For perpetrators, the victim of the crime is a renowned national or international figure, including, but not limited to, politicians or celebrities; or the motivation for the crime or the execution of the crime is unusual—or has otherwise been considered noteworthy—such that it is a well-documented historic event. Generally, historic significance is indicated by sustained coverage of the event in reliable secondary sources which persists beyond contemporaneous news coverage and devotes significant attention to the individual's role."'' That is beyond question here. The argument of the supporters is that Donald Trump should not be an exception to that simply because of the heat of the moment. It's a valid POV. ] (]) 23:15, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:::This response is amazingly biased. " leader of the world's only remaining superpower and long-standing democracy." this is nothing more than opinion from you nothing factual here.
			*:::Your point of Berlusconi being little known is also your own personal view he is one of the most notable Italian politicians post Mussolini and one of the most notable European politicians in the last number of decades due to his multiple scandals and convictions which are all documented in his article.
			*:::On your last point " including, but not limited to, politicians or celebrities; or the motivation for the crime or the execution of the crime is unusual—or has otherwise been considered noteworthy—such that it is a well-documented historic event." this all applies to Berlusconi and other politicians worldwide who have been convicted of crimes who are not labeled criminals in their opening sentence.
			*:::But for purposes of points and notability in an American context the article for ]does not label him a criminal in the opening sentence either. He was the first and only sitting vice president of the USA convicted of a crime. ] (]) 23:32, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:::Berlusconi "a little known Italian leader"? Is this a joke? The fact that he wasn't American doesn't mean that he's and has been little known; the world isn't, and never will be, US-centric. ] (]) 04:42, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

			:'''Oppose''' per ], ], ] and others. This addition is not ] as Trump is certainly not most notable for an unconditional discharge sentencing. ] (]) 00:59, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
	I added this infobox in the 'Investigations' 'Hush money' section a few hours ago.] (]) 02:45, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
			:Why isn't a CONVICTED FELON text on the intro? ] (]) 04:07, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
	{{abot}}
			::Because we had an extensive discussion on it some months ago and there was no consensus to include that. It exists later in the lead. — ''']''' <sup>''(])''</sup> 09:05, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
			#
			Closeses are based on the strength of policy based argument, and can be challenged, they are not some "whim". ] (]) 23:04, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

			*'''Oppose''' per Zaathras' Osama Principle. If the Misplaced Pages cannot even say directly "] was a terrorist," then virtually no article is suitable for a "Subject is a <pejorative>" opener. ] (]) 01:39, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
	== Trump will likely be convicted but not yet ==
			*:{{Ping\|Zaathras}} your comment is one of the most useful, I largely agree with you. ] (]) 05:20, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:Terrorist is value-laden and he was never duly convicted in a court of law. Criminal is a legal term when a citizen is duly convicted in a court of law and not a pejorative. ] (]) 07:41, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

			*'''Oppose''', I don't understand the users who agree (obviously I don't judge). ] (]) 02:27, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
	According to the chief legal correspondent for ], Trump has not officially been convicted yet: “”.] (]) 00:59, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

			*'''Comment''' As President, there is really nothing else that Trump is known for more than his criminal behavior, convictions and evasion of serious penalties for said crimes. JFK was known for the Cuban Missile Crisis. Lincoln for his role in winning the civil war. In Trump's case, what is he most known for as President is his hundred plus indictments. And his criminal conviction. Making him the first ever convicted criminal felon to be elected to the office of the Presidency. It's absurd to suggest that historic first, and his criminal behavior (most of which he has been able to avoid consequences because of his re-election), is not on the top of list of what he is presently known for. It would be like burying Neil Armstrong's moon landing achievement, being the first man to set foot on the moon, deep in the body of an article. If you remove emotion from this, and simply view this through an historic lens, then this is a no brainer. Of the 45 white men that have served the office of Presidency, only one was a black man. Only one was a convicted felon. "It is said on wikipedia that JFK was the youngest person elected president at 43 years." Please put your bias aside, or your dogma about these exceptional circumstances, and let history and newsworthiness decide, not your egos. ] (]) 04:04, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
	:Yes, and officially the US presidential election isn't determined until Congress votes to accept the electoral votes. But in both cases, there's no real expectation that things will change between now and then. --] (]) 01:11, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
			*:In the first lines of the lead of the articles of well-known criminals (Hitler, Mussolini, Mao, Stalin, etc.) the term isn't present. Trump isn't remotely comparable to them, yet you (and not only you) would like to add "criminal" to this page; it's very strange, but I'm not surprised... ] (]) 05:05, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
	:Concur with Carnildo ]<sup>]</sup> 03:35, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
			*::They were not convicted of a crime, for those convicted see ], ], ]. ] (]) 05:42, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
	:From the US guidelines for sentencing, specific to determining criminal history: "IMPORTANT NOTE: WHERE DEFENDANT IS CONVICTED VIA TRIAL OR PLEA AFTER ARREST BUT PRIOR TO PLEA OR SENTENCING ON THE INSTANT OFFENSE - THAT CONVICTION IS COUNTABLE FOR CRIMINAL HISTORY DETERMINATION."
			*:::For relevant political examples see ] and ] ] (]) 12:53, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
	:Source: https://www.ussc.gov/sites/default/files/pdf/training/annual-national-training-seminar/2011/004c_Calc_Criminal_History_Outline.pdf (Page 1) ] (]) 04:33, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
			*'''Oppose''' having criminal/felon in first sentence. Donald Trump is not primarily known for his criminal convictions. The coverage in the lead is sufficient weight as it is now. There was already no consensus to add this last year, and nearly nothing has changed since then. The formality of the judge sentencing him, to literally no punishment I may add, is not a good reason for rehashing this matter. ]<sup>]</sup> 07:13, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
	:Reliable sources I'm reading are saying that he's been convicted of 34 felony counts. '']''<sup>]</sup> 04:43, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
			*'''Strong support''' This is a textbook example of information that has ]weight in the ]. As others have pointed out, we don't get to determine whether a no-penalty sentence is due or not, the press does.

			:That's how wikipedia works.
	== Please add a missing Oxford comma ==

			:And the consensus in the press, by way of wide coverage through reliable sources, is to the extent that they keep reporting him as the first felon to become president. Whether they like it or not is another story, but there is no doubt about the press acknowledging the notoriety of the President being a convicted criminal. So if the press consensus is leading with this information as ] then so should we. There are no sources suggesting that this isn't the big deal that it is. The disagreement in the sources is about whether Trump is deserving of his verdict or being persecuted, and that is not for us to weigh in here with how we present such notable historic information.
	First sentence: "Donald John Trump (born June 14, 1946) is an American politician, media personality and businessman" should have a comma after "personality". Oxford commas are great for reducing confusion. For example:

			:There is too much ]izing going on here in this debate.] (]) 13:48, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
	"I'd like to thank my parents, Jesus and Debby."

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

	I ~~don't~~ ~~have~~ ~~enough~~ ~~edits~~ on ~~this~~ ~~wiki~~ to do it ~~myself~~. ] (]) 03:02, 31 ~~May~~ ~~2024~~ (UTC)		Please note, it is already in the lead, the RFC is about the first sentence only, no one has suggested removing it from the lead in this RFC. ] (]) 13:55, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
	:{{done}} Good idea! Thank you. -- ]] 03:05, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
	:Not only because I prefer the Oxford comma, not only because this article uses the Oxford comma throughout, but because the Oxford comma is present in our ] item 50. Correct move, settled issue. ―] ] 03:07, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
	::During the editing frenzy of editors adding and removing "convicted felon" to the first sentence the serial comma survived until . ]] 11:29, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

			*'''Oppose''' This is all political. The trials only happened because he ran for office, those responsible for them supporting his rival. ] 14:09, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
	== Expanding first paragraph in general (what is notable enough to overtake chronology?) ==

			== "dismissed following his victory in the 2024 election." ==
	While looking across ], ], ], ], and ] in service of writing my comment in ],

			{{tq\|Two more felony indictments, related to his interference in the 2020 election and his handling of classified documents were dismissed '''following his victory in the 2024 election.'''}}
	it is clear that regardless of the outcome of conviction-specific conversations, the first paragraph here is cut significantly down from typical of U.S. Presidents, most of whom have less notability in other fields

			@]: The ] was dismissed July 15, the election was November 5. ] (]) 20:51, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
	I know (from the "current consensus" box) that several points (of specific inclusion & exclusion) have been the topic of several discussions already in the last few years, but the result seems to have been progressive minimalism, whereas it seems to me there are several useful points for inclusion that fall within precedents and NPOV.

			:I can see the confusion. I was referring to the Justice Department's dismissal of the case following his victory. ] (]) 03:31, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
	I would propose that what currently reads:

			== Convicted felon ==
	{{blockquote\|text=''Donald John Trump'' (born June 14, 1946) is an American politician, media personality and businessman who served as the 45th ] from 2017 to 2021.}}

			should the article not mention that he's a convicted felon by say the second paragraph of the intro? ] (]) 23:50, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
	would be more in line with other presidents if it read something like:

			:It's in the third paragraph of the intro, it doesn't really matter where it is just that it's there. ] (]) 00:36, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
	{{blockquote\|text=Donald John Trump (born June 14, 1946) is an American politician, media personality and businessman who served as the 45th ] from 2017 to 2021, and who is currently ]. Elected as the nominee of the ], he is also understood as leading ] political movement within & beyond the party.<ref>Compare {{blockquote\|text="Clinton, whose policies reflected a centrist "]" political philosophy, became known as a ]."\|sign=]}}. Also basically every POTUS article's second sentence begins with party affiliation - it's here… more complicated, but still</ref>. As reflected in slogans popularized by and strongly associated with him, he has advocated an open embrace (and implemented policies consistent with) both ] ("]") and ] ("]") approaches to American politics; there has been much more divergence surrounding ]: with many perceiving him<ref>I'm confident there are cite-able polls that bare that out, I don't have one immediately handy</ref> as opposing it (as ], ], and ]) while he has also been ], ] , ], and in one case ] of crimes while seeking, performing, and departing the presidency.}}
			:I agree should be in introduction after they mention business man ] (]) 04:32, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
			:Agreed. ] (]) 06:41, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

			Agreed, it should be the in the first sentence of the intro.
			:See RFC above. ] (]) 10:44, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

			== Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 11 January 2025 ==
	... you know, or something like that. thoughts? ] (]) 04:14, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

	:Support as these are all objectively factual statements.
	:] (]) 06:48, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
	:I think your version is a significant improvement compared to the current one. Besides some minor grammatical issues, it looks good. ] (]) 09:31, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

	{{reflist-talk\|title=Notes}}

	*'''Support''' this lead-for-the-lead approach, not sure on what should be included therein (AMPOL is not my forte, although I follow it closely). A one-sentence opening paragraph is extremely unusual for someone this notable, and unencyclopaedic too.

	:I think your proposal starts out strong with the first two sentences, but gives too much detail thereafter, which more properly belongs in later paragraphs of the lead. I would suggest something like {{tq\| As president of the Trump Organization, he was involved in numerous real estate developments in New York City for a number of years, with mixed success. As US President, he implemented several conservative and economically protectionist policies, while also assailing mainstream media for its perceived bias against him. He is the only US President to have been impeached twice by the House of Representatives and to have been convicted of felonies.}} And then continue with the rest of the lead as is. ] (<small><sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub></small>) 05:11, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
	*It may be a good idea to discuss this after the RfC. We can't have too much going on at once. ]<sup>]</sup> 05:21, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
	*:On the contrary, expanding the first paragraph will cater to both parts of emerging consensus - that it is necessary to prominently mention the conviction in the lead, and that at the same time adding the conviction to the frail one-sentence lead we have right now will fall afoul of DUE. ] (<small><sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub></small>) 05:36, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
	*::It is this way because of years of consensus and discussion and it won't be changing over night, and I don't expect there to be agreement on the wording. The more wording you propose the less likely consensus will be met, ''especially'' on this article. To be frank, Donald Trump is hard to explain in one paragraph, which is why we have the bloated lead section and the simple, non-controversial first sentence and paragraph. But sure, I'm open to expansion, but I really do think it would be best to see the completion of the RfC first so that its consensus may be a guiding tool and onus here. ]<sup>]</sup> 05:42, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
	*:::Fair enough, and I hope the two suggestions in this thread can serve as a base for fresh discussion after the RfC.
	*:::As an aside, is it time for the talk page to be temporarily semi-protected? None of the IPs and fresh accounts are adding anything of substance. ] (<small><sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub></small>) 05:48, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
	*::::That's not a decision for me to make, but I've seen ''some'' substantive contributions from IP's here and, naturally, some not. Hopefully, the closer of the RfC, who should be an experienced one, can cipher the good from the bad. ]<sup>]</sup> 06:07, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
	*:::query then also (and whether it hasn been discussed before) whether a different structural/hypertext approach might be more effective:
	::: keep wording and structure as is but make heavier early use of links to existing articles, e.g.
	*::::: Donald John Trump (born June 14, 1946) is an American ], ], and ] who served as ] of the United States from 2017 to 2021.
	::: forgo traditional structure for a lede and either ("simply" front-load the table of contents instead, or admit some sort of disambiguation-like un-prosed structure, e.g.
	*:::::''Donald John Trump'' (born June 14, 1946) is an American variously notable in his capacities as:
	:::::: a ] — having served as the the 45th president of the United States from 2017 to 2021, currently seeking re-election to presidency, as well as competing in presidential primaries in 2000 and public ally
	:::::: a ] — having co-produces and hosted ], participated in professional wrestling, and appeared (as himself) in various film & television projects
	:::::: a ] — overseeing ] in developing & managing various real estate holdings, as well as developing numerous lines of personally branded merchandise
	:::::: a litigant and criminal defendant
	*:::] (]) 07:05, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
	*::::Then, if the RFC above comes out as adding convicted felon/criminal you'd have a section for that too and it's even more called out. It might be better to have just the table of contents where you can have the category simply labeled "Civil and Criminal something something". ] (]) 22:59, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
	*:::::The table of contents does not show up for mobile users, who are a significant portion of our readers. ] (]) 23:11, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
	*::::::Good point, then I have to go back to thinking it's appropriate for the current single sentence lede. But a paragraph lede including it would be the most appropriate thing. ] (]) 06:12, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

	:yes, despite where I ended up on that abivr draft I mostly agree that it probably shouldn't necessarily actually focus exclusively on his presidency (though focus of two sentences doesnt seem unresonable)
	:I kinda think ] may still deserve some mention as well. and like I think there is a viable NPOV through line here but I can't quite put my finger on it
	:like...
	:"pursuing a strategy of ] and ], Trump succesfully grew in recognizability from real estate developer, to figure of NYC tabloid coverage, to ] of film & television, to leader of a ] and the first person elected to ] without prior political or military office. Concerted attempts to control image and narratives have also seen him run well afoul of the law, notably becoming also the first president convinced of a felony: 34 counts of falsification of business records in the state of New York in the commission of another crime"
	:that's not necessarily better... but it's differently bad at least 😅 ] (]) 06:09, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
	'''Comment'''. If it's not in the body, it doesn't go into the lead. And if you don't present reliable sources, it doesn't go in the body, either. Are there RS e.g. for "leading his own political movement within & beyond the party", "reflected in slogans", etc.? Also, the first paragraph is currently under discussion in the ]. ]] 15:18, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

	:Just talking, there's definitely sources on the MAGA movement. As to that movement being "both nationalist and reactionary approaches to American politics"? That's gonna be another RFC, with sources on both sides. But also, do we take those kinds of subjective stances? It's objectively true he's leading a movement, but you'd be hard pressed to objectively determine the other stuff without Misplaced Pages taking a meta political science position. Sorry for the motormouth, but I do a lot more politics than I do wiki editing. ] (]) 23:05, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

	'''Support''' For making the sentence an actual lede paragraph. That seems to be at least part of the problem in the discussion above. But I would hold back on some of that wording. The third sentence specifically is doing a lot of work and could be hard to support in a wiki article let alone a lede. I would suggest something like -

	{{blockquote\|text=Donald John Trump (born June 14, 1946) is an American politician, media personality and businessman who served as the 45th ] from 2017 to 2021. He is known for his real estate business and he starred on The Apprentice from 2004-2017. He is currently the 2024 Republican leading candidate and expected nominee. He is also the first American President to be convicted on felony charges.}}

	note - I suck at the actual writing part, so this is just a rough example. ] (]) 22:53, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

	== Convicted felon ==
	{{atopy
	\| status =
	\| result = There is discussion on this at ]. Please discuss there if you wish. '']''<sup>]</sup> 10:03, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
	}}



	This needs to be added to the first paragraph, tgis site has a long long standing tradition of being unbiased why is this case any different also criminal status needs to be added to the box’s

	I am a trump supporter but the integrity of this site is more important then anyone’s feelings ] (]) 07:53, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

	:I agree, but there’s already an ongoing discussion on this in the section, “RfC on use of ‘convicted felon’ in first sentence”. ] (]) 08:46, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

	:Funny though it is, it's not really a major defining moment of his life. ] (]) 09:29, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
	{{abot}}

	== Restore deleted categories ==
	{{atopy
	\| status =
	\| result = Those categories are already in the article. '']''<sup>]</sup> 11:05, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
	}}



	Please add the following categories back into the article. They were removed as "irrelevant" and "redundant", but they are most definitely not.
	<nowiki>
	]

	]

	]
	</nowiki>
	] (]) 09:48, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
	{{abot}}

	== Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 31 May 2024 ==

	{{edit extended-protected\|Donald Trump\|answered=yes}}		{{edit extended-protected\|Donald Trump\|answered=yes}}
	~~Donald~~ ~~Trump~~ ~~was~~ ~~found~~ ~~guilty~~ on 34 ~~counts~~ ~~and is officially now a convicted felon.~~ ] (]) 10:14, 31 ~~May~~ ~~2024~~ (UTC)		It should say convicted felon in the main article ] (]) 04:26, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
	:] '''Not done:''' ~~it's~~ ~~not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in~~ a ] ~~and~~ ~~provide~~ a ] if ~~appropriate~~.<!-- Template:EEp --> — ~~'''~~]~~'''~~ ~~<sup>''~~(])~~''</sup>~~ 10:20, 31 ~~May~~ ~~2024~~ (UTC)		:] '''Not done for now''': please establish a ] for this alteration ''']''' using the {{Tlx\|Edit extended-protected}} template.<!-- Template:EEp --> see above RFC ] (]) 08:19, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
			:We don't use those exact words, but we do say {{tq\|the first U.S. president to be convicted of a crime}} in the lead and explain in the body: {{tq\|In March 2023, a New York grand jury indicted Trump on 34 felony counts of falsifying business records to book the hush money payments to Daniels as business expenses, in an attempt to influence the 2016 election. In May, he was convicted on all 34 counts. On January 10, 2025, Trump was sentenced to unconditional discharge which, under New York law, upheld the felony conviction without imposing further punishment.}} ]] 15:24, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
	:@], that fact is already discussed in the article. Do you have a specific edit request? '']''<sup>]</sup> 11:01, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

	== Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 31 May 2024 (2) ==

	{{edit extended-protected\|Donald Trump\|answered=yes}}
	Personal Details, Penalty, capitalize the "J" in Judge ] (]) 10:50, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
	:{{done}}] (]) 11:06, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

	== Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 31 May 2024 (3) ==

	{{Edit extended-protected\|Donald Trump\|answered=yes}}
	Add at the end of the first section:
	He was impeached twice by the House of Representatives, but not convicted in the Senate. He is the only US president convicted of felony offenses, 34 counts of falsifying business records. He was defeated by Joseph Biden in the 2020 election, but did not concede; he fought the result in court and the public square, citing election fraud. His allegations were never proven. ] (]) 11:57, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
	:] '''Not done:''' it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a ] and provide a ] if appropriate.<!-- Template:EEp --> ] 14:05, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

	== Donald J Trump convicted rapist of E. Jean Carrol ==

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

	:He was found liable in a civil trial, not a criminal one. ] (]) 12:21, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
	:He is not a convicted rapist, he was found liable in a civil trial and was not convicted by a jury of his peers in that regard. ] (]) 05:00, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

	== Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 31 May 2024 (4) ==

	{{edit extended-protected\|Donald Trump\|answered=yes}}
	Add to this Bio. Only president to br convicted of a felony and is an adjudicated rapist. ] (]) 12:47, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
	That is fair and should not be in the first sentence but in the first paragraph would be ok.
	:] '''Not done for now:''' please establish a ] for this alteration ''']''' using the {{Tlx\|Edit extended-protected}} template.<!-- Template:EEp --> — ''']''' <sup>''(])''</sup> 13:08, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
	::Those are simple, straightforward facts.
	::If this was an article on, say, Earth's atmosphere, there is no need to seek consensus before adding: "The sky is blue."
	::These key facts should have been added yesterday. The fact that it is not stated in Paragraph 1 is indication that Misplaced Pages is broken. --] (]) 14:07, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
	:::These key facts have been added to the lead section, which has a whole paragraph relating to Trump's legal issues, including the facts that he's been convicted of falsifying records and that he's been found liable for sexual abuse. I don't think there's any real controversy here about whether these things are true, or whether they're significant. The question currently being discussed is whether the felony conviction is significant ''enough'' to justify being placed in the first paragraph. I think it is, and I hope the consensus will reflect that. But I also think there are valid points being made against it, by people who are not partisan hacks, in the RfC discussion above. ] (]) 18:01, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

	== Editors Seeking Edits to this protected article ==

	Editors need to remember that edits of any kind purporting to state facts are not relieved from citing reliable sources. ] (])

	== Inclusion of criminal convictions in the infobox ==

	His criminal convictions were added to the infobox yesterday and I reverted them, but they were re-added. (1) They should be removed until a consensus is met in the spirit of the BRD. (2) Similar to the RfC on "convicted felon" in the first line, these parameters in the infobox should only be included when DUE, and they are not considering the RECENTISM of the convictions and the relative WEIGTHT of the massive amount of RS coverage of Trump and his life. He is not a someone primarily known as a criminal. ]<sup>]</sup> 15:29, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
	:Agree but I've reached my limit of 3 reverts for today. ]] 15:41, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
	::I hadn't. {{removed}} – ] (]) 15:50, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
	:::@], please refer to ] where there is obvious consensus formed for the inclusion in the infobox. '']''<sup>]</sup> 15:56, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
	::::The comments of the two editors in this section indicate there is no consensus, and I make it three against. – ] (]) 16:16, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
	:::::Incorrect, there is existing discussion that I pointed to. '']''<sup>]</sup> 16:22, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
	::::::As one of the opposing editors in #What_we_do_after_conviction, "Infobox criminal is rarely used where notability is not due primarily to the person being a convicted criminal". BLP issue, and WP is not a democracy. ]] 16:27, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
	:::::::] clearly applies here as if I even need to say that because he's clearly been convicted. I fail to see what BLP argument you have. Again discussion is clearly happening in another thread where there is clear consensus. If you think that editors are misguided in their discussions, perhaps you should contribute there. '']''<sup>]</sup> 16:37, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
	:@] My two cents: in the American legal system, convictions are not considered final until at least the sentencing phase and until direct appeals have been exhausted. ] (] \| ]) 19:53, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
	:@] My two cents: in the American legal system, convictions are not considered final until at least the sentencing phase and until direct appeals have been exhausted. ] (] \| ]) 19:53, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
	{{od}}
	BLPPUBLIC doesn't mention the infobox. The lead mentions the conviction, with the wording currently being discussed in an RfC, so it's not as if we're making readers read the whole article. (I might have contributed to that discussion but I somehow failed to connect "What we do after conviction" to the infobox. As it is, I would have had to say, "if we're the convict, we go to jail, or we pay a fine. If we're not, we're either crying into our beer or celebrating". Speaking just for myself: yay!) ]] 16:50, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

	:@] how do you suggest noting the conviction in the infobox is a BLP violation then? '']''<sup>]</sup> 17:20, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

	Notifying {{ping\|Iamreallygoodatcheckers}}. ]] 17:09, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

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

	== "Trump won the 2016 presidential election as the Republican Party nominee..." ==

	The statement from the lede that "Trump won" in 2016 '''needs to be revised.'''

	The full gravity of yesterday's Guilty verdict includes this new fact, as has now been determined in a court of law, that Trump had been declared winner after FRAUDULENT CRIMINAL activity had corrupted the 2016 Election. The justification for Felony upgrade was unlawful influence of the 2016 presidential election, crimes at both the state and federal level.

	Donald Trump was declared winner '''only''' ''after he committed criminal election fraud.'' At the very minimum, any and every assertion that he "won" needs to be marked with an asterisk. --] (]) 17:22, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
	:No it does not, as his victory has not been overturned, and until it has he remains the winner. ] (]) 17:27, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
	::You are not understanding the needed change that has been flagged here. Nothing was said about any election having been overturned.
	::The point stands:
	::INCOMPLETE info is being presented to state that "Trump won", and leave it at that, without any qualifications. He was declared the winner after having committed crimes. Crimes done with the specific intent of influencing the election.
	::Incomplete info is bad info. --] (]) 17:37, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
	:::No, its not incomplete until his victory is overturned he won, simple as that. ] (]) 17:46, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
	:<nowiki>Your contentions are what would go in a partisan op-ed. This is not for an encyclopedia. ~~~</nowiki> ] (]) 17:38, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
	::There is nothing partisan whatsoever in what has been flagged here. It is a very simple issue:
	::Was 2016 a free and fair election?
	::The jury yesterday determined that '''crimes''' were a key part of it. Therefore, 2016 was NOT free and fair. This is a simple fact that needs to be noted. --] (]) 17:50, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
	:::'''"...a New York jury found him guilty of all 34 charges in a scheme to illegally influence the 2016 election..."'''
	:::https://apnews.com/article/trump-trial-deliberations-jury-testimony-verdict-85558c6d08efb434d05b694364470aa0
	:::That's just one of ''many'' references. --] (]) 18:06, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
	:'''Strong Oppose to edit''' - This is kind of a ridiculous point on it. His victory in ] is unchanged by his recent court cases. Even if he committed electoral fraud (which he has not been convicted of), it would not change the fact that he won it. To quote the same source as {{ping\|Concord19}} used later,
	:{{quote\|Donald Trump became the first former American president to be convicted of felony crimes Thursday as a New York jury found him guilty of all 34 charges in a scheme to illegally influence the 2016 election '''through a hush money payment to a porn actor who said the two had sex.'''\|Michael R. Sisak, Jennifer Peltz, Eric Tucker, Michelle L. Price and Jill Colvin, ''''}}
	:Overall I think any note on his victory is unneeded and should not be added, as he was not found guilty of electoral fraud in any way, and as cited by the court, he was only found guilty of 34 counts of falsifying business records. While these records may have changed public views in 2016 if released, they are not electoral fraud. No note is needed in this. Donald Trump won the ], that is a fact and thus Misplaced Pages should state such.
	:As well as noted by {{ping\|Cecropia}}, any note in that regard that would be of that nature should go in a political op-ed, it is not meant for Misplaced Pages, which is an encyclopaedia for knowledge and learning. Furthermore the inclusion of that specific opinion that it would falsify his victory (which is unsubstantiated by the courts) would violate ], and thus would not be beneficial to the goal of knowledge being properly shared with a prospective reader. ] (]) 04:56, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

	OK so by how much did this make a difference, by how many points would he have lost if this was made public? ] (]) 18:10, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

	:I myself have never seen any attempt to quantify the impact.
	:The FACT of what the jury determined yesterday was that crimes were committed before Nov 8, 2016. And this is the salient info that will be proper to present in our article whenever it states "Trump won".
	:That is the extent of the Edit Request being presented here. It may be possible that in the future, a reliable source will give the specifics you are asking. --] (]) 18:17, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
	::THis has nothing to do with whether he would still have won or not, this is ]. We mention this court case, this verdict, that is all we can do, not assume it would have had any impact. ] (]) 18:21, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
	:::Nowhere have I suggested that anyone edit to indicate what the impact might have been. No one has suggested venturing into OR. What you've been presented with is a reliable source which clearly states that these crimes were done with the '''intent to influence the election.'''
	:::This is established FACT. Not established by you nor me. It was determined by the jury.
	:::This article saying that "Trump won" is an incomplete statement. He won after CRIMES WERE COMMITTED. By him. Among others. --] (]) 20:12, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
	::Unless a court says that he was not the rightful winner, he is still the winner. ] (]) 18:33, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
	:::Please re-read the main point that has been repeated here. No one is suggesting to ''remove'' the statement "Trump won". The point is that as of yesterday, it has become improper to say that without including sufficient qualifiers. That Trump was declared winner '''after Election Law was violated.''' --] (]) 20:16, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
	::::We could mention the conviction in a subsequent sentence, but I think it is fine as-is. We already mention the Russia stuff in the same paragraph, so nobody is going to think it was a clean election from reading the sentence. ] (]) 21:36, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

	== Travel ban in 38 countries ==

	https://www.newsweek.com/donald-trump-travel-ban-1906686 ] (]) 19:20, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
	:"Former President Donald Trump, now a convicted felon, '''could face''' significant travel restrictions as many countries around the world enforce strict immigration policies against individuals with criminal records". Hypothetical at present!] (]) 07:32, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

	== convicted felon is back in the first sentence again ==

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

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

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

	== RfC: Proposal for the first paragraph ==
	{{atop\|Clear vio of ]. Already under discussion, redundant, unhelpful distraction. ―] ] 22:03, 31 May 2024 (UTC)}}

	Do you support or oppose this being the first paragraph of the article?

	«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. He is the first former president in United States history to be convicted of a crime.» ] (]) 21:38, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
	*'''Bad RFC''' this topic is already being discussed at {{slink\|\|RfC on use of "convicted felon" in first sentence}} - and even though that's about the first sentence, it is clear that many are discussing whether it fits in elsewhere on that discussion, and so it should not be discussed further outside that discussion for now. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (]/]) 21:40, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
	*'''Bad RfC''' per Berchanhimez ]<sup>]</sup> 21:47, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
	{{abot}}

Latest revision as of 15:24, 11 January 2025

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Donald Trump article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140, 141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 150, 151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159, 160, 161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169, 170, 171, 172, 173, 174, 175, 176, 177, 178, 179, 180, 181, 182, 183, 184, 185, 186, 187Auto-archiving period: 7 days

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.

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.

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.

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:

... or dozens of other places, as listed in {{Donald Trump series}}. Thanks!

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.

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.This page is about a politician who is running for office or has recently run for office, is in office and campaigning for re-election, or is involved in some current political conflict or controversy. For that reason, this article is at increased risk of biased editing, talk-page trolling, and simple vandalism.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.

This

level-4 vital 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

	Biography portal 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

	Business portal 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.

Climate change High‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Climate change, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Climate change 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.Climate changeWikipedia:WikiProject Climate changeTemplate:WikiProject Climate changeClimate change
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
If you are looking for ways to improve this article, we recommend checking out our recommended sources and our style guide

Conservatism High‑importance

	Conservatism portal 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.

Crime and Criminal Biography Top‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Crime and Criminal Biography 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.Crime and Criminal BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyCrime-related
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

New York City High‑importance

	New York City portal 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.

Politics: American / Political parties High‑importance

	Politics portal 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).

Television: American Mid‑importance

	Television portal 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.
	This article is supported by the American television task force.

United States: Television / Presidential elections / Government Top‑importance

	United States portal 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.
	Television portal 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 U.S. Government (assessed as High-importance).

United States Presidents: Donald Trump Top‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States Presidents, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of United States Presidents 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.United States PresidentsWikipedia:WikiProject United States PresidentsTemplate:WikiProject United States PresidentsUnited States Presidents
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Donald Trump task force.

University of Pennsylvania Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject University of Pennsylvania, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of University of Pennsylvania 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.University of PennsylvaniaWikipedia:WikiProject University of PennsylvaniaTemplate:WikiProject University of PennsylvaniaUniversity of Pennsylvania
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

2010s Top‑importance

	2010s portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject 2010s, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of 2010s 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.2010sWikipedia:WikiProject 2010sTemplate:WikiProject 2010s2010s
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the importance scale.

Page history

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

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.
Pasternack, Alex (March 7, 2020). "How Misplaced Pages's volunteers became the web's best weapon against misinformation". Fast Company.
Flood, Brian (May 21, 2020). "Misplaced Pages co-founder Larry Sanger says online encyclopedia scrapped neutrality, favors lefty politics". Fox News.
Evon, Dan (November 19, 2020). "Does Loser.com Redirect to Trump's Misplaced Pages Page?". Snopes.
Williams, Zoe (October 23, 2023). "Why is Elon Musk attacking Misplaced Pages? Because its very existence offends him". The Guardian.
Hays, Gabriel (May 31, 2024). "CNN host suggests Trump conviction not mentioned prominently enough on former president's Misplaced Pages page". Fox News.
Harrison, Stephen (June 4, 2024). "The Most Heated Debate on Trump's Felony Conviction Is Happening on ... Misplaced Pages?". Slate.
Sam Wineburg and Nadav Ziv (October 17, 2024). "Go ahead and use Misplaced Pages for research". The Boston Globe.

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, 2021, 2023, and 2024.

This article has been viewed enough times in a single week to appear in the Top 25 Report 137 times. The weeks in which this happened:

Skip to table of contents

Other talk page banners

Section sizes

Section size for Donald Trump (88 sections)
Section name	Byte count	Section total
(Top)	9,303	9,303
Early life and education	3,028	3,028
Personal life	19	5,027
Family	1,323	1,323
Health	3,685	3,685
Business career	149	35,770
Real estate	4,555	15,954
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	7,323	7,323
Foundation	5,025	5,025
Legal affairs and bankruptcies	2,315	2,315
Wealth	3,640	3,640
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	18,448	18,448
First presidency (2017–2021)	633	176,594
Early actions	2,743	2,743
Conflicts of interest	3,367	3,367
Domestic policy	20,661	20,661
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	10,208	10,208
Second impeachment	3,398	3,398
2020 presidential election	34	23,711
Loss to Biden	6,907	15,674
Rejection of results	8,767	8,767
January 6 Capitol attack	8,003	8,003
First post-presidency (2021–2025)	5,018	35,733
Business activities	2,382	2,382
Investigations, criminal indictments and convictions, civil lawsuits	547	28,333
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	6,593	6,593
Civil lawsuits and judgments	6,450	6,450
2024 presidential election	14,632	14,632
Political practice and rhetoric	8,372	47,271
Racial and gender views	9,377	9,377
Link to hate crimes	3,793	3,793
Conspiracy theories	3,318	3,318
Truthfulness	10,483	10,483
Social media	5,810	5,810
Relationship with the press	6,118	6,118
Assessments	18	6,969
Public image	4,525	4,525
Scholarly	2,426	2,426
Notes	136	136
References	30	30
Works cited	18	11,664
Books	3,256	3,256
Journals	8,390	8,390
External links	5,431	5,431
Total	403,544	403,544

Current consensus

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)

04. Superseded by #15 Lead phrasing of Trump "gaining a majority of the U.S. Electoral College" and "receiving a smaller share of the popular vote nationwide", without quoting numbers. (Nov 2016, Dec 2016) (Superseded by #15 since 11 February 2017)

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)

07. Superseded by #35 Include "Many of his public statements were controversial or false." in the lead. (Sep 2016, February 2017, wording shortened per April 2017, upheld with July 2018) (superseded by #35 since 18 February 2019) 08. Superseded by unlisted consensus Mention that Trump is the first president elected "without prior military or government service". (Dec 2016, superseded Nov 2024)

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)

10. Canceled Keep Barron Trump's name in the list of children and wikilink it, which redirects to his section in Family of Donald Trump per AfD consensus. (Jan 2017, Nov 2016) Canceled: Barron's BLP has existed since June 2019. (June 2024) 11. Superseded by #17 The lead sentence is "Donald John Trump (born June 14, 1946) is an American businessman, television personality, politician, and the 45th President of the United States." (Jan 2017, Jan 2017, Jan 2017, Jan 2017, Jan 2017, Feb 2017) (superseded by #17 since 2 April 2017)

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)

15. Superseded by lead rewrite Supersedes #4. There is no consensus to change the formulation of the paragraph which summarizes election results in the lead (starting with "Trump won the general election on November 8, 2016, …"). Accordingly the pre-RfC text (Diff 8 Jan 2017) has been restored, with minor adjustments to past tense (Diff 11 Feb 2018). No new changes should be applied without debate. (RfC Feb 2017, Jan 2017, Feb 2017, Feb 2017) In particular, there is no consensus to include any wording akin to "losing the popular vote". (RfC March 2017) (Superseded by local consensus on 26 May 2017 and lead section rewrite on 23 June 2017) 16. Superseded by lead rewrite Do not mention Russian influence on the presidential election in the lead section. (RfC March 2017) (Superseded by lead section rewrite on 23 June 2017) 17. Superseded by #50 Supersedes #11. The lead paragraph is "Donald John Trump (born June 14, 1946) is the 45th and current president of the United States. Before entering politics, he was a businessman and television personality." The hatnote is simply {{Other uses}}. (April 2017, RfC April 2017, April 2017, April 2017, April 2017, July 2017, Dec 2018) Amended by lead section rewrite on 23 June 2017 and removal of inauguration date on 4 July 2018. Lower-case "p" in "president" per Dec 2018 and MOS:JOBTITLES RfC Oct 2017. Wikilinks modified per April 2020. Wikilink modified again per July 2020. "45th" de-linked. (Jan 2021) 18. Superseded by #63 The "Alma mater" infobox entry shows "Wharton School (BS Econ.)", does not mention Fordham University. (April 2017, April 2017, Aug 2020, Dec 2020) 19. Obsolete Following deletion of Trump's official White House portrait for copyright reasons on 2 June 2017, infobox image was replaced by File:Donald Trump Pentagon 2017.jpg. (June 2017 for replacement, June 2017, declined REFUND on 11 June 2017) (replaced by White House official public-domain portrait according to #1 since 31 Oct 2017) 20. Superseded by unlisted consensus Mention protests in the lead section with this exact wording: His election and policies ~~have~~ sparked numerous protests. (June 2017, May 2018, superseded December 2024) (Note: In February 2021, when he was no longer president, the verb tense was changed from "have sparked" to "sparked", without objection.) 21. Superseded by #39 Omit any opinions about Trump's psychology held by mental health academics or professionals who have not examined him. (July 2017, Aug 2017) (superseded by #36 on 18 June 2019, then by #39 since 20 Aug 2019)

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)

23. Superseded by #52 The lead includes the following sentence: Trump ordered a travel ban on citizens from several Muslim-majority countries, citing security concerns; after legal challenges, the Supreme Court upheld the policy's third revision. (Aug 2017, Nov 2017, Dec 2017, Jan 2018, Jan 2018) Wording updated (July 2018) and again (Sep 2018). 24. Superseded by #30 Do not include allegations of racism in the lead. (Feb 2018) (superseded by #30 since 16 Aug 2018)

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)

35. Superseded by #49 Supersedes #7. Include in the lead: Trump has made many false or misleading statements during his campaign and presidency. The statements have been documented by fact-checkers, and the media have widely described the phenomenon as unprecedented in American politics. (RfC Feb 2019) 36. Superseded by #39 Include one paragraph merged from Health of Donald Trump describing views about Trump's psychology expressed by public figures, media sources, and mental health professionals who have not examined him. (June 2019) (paragraph removed per RfC Aug 2019 yielding consensus #39)

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 preclude bringing up for discussion whether to include media coverage relating to Trump's mental health and fitness. 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)

45. Superseded by #48 There is no consensus to mention the COVID-19 pandemic in the lead section. (RfC May 2020, July 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:

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

Racially charged

This section is pinned and will not be automatically archived.

Hello all, I see Consensus #30, based particularly on this Request for Comment says: "The lead includes: "Many of his comments and actions have been characterized as racially charged or racist."" I can also see that this is the only mention of "racially charged" in the article. Would editors here support removal of "racially charged" until such text is supported in the body? Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 04:19, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Would editors here support removal of "racially charged" until such text is supported in the body? Not this one, per process. We're not going to amend #30 until the body is fixed, then reverse the amendment. "Racially charged" appears to have enough RS support, so just find a way to work it into the body. ―Mandruss ☎ 05:54, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

~~What does "reverse the amendment" mean? Go back to Consensus 24? Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 06:07, 12 November 2024 (UTC)~~ I understand. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 06:07, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

I see the grammatical ambiguity. :) ―Mandruss ☎ 07:06, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

This seems backwards. Lead follows body. We shouldn't treat the consensus list as sacrosanct, it's merely there to keep track of RfCs. If the article has moved on, I'd support a new RfC to challenge the previous one. Riposte97 (talk) 07:32, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Riposte97 I think an RfC should be avoided if it can be. Do you think you could WP:FIXIT? I'll have a go as well in a bit. If we don't have luck we can look at overturning Consensus #30.

Given it's an WP:EXCEPTIONAL claim, high-quality sources will be needed. I wouldn't accept journalists being arbitrators of whether his comments were "racially charged", political scientists will have written on it and we shouldn't accept inferior sourcing. This is the standard that was applied for "cult of personality". Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 07:57, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Your reasoning seems consistent with WP:NEWSORG. A departure, probably more impactful (disruptive?) than you realize, but maybe ultimately good for the article. No strong opinion provided we adhere to the established consensus process. If that means revisiting #30, I suppose you pass the "significant new argument(s)" test. ―Mandruss ☎ 08:37, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

@Rollinginhisgrave, apologies that I've not had the time to properly devote to this. I'll see what I can add to your page in the coming days. Riposte97 (talk) 10:37, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Yep definitely. 92.30.105.204 (talk) 19:45, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

I have created a page User:Rollinginhisgrave/Trump racism descriptor as a space for research on this article. I intended to use academic sources in Racial views of Donald Trump as the basis to follow summary style, but extremely disappointingly, only six of the almost 500 sources are academic.

This is collaborative so please help! If this can be pinned to the top of this page for a short while it would be valuable. Remember, for WP:WEIGHT, we are not merely looking for multiple sources describing him or his comments/actions as racist/racially charged, but for the weighted response of high-quality academic sources to these questions. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 10:21, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

SusanLesch Pinging you in case this effort is of interest. Been working mostly on collating books right now as journals are daunting for finding discussion of general scholarly consensus. If you find other useful texts along the way providing a scholarly retrospective assessment on aspects, I'm currently dropping them in User:Rollinginhisgrave/sandbox_2. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 17:17, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Will do. Sorry if I'm slow today with journals but I will catch up. On this topic per MOS:LEADNO, not everything in the lead must be repeated in the body of the text, however this statement absolutely should be cited per MOS:CITELEAD. Seems like a good place for a perfectly cited footnote. -SusanLesch (talk) 17:42, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Thanks :) Yes the key issue is definitely it being uncited. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 17:48, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Support removal. "Racially charged" is nothing but a euphemism for "racist". When you consider that in the same sentence we are saying that Trump's comments and actions have been characterized as outright racist, it makes even less sense to "soften" the characterization with this term. Reading that old discussion, I think the true reason that many editors tended to support the euphemism was because it softens the perception that we are saying he is racist in Wikivoice. "Characterized by some" was rightly rejected by editors as too vague, but perhaps "characterized by critics" could be used to clearly attribute the characterization and prevent reader misunderstanding. — Goszei (talk) 01:34, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

it needs removing for sure. it's against WP:Biographies_of_living_persons on multiple counts, but specially "Remove contentious material that is unsourced or poorly sourced" ~ Smellymoo 18:29, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

It's sourced in Donald Trump#Views. A citation should be added to the lead per MOS:LEADCITE. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:44, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

To be clear, I do not oppose the lead's inclusion of the fact that many characterize Trump as racist. I am only supporting the removal of the term "racially charged", which I feel is redundant. — Goszei (talk) 17:08, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

Suggest you look up the meaning of "racially charged". Regards, Bob K31416 (talk) 23:40, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
This comment is going over my head. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 01:19, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

Tracking lead size

Word counts by paragraph and total.

05 Nov 2024 — 614 = 29 + 101 + 106 + 156 + 101 + 121

12 Nov 2024 — 657 = 46 + 101 + 116 + 175 + 176 + 43

19 Nov 2024 — 418 = 62 + 76 + 153 + 127

26 Nov 2024 — 406 = 56 + 70 + 138 + 142 03 Dec 2024 — 418 = 53 + 64 + 158 + 143

10 Dec 2024 — 413 = 54 + 62 + 153 + 144

17 Dec 2024 — 422 = 58 + 57 + 141 + 166

24 Dec 2024 — 437 = 58 + 57 + 156 + 166

31 Dec 2024 — 465 = 87 + 60 + 154 + 164 07 Jan 2025 — 438 = 58 + 60 + 156 + 164

Tracking article size

Readable prose size in words – Wiki markup size in bytes – Approximate number of additional citations before exceeding the PEIS limit.

05 Nov 2024 — 15,818 – 421,592 – 103

12 Nov 2024 — 15,883 – 427,790 – 046

19 Nov 2024 — 15,708 – 430,095 – 012

26 Nov 2024 — 15,376 – 414,196 – 067 03 Dec 2024 — 15,479 – 415,176 – 064

10 Dec 2024 — 15,279 – 404,464 – 122

17 Dec 2024 — 15,294 – 405,370 – 080

24 Dec 2024 — 14,863 – 402,971 – 190

31 Dec 2024 — 14,989 – 409,188 – 180 07 Jan 2025 — 14,681 – 404,773 – 187

RfC on describing Trumpism in lead

This section is pinned and will not be automatically archived.

Please consider joining the feedback request service.

An editor has requested comments from other editors for this discussion. This page has been added to the following lists:

Biographies
Politics, government, and law

When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the lists. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.

The current lead contains a simple mention of Trumpism. Should a brief description be added to this mention? A proposed wording for the added text, which is also up for debate here: characterized by right-wing populism, "America First" nationalism, and economic protectionism. — Goszei (talk) 04:51, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
Addendum: A shorter version of the proposed addition could look like led to Trumpism, a right-wing populist movement. — Goszei (talk) 18:31, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Previous discussion at Talk:Donald Trump/Archive 185#Proposal to add brief description of Trumpism in lead. — Goszei (talk) 04:51, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Support. The statement "Trump created Trumpism" without further description is meaningless. If there is any single piece of information which a reader should take away from the lead, it is that Trump is America's leading proponent of right-wing populism, and the person who has done to most to reshape the Republican Party along these lines. It was argued by some in the previous discussion that details should be saved for the Trumpism article, but I believe that these words briefly and simply introduce what much of the rest of the lead and article are seeking to explain. Just as FDR's lead describes in broad terms what "New Deal"ism is and Reagan's describes what "Reaganomics" is, so too should Trump's lead briefly describe Trumpism. This is especially relevant after the recent election, as Trump and Trumpism's importance in U.S. political history only continues to grow. — Goszei (talk) 04:51, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Suppport: we need to know what Trumpism is about.--Jack Upland (talk) 04:55, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Oppose as I believe it is unnecessarily adding to an already excessively large article. The article is not about Trumpism - which is linked in the text for the purpose of providing a shortcut should people wish to know more about what constitutes such, without contributing further to the word count. Artem... 05:05, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Comment Further explanation of Trumpism seems relative in the lead, or at least, it likely will be within the next four years. DN (talk) 06:13, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Oppose a, this article is already too long, and 2, it might need a lot more explanation then we can give it in the lead, what is Trumpism? Slatersteven (talk) 14:50, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Support but it should be limited to one sentence after a more detailed yet brief description is provided in the body. I agree that anyone with a political movement named after them should have some more description about it other than "they created it". I don't have exact wording but something along the lines of its impact on the Republican Party or American politics would be warranted as per Goszei. Any statement would need to be sourced in the body first, however, to avoid OR. Agreeing on a description in the political practice and rhetoric section would be helpful first before adding it to the lead. BootsED (talk) 14:57, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Support since Trumpism is mentioned, then it should be explained what it is. A single sentence in the lede, and a brief elaboration somewhere else in the article. The wording in the lede could be as proposed above, or something a bit different. Ktrimi991 (talk) 19:18, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Oppose as misplaced for the lead, and per Artem. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:34, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
Oppose too wordy in an already bloated article. Artem is indeed correct. Nemov (talk) 03:30, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
Oppose because “Trumpism” in the lead should be replaced with “MAGA”, which is a much more widely discussed and widespread thing. Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:01, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

@Artem P75, Slatersteven, Nikkimaria, and Nemov: To those opposing the proposed text based on concerns about length, would you support a shorter addition such as led to Trumpism, a right-wing populist movement.? — Goszei (talk) 04:03, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Oppose We don't have room for this, and this isn't the Trumpism article, it is the Trump article. Also, this would need to be added to the body first, since the lead follows the body. QuicoleJR (talk) 15:00, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
Oppose per Anythingyouwant. I've never heard of Trumpism before. Neither has Britannica, which instead has an article for MAGA movement. -SusanLesch (talk) 18:48, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
What the Britannica article describes is exactly what our article at Trumpism describes. The term MAGA movement should probably be added to that article's lead as a synonym. — Goszei (talk) 18:59, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
It's a redirect. The BBC said, But is there such a thing as Trumpism? Well that might be stretching it. -SusanLesch (talk) 23:12, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

This article doesn't mention MAGA. Maybe somebody wanted to make something of Trumpism? -SusanLesch (talk) 16:33, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
Oppose mainly as it is unnecessarily adding to an already excessively large article per Artem, also because Trumpism isn't a "a thought-through philosophy, a carefully mapped world view" inextricably linked to the man in the way that Marxism or Leninism are. Trumpism is more of a term descibing a series of populist instincts which are not very often used to characterise reactions/policies etc. When/if Trumpism itself becomes more elaborated, and the term more used, WEIGHT might then dictate a brief definition. At present it would be at least unnecessary and potentially confusing.Pincrete (talk) 07:57, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

Support Very much WP:Due to summarise the key tenets of his political ideology, much more so than discussing specific policies as in the status quo. I’m very confused about the opposes, however the leads of Margaret Thatcher and Juan Peron only mention their ideologies rather than describe them

Kowal2701 (talk) 10:17, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

Weak oppose, while it's only a few extra words it's still more to an already-too-big article, and the link to the Trumpism article is there for a reason. — Czello 10:37, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

Weak Oppose, Agree with same sentiment as @Czello 's comment above. Seems like redundancy when we have a link that lets readers click on it if they don't understand a concept or definition. This also sets bad precedence to have to define every single political descriptor.

MaximusEditor (talk) 16:39, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Oppose: Trump's lead is already "huuuge." And considering that WP:TTD (which discusses the use of "technical terms or terms of art and jargon specific to the subject matter") asks the question, "On the other hand, do not treat every “scientific” word as a technical term. Ask the question: Is this the only article or one of a very few where the term might be encountered in Misplaced Pages?", and seeing as there is another page entirely dedicated to discussing the topic, and where we're already pushing WP:LEAD best practices with the length and depth of Trump's BLP, let's move on.

As a side note, WP:TTD has some handy recommendations for handling formatting of the word "Trumpism" for those interested. Pistongrinder (talk) 17:13, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

Support : For me this is almost a mandatory addition for a very simple reason, the lead has zero words used to describe Trump's rise to power. Zero. This is not acceptable. These three very simple and short words describe it very well and are widely sourced. The description should take its place at the end of the second paragraph, in a chronological order, to either describe Trumpism or even more directly his first election campaign. The objection that the lead is not convincing. Other things can go. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cinemaandpolitics (talk • contribs) 14:41, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
Oppose. Misplaced jargon in the leading section of the article leads to unnecessary confusion. Onikaburgers (talk) 19:46, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

Support since this is a pretty major part of what Trump has done,

And because just ¨Trump started Trumpism¨ isn't a very good description of that, let alone anything. Tenebre_Rosso_Sangue, ULTRAKILLing Vandals! Call for Medic! My Stats! 21:34, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

Edit War

This section is pinned and will not be automatically archived.

I think there is an edit war going on here. Following the Inauguration of Joe Biden, Trump left office. Till he won, the title was clear, post-presidency. After he won, an edit war started. For some weird reason, these are the choices at hand:

1. Interpresidency
2. First post-presidency
3. post-presidency (current)

At first, people used choice number 3. Then the edit war started after the election, and people cannot decide between these choices. We need better security for this article, Extended confirmed is clearly not doing it here. Just please decide. 2601:483:400:1CD0:7D95:FF0A:CEC6:A8AD (talk) 19:11, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

The situation is neither uncommon nor illegitimate when there is no clear talk page consensus. See #Time Person of the Year in the body for another example. It has nothing to do with the level of protection. Regardless, the next level after ECP is full protection, which is not going to happen. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:32, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

Well, you see, Edit protection is next, ensuring only experienced people can do it. Look, i'm just saying we have to be really careful around this particular article mainly from the controversies. I have asked an experienced person to assess the situation. 2601:483:400:1CD0:B614:68CF:9223:D88F (talk) 18:38, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

On January 20, 2025, the title of the section should be changed to "Post-presidency (2021–2025)". If there is a "second post-presidency (2029–)", we can change that to "First post-presidency (2021–2025)". I googled "Inter-presidency" and got a bunch of hits for Inter Milan President Beppe Marotta. Space4Time3Continuum2x 🖖 17:10, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

"Dormancy (2021–2025)". Or remission. ;) ―Mandruss ☎ 17:45, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

He was not dormant, rather pretty active. False claims rised before he finally conceded. Not to be rude, but this title wouldn't be the best. I'll admit, we do need a clear consensus. 2601:483:400:1CD0:B614:68CF:9223:D88F (talk) 18:55, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

We thought it was the end of the movie but it was just an intermission. Space4Time3Continuum2x 🖖 21:54, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

Correct, although after "the end of the movie" he was still active. And "Dormancy" was suggested in 2024 not 2021. Dormancy is described as a non-active state, although his activity between 2021 and now is active. 2601:483:400:1CD0:C42F:4B2A:C28D:A2F (talk) 23:24, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

I support option 1 as the most accurate of the three. QuicoleJR (talk) 17:21, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

The word isn't in any dictionary. Space4Time3Continuum2x 🖖 18:07, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

Why not use the model of the Cleavland article? Slatersteven (talk) 19:22, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

That's pretty much what I'm proposing, except for the "election of 18xx" part (we have the campaign/election sections instead) and not knowing how long Trump's second presidency and post-presidency will last. Space4Time3Continuum2x 🖖 22:02, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

Legally it has to end in 2028. Slatersteven (talk) 22:04, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

January 20, 2029. He's 78 — we'll see what happens. Space4Time3Continuum2x 🖖 22:39, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

Problem, it uses First post-presidency. It is already inaccurate but I will not discuss unrelated articles. 2601:483:400:1CD0:C42F:4B2A:C28D:A2F (talk) 23:25, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

"§7 First presidency (2017–2021)" could change to "§7 Presidency (2017–2021)"? He only served one term. -SusanLesch (talk) 23:29, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

This is concerning the following section. And I'm not sure if I should say this but I don't think we should start this on the Grover Cleveland talk page. 2601:483:400:1CD0:C42F:4B2A:C28D:A2F (talk) 23:41, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

And I was referring to the Cleveland article when I said First post-presidency. Sorry for not pointing it out. 2601:483:400:1CD0:C42F:4B2A:C28D:A2F (talk) 23:42, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

Between presidential terms (2021–2025). Cheers, Bob K31416 (talk) 20:14, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

You know, that sounds like a good idea.

Any objections? 2601:483:400:1CD0:382D:166E:CC23:2B80 (talk) 17:04, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

Works for me. QuicoleJR (talk) 17:07, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

Solution in search of a problem, but meh as long as you wait until after the inauguration — just in case lightning strikes or an Acme anvil falls. Space4Time3Continuum2x 🖖 18:14, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. As far as I'm concerned, anyone can make the change after the inauguration on 1-20-2025. Regards, Bob K31416 (talk) 22:38, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

Well, sounds good to me.

Ok, what should the next steps be?

Also, just curious, who pinned this? 2601:483:400:1CD0:45C3:C5FA:5FD8:FA51 (talk) 15:32, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

who pinned this? ―Mandruss ☎ 16:11, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

Huh — looks as though BoB K tried to (because I said "meh"??) and then you did? Can't figure out what happened. My suggestion: unpin. Space4Time3Continuum2x 🖖 19:32, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

I care about how it's pinned. Apathetic on whether it should be pinned. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:13, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

As I mentioned in my edit summary, "added template to prevent archiving of this thread until a week after inauguration". I did that because this discussion was about taking an action after the inauguration. Mandruss changed the time from a week after the inauguration to 10 years and made an announcement in a box at the top of the section. Whatever you want to do is fine with me. Regards, Bob K31416 (talk) 15:10, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

Well it seems all set. 2601:483:400:1CD0:A1A4:FD62:9508:F4EB (talk) 02:06, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

"Individual 1" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Individual 1 has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Misplaced Pages:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 December 30 § Individual 1 until a consensus is reached. Steel1943 (talk) 23:57, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

Individual-1 and Individual One are also discussed there. Jay 💬 19:44, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

Are you kidding with the bias in the introduction?

The intro should highlight that he was re-elected by the American people in reaction to the progressive agenda pushed by the current administration, high inflationary periods between 2020-2024, and a desire for better economic performance. This victory was unprecedented given the amount of lawsuits against Trump and the extreme anti-Trump sentiment in the media. 74.105.29.105 (talk) 05:33, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages articles are written based off of what reliable sources say, not based on your original research on why he was elected or how "unprecedented" it is. QuicoleJR (talk) 19:36, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

The article doesn't seem to give any reason for Trump's victory. I did a quick google search "reason for Trump winning election" and the first thing I found was The factors that led to Donald Trump's victory. In this source there was Anthony Salvanto, CBS News' executive director of elections and surveys, who said that there were three main factors behind voters' support of Trump: the role of the economy, a steady MAGA base, and out-of-touch democrats. Bob K31416 (talk) 21:31, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

That seems like it would fit better in the article on the election than in the article on Trump. QuicoleJR (talk) 21:37, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

Why is that? This is information that is directly related to his career in politics. 74.105.29.105 (talk) 23:31, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

Happy to provide sources of you can confirm that you will make the changes. Not sure who the gatekeeper is for what the world views on Misplaced Pages, but I hope is is not just one person. 74.105.29.105 (talk) 23:32, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

Not how things work here. You suggest a change or addition, which is supported by citation to a source. Discussion will then begin from there on whether or not to include it. Zaathras (talk) 00:54, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

There isn't exactly a "gatekeeper for worldviews" on this site, you need sources for statements you want to induct into the article and like what other people said, no original research. 108.27.60.251 (talk) 03:10, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

That kind of introduction is more fitting for Conservapedia, not Misplaced Pages. NesserWiki (talk) 12:57, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

@NesserWiki: Conservapedia is extremely ironic, it's not to be taken seriously. On the contrary, what the OP wrote started a discussion that perhaps could be useful (although I don't think it will be useful). JacktheBrown (talk) 01:01, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Unjustified removal of Operation Warp Speed?

Space4Time3Continuum2x decided to remove mention of Operation Warp Speed from the page and said that the "last discussion" was "inconclusive". I'm a little confused here, given the discussion they cited includes a number of editors agreeing that inclusion of OWS was warranted, but not much discussion about it at all.

The discussion also seems irrelevant given multiple reliable sources are saying OWS was a trump accomplishment. If it's in an RS and WP:VER, I don't think it's sound to wipe stuff because of some vague mentions on an archived talk page?

E.g. according to Vox: here: "One of the biggest accomplishments of the Trump administration — and yes, there were accomplishments — was Operation Warp Speed, the public-private effort to rapidly develop Covid vaccines"

Per CBC: "Operation Warp Speed, a Trump administration initiative to manufacture COVID-19 vaccines as fast as possible, should be lauded as a successful endeavour in what has otherwise been a poor effort to deal with the coronavirus, experts say"

Washington Post says OWS was a Trump accomplishment, while also being clear that Trump was an anti-science president who sometimes hindered the pandemic response.

It probably deserves a brief mention in the lead as I put here.

It would be great if other users could please weigh in.

Zenomonoz (talk) 23:24, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

It's probably worth a brief mention in the article body – like a sentence. A fuller treatment of the topic belongs in First presidency of Donald Trump, U.S. federal government response to the COVID-19 pandemic, and obviously Operation Warp Speed. – Anne drew (talk · contribs) 01:50, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

"A brief mention – like a sentence"? If numerous reliable sources are calling this a major achievement with substantial discussion, a paragraph is more realistic. There are 12 entire paragraphs about COVID, some of it rather trivial in nature – but a single sentence for a multi-billion dollar policy implemented by a US president that has been praised by experts and sources? Zenomonoz (talk) 04:06, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

CNN seems to have agreed with you. "President Donald Trump finally has something legitimate to take credit for in his coronavirus response: A vaccine that appears poised to reach Americans in record time." Bob K31416 (talk) 01:53, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

Thanks, that's a good source to use. Zenomonoz (talk) 04:08, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

That CNN source, NPR, and

I would support a brief, neutrally worded one-sentence mention of Operation Warp Speed. Further detail should be reserved for the respective pages covering that topic. BootsED (talk) 04:27, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

Reincluded: I have reincluded the paragraph and small mention in lead. I also took a look at the Obama article, which includes mention of the ACA as his "most significant accomplishment" per the WP:RS, so I think if the reliable sources describe this as Trumps, that deserved a mention in body. Zenomonoz (talk) 04:41, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

This is more than a mention in the body - it should be shortened. If there is a concern that some of the other COVID-related content is trivial, then condensing that would be a better approach. Nikkimaria (talk) 05:09, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

Two sentences is hardly "more than a mention". The reliable sources describe this as a major achievement of his presidency and a major component of his COVID-19 response. Misplaced Pages reflects the RS. It seems some of the editors chiming in think "consensus" depends on opinion and a vote count. That is false. Zenomonoz (talk) 20:43, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

That is false. Is that a "My arguments are stronger, so I win" argument? ―Mandruss ☎ 21:00, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

No, consensus building is important. But it is also important that Misplaced Pages editors arguments are based in policy/guidelines/reasoning. Misplaced Pages is supposed to reflect WP:RS, and I haven't heard a good argument as to why restriction to a single sentence is appropriate, given the way OWS has been extensively covered in the reliable sources. Zenomonoz (talk) 21:11, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

I'm just being practical, as that's how I roll. Based on my 11 years around here, a large part of it at this article, I'd generously estimate that one in four editors participating at this article actually meets that standard of collaborativeness (my mind doesn't change easily, so I wouldn't count myself as one of them). We can agree on ideals, but we still have to resolve issues. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:54, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

You didn't just reinsert the paragraph after six hours (see "Warning: active arbitration remedies" banner at the top of this talk page), you also added a clause to the lead. I've reverted. The discussion so far supports a brief, e.g., one-sentence mention in the body. Developing an effective vaccine was only part of it; research and development was well under way in several countries by the time of Trump's announcement. ~~Producing and delivering the~~ The production and delivery of a "few hundred million doses of vaccine by the end of 2020" the Trump administration announced on May 15, 2020, was an unrealistic goal and a promise they didn't keep. (Cue Trump's vaccine conspiracy claims.) Space4Time3Continuum2x 🖖 12:40, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

A full delete of the section seems to be more than what Nikkimaria asked for above, maybe to shorten that material which was just deleted by some percentage might be better than the full delete. ErnestKrause (talk) 15:24, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

Space4Time3Continuum2x, I find this reasoning to restrict it to one sentence unjustified. Misplaced Pages reflects reliable sources. Consensus is made based upon validity of the argument per editing guidelines, and not because one editor thinks that this should be restricted to one sentence. Overriding and disputing the reliable sources seems like a major overstep. This is covered in the RS as a major component to the pandemic response, and a major achievement of his presidency.

And to clarify, I did not “reinsert the paragraph”, I wrote a new one. Second, the part in the lead was in my original edit. The lead summarizes his response to COVID, and this was a major component of that response.

Can you actually cite me reasoning/guidelines/policy that would favour your interpretation of restricting coverage to a single sentence, given that multiple WP:RS explicitly refer to this as his chief achievement?

Zenomonoz (talk) 20:49, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

I stand corrected. I hadn't noticed the text in the lead the first time around. Mention in the lead hasn't received any support in this discussion, and the rewritten text is no improvement on the first iteration. It's actually worse. The first sentence is based on a primary source (OWS); second sentence see my comment above. Space4Time3Continuum2x 🖖 20:58, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

reasoning/guidelines/policy ... single sentence — not a question of guidelines or policy, it's where the consensus seems to be headed. Several editors in this discussion said they prefer a brief, short, or one-sentence mention, also neutral. Space4Time3Continuum2x 🖖 21:07, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

Regarding your comment above. Just because mRNA technology predates Trump isn't a reason for editors to make their own conclusions that OWS wasn't really an achievement at all. OWS may well have been imperfect, but multiple WP:RS still describe it as his chief achievement. E.g. Vox quite recently .

It would be appropriate to add a sentence to the end of the two sentence paragraph that I added, clarifying any of the critique of Trump regarding OWS, provided they are in WP:RS.

In addition to the Vox source, the CNN source did support: "Health experts broadly agree that the Trump administration’s national vaccine strategy was a success. The Trump administration was willing to invest in new vaccine technologies, foot the bill for large, expensive clinical studies and simultaneously pay for manufacturing vaccine candidates before it was clear they would prove effective and safe" Zenomonoz (talk) 21:08, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

You`re cherry picking a random quote Anonymous8206 (talk) 21:23, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

I highlighted multiple WP:RS above which are clear that OWS was perhaps his sole accomplishment as president. I'm not going to argue with people who don't understand how Misplaced Pages works. Questioning multiple reliable sources is not appropriate. It's verifiable (WP:VER) and in multiple reliable sources. Zenomonoz (talk) 21:39, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

A handful of random quotes taken out of context Anonymous8206 (talk) 21:43, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

Do you have any countervailing evidence, then? I haven't chimed in here because I wanted to see how this developed, but it seems Zenomonoz is arguing for RS and policy…the assertion that this should be arbitrarily restricted to one sentence (and the unhelpful removal in the meantime) doesn't improve the article.

How do biographical sources treat OWS? Riposte97 (talk) 22:59, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

That would require an effort on my part..I agree..I believe the reference should be expanded upon regarding trump dragging his feet every moment of the pandemic and is now taking credit for ending it..as did reagan taking credit for the wall coming down Anonymous8206 (talk) 00:35, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

That's good. We should get into the nuances. Riposte97 (talk) 00:54, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

"I believe the reference should be expanded upon regarding trump dragging his feet every moment of the pandemic", if you actually read the COVID-19 section you would know there is already extensive coverage of trump "dragging his feet". It's frustrating that users are chiming in to say we must restrict mention of a major program he implemented during the pandemic to a single sentence, despite its heavy coverage in multiple reliable sources. No reasoning provided. Quoting multiple RS sources is the opposite of "cherrypicking", by the way. Zenomonoz (talk) 05:57, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

I would also like to offer my agreement with @Zenomonoz that the listed references indicate notability of the bill itself and is representative of the most notable policy associated with his Presidency. It warrants some mention of inclusion as the references provided do appear to all validate its importance both nationally and with respect to his presidency. LosPajaros (talk) 05:33, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Considering that the major source of the vaccine was Pfizer, which was never a part of Warp Speed, and an immigrant who got the Nobel Prize for ages of research behind the vaccine; but had to leave the country for lack of funds -- a very brief mention somewhere may be OK. But that's all. More than that is an insult to those that spent decades in vaccine efforts -- and Trump's new Health Czar is anti-vaccine. O3000, Ret. (talk) 01:21, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
"More than that is an insult to those that spent decades in vaccine efforts -- and Trump's new Health Czar is anti-vaccine" – your reasoning does not seem relevant. Misplaced Pages reflects WP:RS, it isn't up to users to be making editorial decisions because they think it's an "insult" to people who worked on vaccines, or because of details surrounding the Pfizer vaccine. OWS funded numerous other vaccines, and scientific experts agree it was largely a success per the WP:RS. A later pending appointment of RFK has zero bearing on OWS and what the sources said about OWS. Zenomonoz (talk) 06:07, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

The precise quotation from Pfizer is now added to the Operation Warp Speed article. ErnestKrause (talk) 01:49, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Thanks. An accurate documentation: O3000, Ret. (talk) 02:04, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

I rewrote one of the added sentences over there per the given source , "Three experts agreed that the U.S. government's conditional advance order 'played an important role in expediting Pfizer’s vaccine development process' and one expert disagreed." As it originally was added with "Experts disagreed", seemed to express more disagreement than the source presented and that there was a larger sample. Thanks. Bob K31416 (talk) 11:55, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

I just reverted your rewrite for failing verification. CNN wrote: Three experts told CNN that this purchase promise may have played an important role in expediting Pfizer’s vaccine development process. Your text: Three experts agreed that the U.S. government's conditional advance order "played an important role in expediting Pfizer’s vaccine development process". I bolded the important words missing from your quote. The CNN article also mentions other uncertainties, such as Pfizer and BioNTech's purchase agreements with other countries. Space4Time3Continuum2x 🖖 15:13, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Here again is my edit , which didn't change the quote that was there. I think what I had should be restored with the extra part "may have”, all of which is supported by the given source. In other words I think it should be like this, "Three experts agreed that the U.S. government's conditional advance order 'may have played an important role in expediting Pfizer’s vaccine development process' and one expert disagreed." Cheers, Bob K31416 (talk) 16:11, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

CNN asked four experts — selected on what basis out of how many? The purchase was contingent on the vaccine's FDA approval, so it was Pfizer/BioNTech taking the risk of paying for development, clinical trials, building the production facilities — seems they were fairly certain that they would succeed. Space4Time3Continuum2x 🖖 16:33, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Space, we are not going to start questioning the reliability of sources like CNN, nor committing OR. I agree with Bob's proposal, and will insert the amended quote tomorrow. Riposte97 (talk) 23:53, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Yes. A small paragraph about OWS is justified to go back in. It's covered extensively in reliable sources. Space (but mostly other users) have been questioning reliable sources WP:SOURCEGOODFAITH and carrying out WP:OR in the comments here. I received stern warnings for that when I was new to Misplaced Pages. This his all boils down to "what do the reliable sources say?". If there's extensive coverage in RS, it can be included. If users want to include RS mention of any criticism of Trump and OWS, that can be included too. Per the sources, OWS is a major part of the Trump admin COVID response. What do the reliable sources say? Zenomonoz (talk) 06:28, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

I agree. I would also suggest that editors look at the rather large section COVID-19 pandemic and note what is currently there without OWS. Thanks. Bob K31416 (talk) 10:01, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

Within the context of how trump and his cronies handled the pandemic Anonymous8206 (talk) 21:06, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

New official portrait

Original heading: "When Trump's new potrait is taken during his second term, should that replace the photo of his last Presidential potrait?" ―Mandruss ☎ 12:59, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

I don't believe there is a standard for this exact situation yet on here, given that Trump is only the second person to serve two non-consecutive terms as POTUS. Although, newer potraits tend be used over older ones on pages for other politicians. Overall, I'm curious as to what you all think should happen. NesserWiki (talk) 12:54, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

For infoboxes for politicians, Misplaced Pages uses the most recent official portrait. ―Mandruss ☎ 13:05, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

There is a precedent with Barack Obama. We use the most recent, second White House portrait which is closer to how he currently looks (salt-and-pepper rather than his earlier black hair). https://petapixel.com/2013/01/18/a-closer-look-at-obamas-new-official-presidential-portrait/ GhulamIslam (talk) 08:25, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Making this article fully protected

when he is instated, there will be a wave of people (i think) that will try to edit it, and even bots. i find it necessary to make it fully protected (gold lock) thekingpachy (talk) 13:46, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

Pages are not protected preemptively... - Adolphus79 (talk) 17:32, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

It's called Freedom of speech Anonymous8206 (talk) 21:13, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

i know, but i think there will be a large vandalism wave, maybe one we cant actually control. over the next 4 years we will definitely see vandalism, which will be extremely annoying and tedious to defend against. thekingpachy (talk) 21:15, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

is there anything that actually is fully protected? thekingpachy (talk) 21:16, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

Not in this life...I would prefer to see the page taken down completely for 24 hours than it freezing due to edit conflict but that`s censorship as well Anonymous8206 (talk) 22:03, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

ok thekingpachy (talk) 10:27, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

The article survived the election with the current protection. It will likewise survive the inauguration. In the absolute worst case, we could always restore a days-old revision. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:09, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Donald trump is now president.

Change from President-elect to President. Kegsper (talk) 18:40, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

@Kegsper you have to wait 14 more days... EvergreenFir (talk) 18:42, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

has he been inaugurated? Slatersteven (talk) 18:43, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

No, he is not. His term will start at noon on the 20th. Just like Biden's started at noon on 20 January 2021. Just like Trump's previous term started at noon on 20 January 2017. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 19:26, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

No he's not, wdym???? He'll be the president starting from Jan 20. There's still two weeks left EarthDude (talk) 11:43, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

I find titles for Presidents and other politicians in Misplaced Pages articles to be inconsistent. For example in President Biden’s article, one can see President Barack Obama and former president Donald Trump in the article, and political titles should be used more.

The Twentieth Amendment uses the term, “President-elect,” as you are using here, yet Misplaced Pages in this article, and in the article, “President-elect,” uses “president-elect,” “President,” is not capitalized.

The fact is people were more formal when I was younger, a President had the title of President the rest of his life. Easeltine (talk) 10:21, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

Reduce number of citations

This article, without a doubt, should be reduced its citations. 800+ is too much. There are a very few sentences without 2 or more citations. We don't need thousands of citations to prove something. What we need is a reliable source, that we can absolutely rely on, and I can say we can rely on each citation in this article. Where Trump starts his new presidential term, there would of course be a new section for that term, and there for sure be more than 200 citations at the end of that term, and later his post-presidency. This article is already long enough, which I for sure couldn't read within 5 hours. Too much citations. Plus, Trump is one of the most influential people in the U.S. and the world, which makes no doubt that there won't be any misinformation or what did not happen in this article, I mean we don't need 800+ citations, if not fixed the problem, by October 2025, 900 citations in this article. MAL MALDIVE (talk) 19:01, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

I do agree that we should delete excess citations, such as where two or three citations are used at the end of a sentence where one will do. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:54, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

This article is already long enough, which I for sure couldn't read within 5 hours. Too much citations. What does number of citations have to do with article length? Would you read every citation?While obvious OVERCITE should be avoided, I have no problem with the current number of citations and I think the hard PEIS limit should be the primary limiter. (See #Tracking article size.) ―Mandruss ☎ 21:04, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

The article size is daunting also, its over 400Kb in size. If the article were reduced in size, then the number of cites could be significantly reduced as well. ErnestKrause (talk) 01:48, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

Indictment Dismissal

The last sentence in the lead currently says: "He faced more felony indictments related to his interference in the 2020 election and his handling of classified documents, which were dismissed after his victory in the 2024 election." However, the classified documents case was dismissed by Aileen Cannon before the Nov election because she ruled Jack Smith was unlawfully appointed. See AP article source: https://apnews.com/article/trump-classified-documents-smith-c66d5ffb7ba86c1b991f95e89bdeba0c. So, this sentence should be revised. Apparently, Jack Smith dropped his appeal of this ruling, but that does not change the fact that this case was dismissed last summer. Pillsberrydoo7 (talk) 02:45, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

The late president's article

Looking at the article for the late Jimmy Carter, the Misplaced Pages article for him has a substantial section about his medical history as 'Personal life' and 'Health' which appears at the bottom of the article. The section at the Jimmy Carter article looks comprehensive and respectful. The Trump article, however, seems to put the Personal life section and Health section all the way near the top of the article which seems like an odd place to put this information. When I looked at the article for Washington, then the Personal life section is also put towards the bottom of the article. Should the 'Personal life' section and 'Health' for Trump be moved to the bottom of the article as seems to be the standard practice for Misplaced Pages president articles such as Washington and Carter? ErnestKrause (talk) 16:12, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

Interesting point, My only input is that it might have to do with the weight the information holds in contrast to the rest of the content in the article? Is there any MOS format that suggests that personal life/health might be better located at the bottom of an article? MaximusEditor (talk) 17:43, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

Part of the problem maybe that Carter was kind of a notable politician who happened to also be a businessman, whereas Trump was a notable businessman who (or maybe a celebrity) who happened to become a pelican. So the article grew organically. Slatersteven (talk) 17:46, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

Autocorrect or some kind of avian easteregg? BusterD (talk) 18:01, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

One was created from the off as about a politician, one grew into one about a politician. Slatersteven (talk) 18:05, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

"pelican"? BusterD (talk) 18:20, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

It looks like Slatersteven was trying to type "politician" rather than 'pelikan', which he can edit into his comment if he wants to. I'm also finding that the president's article for John Quincy Adams also has Personal life section which appears near the end of the article, as opposed to the Trump article which for some reason has put it at the top of the article. The Misplaced Pages preference for Washington, Jimmy Carter, and now John Quincy Adams, see to all be placing the Personal life section towards the end of the article. Should the Trump article be consistent with the other president articles on Misplaced Pages and place the Personal life section towards the end of the article? ErnestKrause (talk) 00:34, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

I don't see why not. Most people probably don't come to this page to read about DJT's schooling. Riposte97 (talk) 01:33, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

No. Trump's private life is part of his tabloid persona, and other presidents' articles (e.g., Lincoln and Obama) have long early life sections that go into details about their families. Space4Time3Continuum2x 🖖 21:07, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

That sounds ok for the Marriages part of Private life, but the Health subsection of Private life really does not seem to belong at the top of the article. Jimmy Carter, Washington, and JQA all place Private life to the bottom of the article. Is there really much advantage to reading about Trump's golf life at the top of the current article when it could better be located towards the bottom of the Table of Contents. ErnestKrause (talk) 21:31, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

Where towards the bottom would you put it? Teetotalism, sleep and exercise habits are also part of his public persona. The "healthiest president ever" claim was part of the 2016 campaign, and the removal of the medical records happened during the first presidency. Space4Time3Continuum2x 🖖 13:15, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

My thoughts might suggest the best place for that Private life Health section to be placed right before the Assessments section towards the bottom of the article. His golf life appears significantly less important than reading about his business life and his media life at the top of the article. ErnestKrause (talk) 20:51, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

The difference here is Trump’s personalist politics. Status quo is fine Kowal2701 (talk) 22:05, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

Actually, Erdogan’s, Orban’s, and Chavez’s articles have Personal life at the bottom, so I’ll support following those Kowal2701 (talk) 22:13, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

Proposal to supersede consensus #50

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Misplaced Pages contributors. Misplaced Pages has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

Do you support or oppose the lede sentence to now read: Donald John Trump (born June 14, 1946) is an American politician, media personality, businessman, and criminal who served as the 45th president of the United States from 2017 to 2021.? Kenneth Kho (talk) 16:39, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

Support His sentencing today has met WP:BLPCRIME requirement that a conviction has been secured for that crime, support adding and criminal in the lede sentence per consistency with other WP:CRIMINAL articles.Kenneth Kho (talk) 16:39, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- As in: "Mark Robert Michael Wahlberg (born June 5, 1971), formerly known by his stage name Marky Mark, is an American actor, former rapper, and criminal"?
—Alalch E. 16:55, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Or: "Marshall Bruce Mathers III (born October 17, 1972), known professionally as Eminem (stylized as EMINƎM), is an American rapper, songwriter, record producer, and criminal.—Alalch E. 16:58, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
  That would be undue, his criminal characterization has not received sustained widespread coverage, unlike the president-elect. Kenneth Kho (talk) 17:00, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
  Criminal characterization? What does that mean? —Alalch E. 17:04, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
  
  @Alalch E. Ridiculous and fallacious, as in the slippery slope fallacy, or a WP:FALSEBALANCE as you are creating here.
  
  How many celebrities or even gangster rappers do you know that have been convicted of crimes? More than I can count. So, not notable.
  
  But what if the crimes themselves are so notable they outweigh the other WP:NOTABLE aspects of a public person, as in the case of Harvey Weinstein? Yes, notable.
  
  Now, how many Presidents in US history can YOU COUNT that have been convicted of multiple felonies, ones that are related to election interference? Only one. And just like it is notable to objectively state as notable fact that Barack Obama is the first black President elected in US history, it is more than relevant to mention (in the opening sentence) that Trump is the first convicted felon/criminal elected to become President of the United States, especially considering that American democracy has as its bedrock the rule of law as enforced by convictions of juries of their peers, with even Trump himself making it his legacy to publicly argue that he is literally (and should be) above the law as President. So there is no other way around this. It is WP:NOTABLE on all counts as prescribed by etiquette surrounding WP:LEAD. 2601:282:8903:B3C0:E03B:9D22:3C30:1A19 (talk) 21:59, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
  The Obama article doesn't even include "African American" in the first sentence, that's only in the second sentence. —Alalch E. 22:30, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
  @Alalch E. So then include it in the second sentence. That's a good compromise. But you are against that as well it would seem, so why bother with that WP:POINT? 65.153.22.75 (talk) 22:45, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
  This request for comment (please read Misplaced Pages:Writing requests for comment) is not about the second sentence, it's about the first sentence, as worded in the proposal. This isn't a negotiation for us to come to a compromise. What is being responded to is the proposal, as stated in the question. Editors are, each individually, to the best of their ability, giving arguments for why the proposal should be implemented or not. And, in any case, what would that second sentence be like while reusing the exact language from the proposal: "And, in addition, he is a criminal"? —Alalch E. 22:51, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
  @Alalch E. I'm sure that as long as it is included in the first of second sentence as either "the first convicted felon" or "the first convicted criminal" to be elected to the office of Presidency, then that is well within the ballpark here.
  
  The larger debate is that now that the highest law in the land from the SCOTUS doesn't think Donald Trump is exceptional here, and now that sentencing has concluded, he is a convicted criminal/felon as a matter of empirical verifiable fact. This isn't about the time he shoplifted a DVD player as 21 year old (joking) about 30+ serious felonies.
  
  I can buy that argument that this is more than relevant and necessary to place this objective factual information as front and center as possible given its newsworthiness and historic importance. Misplaced Pages is first and foremost about both.
  
  I maintain neutrality only because the RFC won't be decided on a vote count, or our arguments here, but arbitrarily by an admin coming in to decide on a whim or which way the wind is blowing it would seem. Fair point on both sides as there is no mechanism for this unprecedented moment. 65.153.22.75 (talk) 23:00, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
  You're in no position to be sure of anything as someone who clearly hasn't dealt with these things for long enough on Misplaced Pages and don't understand how decisions are made. You need to be less sure about what you're telling yourself, and more sure about what people who know what they are talking about are telling you. They are telling you things such as: This request for comment (please read Misplaced Pages:Writing requests for comment) is not about the second sentence, it's about the first sentence, as worded in the proposal. This isn't a negotiation for us to come to a compromise. What is being responded to is the proposal, as stated in the question. Editors are, each individually, to the best of their ability, giving arguments for why the proposal should be implemented or not. What you claim to be the debate is not the debate here and now in this talk section. The "debate" question is as follows: Do you support or oppose the lede sentence to now read: Donald John Trump (born June 14, 1946) is an American politician, media personality, businessman, and criminal who served as the 45th president of the United States from 2017 to 2021.? —Alalch E. 23:28, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
The conviction was secured in May 2024. January 10th was sentencing, which has no bearing on conviction. 2604:CA00:1C0:4422:0:0:860:27B (talk) 17:56, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

BLPCRIME says nothing about placement of content. It allows inclusion of content, and the article already does that. Your policy claim is invalid. ―Mandruss ☎ 18:17, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
Oppose for the same reasons as the last time we discussed this. I don't see why a no-penalty sentence would make it more likely we add it in the opening sentence. It's already mentioned later in the lead, so this is WP:UNDUE. — Czello 16:49, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
We don't get to determine whether a no-penalty sentence is due or not, it has received wide coverage in reliable sources to the extent that they keep reporting him as the first felon to become president. Kenneth Kho (talk) 16:59, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
We do get to decide if it's due in the first sentence, and WP:RECENTISM arguments make it undue. — Czello 22:01, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
Oppose. Not first-sentence material.—Alalch E. 16:49, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
Oppose Per the last time. Slatersteven (talk) 16:50, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
Support It is a factual verifiable statement..he is a convicted felon...it`s spelled lead Anonymous8206 (talk) 17:28, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
So is Mark Wahlberg. —Alalch E. 17:31, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

It's spelled lede, as in bury the lede, or the most important and relevant part of a story. Which, trump being the first convicted felon elected as president of the US, is very relevant. 2604:CA00:1C0:4422:0:0:860:27B (talk) 18:00, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

This isn’t a question of whether it's true. Lots of things about Trump are true, and they can't all go in the first sentence. — Czello 22:02, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

The AP Stylebook says:

"Some use the spelling lede. At AP, we side with the Poynter Institute’s Roy Peter Clark in viewing lede as jargon-like spelling while lead reminds us to lead readers into the story."

So it's correct to spell it either way. -SusanLesch (talk)

The article is not about him it`s about trump Anonymous8206 (talk) 17:34, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

Oh right, thanks, I forgot —Alalch E. 17:38, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

Oppose putting it in the first sentence like that. It needs context that can happen later in the lead, but not the first sentence. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:42, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
It's first sentence material, as he is now the first convicted felon in US history to be elected president, which in and of itself is noteworthy. 2604:CA00:1C0:4422:0:0:860:27B (talk) 17:54, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
Being sentenced to an "unconditional discharge", i.e. literally nothing, is not "first sentence material". – Muboshgu (talk) 17:59, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
As the first convicted felon to be elected president, it is first sentence material. 2604:CA00:1C0:4422:0:0:860:27B (talk) 18:01, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
Is not. John Adams was the first president not to own slaves. Not in the first sentence. —Alalch E. 18:31, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

Andrew Johnson was the first to be impeached. Not in the first sentence. —Alalch E. 18:41, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
Thanks for the counter-examples, but I think it's sufficient to say that As the first convicted felon to be elected president, it is first sentence material. lacks policy basis. ―Mandruss ☎ 18:45, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
I think being the first convicted felon to be elected president does not mean much, but being extensively covered as such by reliable sources does mean much, especially when he is portrayed as a career criminal with hundreds of felony charges. Kenneth Kho (talk) 19:07, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. The examples serve as illustration of editorial practices, for those unaware of what they look like in reality. —Alalch E. 21:55, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

How about the second? 2601:282:8903:B3C0:6D3E:8CEC:1108:F7A (talk) 03:53, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
Oppose per Czello, Muboshgu, etc. ―Mandruss ☎ 17:57, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
Oppose The felony conviction is a minor aspect of his career, not important enough for the first sentence. It is already mentioned later in the lead. QuicoleJR (talk) 19:09, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
The first ever president of the United States receiving a felony is a minor aspect of his career? BootsED (talk) 19:45, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
Support Passes WP:BLPCRIME as stated earlier. However, I would change criminal to "convicted felon". A lot of former discussion against this suggested we wait until his sentence was official. It now is. BootsED (talk) 19:40, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
―Mandruss ☎ 19:49, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
Comment - Can we please let people have their say, without telling them they are wrong, the closer will judge that, it is not for us to say. Slatersteven (talk) 18:04, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
I guess it depends on the relevance of morality .. he`s a convicted criminal,,it's got nothing to do with Andrew Johnson or anyone else's impeachment..at least Nixon was smart enough to not get caught...trump is by definition a criminal but you think it's irrelevant...what can a moral or ethical person say to that ? Anonymous8206 (talk) 19:13, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
It is not moral or ethical to put words in others' mouths during content discussions. Nobody has said it's irrelevant. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:35, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
Oppose placing it in the first sentence (in the stress position). Please mention in the lead at a later spot. -SusanLesch (talk) 19:24, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
Oppose the first sentence. Later in the lead I think is merited as it is a first and very heavily covered by RS. (Likely to stay that way as it is reported he's fund raising on it.) O3000, Ret. (talk) 19:35, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
Oppose in the opening sentence as this is not reflected across wikipedia for other politicians who are convicted criminals. One key example being Silvio Berlusconi who was Italian PM convicted of multiple crimes including a 4 year sentence for tax fraud which is mentioned in his 4th opening paragraph not the opening sentence. IrishReader1996 (talk) 19:55, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
Oppose The proposal is for a "crime label" for which there is an essay: Misplaced Pages: Crime labels. As listed by the essay, Misplaced Pages has had vast and lengthy arguments over crime labels, where in countless RFC's such labels are nearly universally unsuccessful. Or at least there has to be an obvious rationale for it. Basically, they are misleading, vague, and poor writing. In the present case, it smacks of simple name calling. Far better to just include a brief description of the criminal instance in the lead. I would, however, be in favor of a new section in the article bringing together all of Trump's sundry criminal and civil episodes; such a section may well then suggest an appropriate label. Bdushaw (talk) 20:52, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
Comment - It's beyond relevant..it's the only thing he will be remembered for in the end...a rich criminal who bought his way into power at the bequest of those more sinister than him Anonymous8206 (talk) 21:02, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Anonymous8206: Trump became president twice (2016, 2024) democratically (US elections are democratic), to claim otherwise is simply wrong. JacktheBrown (talk) 02:36, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
Oppose for the time being. I doubt this is what he'll be consistently noted as, but could be proven wrong. Riposte97 (talk) 21:09, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
Strong Support This is absolutely first sentence material and possibly one of the most textbook WP:NOTABLE pieces of information in wikipedia history as far as the WP:LEAD goes, according our rules governing it.FACT- Trump was now officially sentenced for multiple felony crimes. That makes him the FIRST convicted felon (by a jury of his peers) to be elected President. Just like in the Obama wikipedia article, it mentions "Obama being the first African-American elected", this is equally notable. This is a first. And even the American Supreme Court allowed for Trump to be sentenced, so there is no question legally of where this stands.Of course, there are politically biased editors making ridiculous arguments against this in violation of etiquette and rules of wikipedia. And many examples listed AGAINST THIS are fueled by fallacious reasoning, or use petty examples that simply don't match here. The only reason to exclude this is because Trump is not only above the law in this country but above our rules apparently for ideological reasoning here.Again, no convicted felon in history was EVER elected President. And this is for multiple notable felony crimes involving a scheme to interfere in the democratic election, which is WHY NY law was able to amplify misdemeanor crimes into a felony crime scheme verdict/finding. Perhaps if the American SCOTUS down the road overturns this we can revisit this.And to be clear, if Biden was ever convicted of a crime or any democratic President then I too would strong support mention of that in the first sentence.However, the idea that if enough biased editors come here to OPPOSE THIS that we will allow for mob rule to override rules of what is WP:NOTABLE is a sad day for wikipedia, and proof that our community fails in upholding journalistic standards that we claim we uphold. If enough biased editors set up an RFC vote for a pro flat-earth position or a Holocaust denial position, would be both sides that?! Of course not, as wikipedia is clear on WP:FRINGE thinking, which is what is driving a delay on including this very important notable information per the standards of WP:LEAD.That it is buried in the article is a lame fallacious way around what is at heart here. That we treat all people and biographies the same regardless of political power. A President being convicted of serious crimes is every bit as notable (if not more so) than race or gender as it makes wikipedia come off as more concerned about notability about the color of one's skin that one's choices and behavior. No, this is a test of whether we can truly be objective about the facts and the mission of wikipedia, or if we simply cower in the face of fear of being unpopular. 2601:282:8903:B3C0:E03B:9D22:3C30:1A19 (talk) 21:06, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
See WP:AGF and WP:NPA. State your case without accusing others of incompetence or bad faith, even if unnamed. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:19, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
@Mandruss No, the "unnamed" part is actually important here for it to be WP:NPA, as there are exceptions to the rule when I'm in the right to call a WP:SPADE a spade given the stakes and clear violation of WP:NOTABILITY in an effort (albeit intentional or otherwise) to carve out an exception for a convicted criminal here who is now leading a democratic country.

This also happens to be that great rare example of WP:AAGF. The AGF guideline recognizes that one can easily misjudge another's intentions or motives, and thus urges caution in that area. Ironically, the very act of citing AGF can suggest an assumption of bad faith, since one is assuming that the other is not also assuming good faith.

Some disputes are exceptional, whether it is climate-change denial, holocaust denialism, arguing for a flat-earth, or in this case a plain and simple case of being in denial of stating WP:NOTABLE facts in a way that our rules surrounding WP:LEAD demands. The aforementioned reasons I've stated are the only honest empirical reasons for WP:CENSORing this content in the way we are doing now (by burying it and treating a powerful figure like Trump as some exception to the rules). Otherwise, matters of lesser importance (like mentioning Kamala Harris as the first female Vice President, or Obama as the first black President, in the first sentence of an article) should also be removed as we are making a statement as a community (intention or otherwise) about where our priorities lie insofar as what is WP:NOTABLE and what is not.

Precedence should decide, not the emotion of the moment, and the process regarding Trump's convicted guilt has been allowed to play out long enough here that it is time to do right by the community, and follow our own precedents and rules. 2601:282:8903:B3C0:E03B:9D22:3C30:1A19 (talk) 21:36, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
Unlike you, I have years-long experience with many of the Opposing editors here, including myself. Unlike you, I happen to know that we are anything but biased in favor of Trump. That kills your whole argument, and clearly shows the need for adherence to WP:AGF. You need to cease this line of argument or risk admin action. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:54, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
@Mandruss Disagreeing with you as forcibly as you are disagreeing with me is not worthy of an WP:ANI, but if you must please go right ahead. As for the record, when reviewing your own history, your "many years of experience" are not spotless when it comes to your own behavior. And you are literally going around this thread making it a point to comment on many others with whom you don't agree (who did not consent to your opinion on the matter, with multiple arguments), trying to convince made-up minds that clearly won't change based upon your emotionally-reasoned attempts. So, what of your bulverism here?!

At best, we agree to disagree, so nothing is "killed" here. And there is no truly unbiased person politically-speaking in any walks of life. There are countless examples of it on wikipedia, as you already know.

As for this RFC vote, I've spoken my mind, and made my case, voted, so I plan to move on, and I'm done here. Are you? 2601:282:8903:B3C0:E03B:9D22:3C30:1A19 (talk) 22:05, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
Disagreeing with you as forcibly as you are disagreeing with me See False equivalence. I am not the one persistently violating accepted principles of talk page behavior here. not spotless when it comes to your own behavior Laughable. Congratulations on ferreting out my one block in 11 years, from 9+1⁄2 years ago. Great detective work. I plan to move on Good call. I'm done here. Are you? I'm done if you are. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:14, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

The content isn't being censored at all, that's a very silly suggestion. It's still included, just not in the literal first sentence.

And yes, implying people are voting no because of "political bias" is an assumption of bad faith, so cool it. — Czello 22:07, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
@Czello I stand by my vote, and my reasoning behind it. 2601:282:8903:B3C0:E03B:9D22:3C30:1A19 (talk) 22:11, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

@Czello P.S. And I'm not talking about whether it should belong in the article or not. I'm talking about whether this is WP:CENSORSHIP by way of suppressing it in the opening sentence insofar as precedence, and etiquette surrounding WP:LEAD and WP:NOTABILITY are concerned. If we are to find Barack Obama's skin color notable enough to mention in the opening sentence of his biography as a first for Presidents, then mentioning "the first convicted criminal/felon to be elected President" is certainly more than notable for the same empirical reasons and as a matter of wikipedia precedence. 2601:282:8903:B3C0:E03B:9D22:3C30:1A19 (talk) 22:15, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
I know, I'm saying it not being in the first sentence is not censorship. Additionally, what other articles do is not particularly relevant to this article. Other stuff, whataboutism, etc. — Czello 22:21, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
@Czello Not to butt in, BUT (no pun intended) you did mention to the OP that it was "included in the body" as YOUR retort about an RFC literally about whether it is worthy to include this pertinent information front and center, not whether or not it should be included period. So that much was clear from the OP and those taking his/her/their position on this.

And that retort is a popular dodge/red-herring in this debate and the one before it, as fallacies have been mentioned.

I'm neutral on this row.

But it does appear you are not IMO. 65.153.22.75 (talk) 22:49, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
Sorry but I'm not quite following your point. My position has always been that it shouldn't be in the opening sentence, but is acceptable later in the lede (as it is currently). So no, I'm not neutral on this.

The retort I made isn't a dodge - consensus is decided locally; what's is Obama's lede is apples and oranges. — Czello 23:11, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
@Czello How so? lol It IS significant in a country like America where after hundreds of years of elections of white 'lawabiding' men a black man is elected President for the same reason that a convicted criminal with 34+ felony convictions is elected. It is historic, newsworthy, and very much a defining part of his legacy. He literally ran on that distinction.

And consensus isn't god when it comes to undeniable history or empirical fact as far as a certain bottom goes even by wikipedia standards. If a local consensus suddenly decided the world was flat, an admin could overrule that as you know consensus be damned. You are not providing a compelling reason not to include it front and center other than you think it somehow is unfair and even disparaging against the subject, and outside the norms. Well, so is a democratic country like America electing its first convicted criminal in its hundreds of years as lawful democracy.

Misplaced Pages is not beyond its own flaws, and editors are within their rights to call it out when they they have compelling case to do so. Do with that what you will, but it's not a violation of good faith given the exceptional circumstances here for some to challenge your thinking. That's my neutral point of view in this. Food for thought. 65.153.22.75 (talk) 23:24, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
If a local consensus suddenly decided the world was flat, an admin could overrule that as you know consensus be damned. That's actually false. A closer can override the numbers if the minority has a stronger policy basis. There is no Misplaced Pages policy that the world is spherical. But this point is academic since flat-earth arguments would never have a majority and could never have a stronger policy basis. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:03, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

It's significant enough to go into the lead, which it already is. It's not defining enough to be in the first sentence.

I never said it shouldn't be included because it's disparaging against the subject. There seems to be an odd trend among some voting 'support' to believe those of us opposing it are sympathetic to Trump (I mean, take a look at this article and try to argue it's pro-Trump, lol). This is what's a violation of good faith.

As for your views on consensus, Mandruss has very effectively addressed that. — Czello 09:04, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
@Czello Mandruss has not. And neither of you are admins. So your opinions count as much as anyone other users. Your are flirting with WP:OWN language, so respect the POVs of others, and that includes the OP you are addressing. 2601:282:8903:B3C0:2863:9A38:BE25:70E6 (talk) 13:37, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

Yes please take users to ANI or their talk page, do not discuss user conduct here. Slatersteven (talk) 22:08, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

Support Forget about conviction. We've never had a POTUS who was even criminally indicted.Arbeiten8 (talk) 22:43, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
You are talking about "We" on a global site here. This site is not meant to be America centric or an American encylopida. Worldwide leaders have been convicted of crimes and it is not in their lead sentence and this shouldn't be any different see Silvio Berlusconi IrishReader1996 (talk) 23:06, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
@IrishReader1996 That's a bad example.

It is a first for an American President, leader of the world's only remaining superpower and long-standing democracy.

The notability between a little known Italian leader and the President of a nuclear superpower could not be any more difference in what is WP:NOTABLE.

According to WP:CRIME "For perpetrators, the victim of the crime is a renowned national or international figure, including, but not limited to, politicians or celebrities; or the motivation for the crime or the execution of the crime is unusual—or has otherwise been considered noteworthy—such that it is a well-documented historic event. Generally, historic significance is indicated by sustained coverage of the event in reliable secondary sources which persists beyond contemporaneous news coverage and devotes significant attention to the individual's role." That is beyond question here. The argument of the supporters is that Donald Trump should not be an exception to that simply because of the heat of the moment. It's a valid POV. 65.153.22.75 (talk) 23:15, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
This response is amazingly biased. " leader of the world's only remaining superpower and long-standing democracy." this is nothing more than opinion from you nothing factual here.

Your point of Berlusconi being little known is also your own personal view he is one of the most notable Italian politicians post Mussolini and one of the most notable European politicians in the last number of decades due to his multiple scandals and convictions which are all documented in his article.

On your last point " including, but not limited to, politicians or celebrities; or the motivation for the crime or the execution of the crime is unusual—or has otherwise been considered noteworthy—such that it is a well-documented historic event." this all applies to Berlusconi and other politicians worldwide who have been convicted of crimes who are not labeled criminals in their opening sentence.

But for purposes of points and notability in an American context the article for Spiro Agnewdoes not label him a criminal in the opening sentence either. He was the first and only sitting vice president of the USA convicted of a crime. IrishReader1996 (talk) 23:32, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

Berlusconi "a little known Italian leader"? Is this a joke? The fact that he wasn't American doesn't mean that he's and has been little known; the world isn't, and never will be, US-centric. JacktheBrown (talk) 04:42, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

Oppose per Czello, Muboshgu, Mandruss and others. This addition is not WP:DUE as Trump is certainly not most notable for an unconditional discharge sentencing. Big Thumpus (talk) 00:59, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

Why isn't a CONVICTED FELON text on the intro? 189.179.128.219 (talk) 04:07, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

Because we had an extensive discussion on it some months ago and there was no consensus to include that. It exists later in the lead. — Czello 09:05, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

Closeses are based on the strength of policy based argument, and can be challenged, they are not some "whim". Slatersteven (talk) 23:04, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

Oppose per Zaathras' Osama Principle. If the Misplaced Pages cannot even say directly "Osama bin Laden was a terrorist," then virtually no article is suitable for a "Subject is a <pejorative>" opener. Zaathras (talk) 01:39, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
@Zaathras: your comment is one of the most useful, I largely agree with you. JacktheBrown (talk) 05:20, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

Terrorist is value-laden and he was never duly convicted in a court of law. Criminal is a legal term when a citizen is duly convicted in a court of law and not a pejorative. Kenneth Kho (talk) 07:41, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

Oppose, I don't understand the users who agree (obviously I don't judge). JacktheBrown (talk) 02:27, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

Comment As President, there is really nothing else that Trump is known for more than his criminal behavior, convictions and evasion of serious penalties for said crimes. JFK was known for the Cuban Missile Crisis. Lincoln for his role in winning the civil war. In Trump's case, what is he most known for as President is his hundred plus indictments. And his criminal conviction. Making him the first ever convicted criminal felon to be elected to the office of the Presidency. It's absurd to suggest that historic first, and his criminal behavior (most of which he has been able to avoid consequences because of his re-election), is not on the top of list of what he is presently known for. It would be like burying Neil Armstrong's moon landing achievement, being the first man to set foot on the moon, deep in the body of an article. If you remove emotion from this, and simply view this through an historic lens, then this is a no brainer. Of the 45 white men that have served the office of Presidency, only one was a black man. Only one was a convicted felon. "It is said on wikipedia that JFK was the youngest person elected president at 43 years." Please put your bias aside, or your dogma about these exceptional circumstances, and let history and newsworthiness decide, not your egos. 2601:282:8903:B3C0:6D3E:8CEC:1108:F7A (talk) 04:04, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
In the first lines of the lead of the articles of well-known criminals (Hitler, Mussolini, Mao, Stalin, etc.) the term isn't present. Trump isn't remotely comparable to them, yet you (and not only you) would like to add "criminal" to this page; it's very strange, but I'm not surprised... JacktheBrown (talk) 05:05, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
They were not convicted of a crime, for those convicted see Hermann Göring, Jeffrey Epstein, Harvey Weinstein. Kenneth Kho (talk) 05:42, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
For relevant political examples see Spiro Agnew and Silvio Berlusconi IrishReader1996 (talk) 12:53, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
Oppose having criminal/felon in first sentence. Donald Trump is not primarily known for his criminal convictions. The coverage in the lead is sufficient weight as it is now. There was already no consensus to add this last year, and nearly nothing has changed since then. The formality of the judge sentencing him, to literally no punishment I may add, is not a good reason for rehashing this matter. R. G. Checkers 07:13, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
Strong support This is a textbook example of information that has WP:DUEweight in the WP:LEAD. As others have pointed out, we don't get to determine whether a no-penalty sentence is due or not, the press does.

That's how wikipedia works.

And the consensus in the press, by way of wide coverage through reliable sources, is to the extent that they keep reporting him as the first felon to become president. Whether they like it or not is another story, but there is no doubt about the press acknowledging the notoriety of the President being a convicted criminal. So if the press consensus is leading with this information as WP:NOTABLE then so should we. There are no sources suggesting that this isn't the big deal that it is. The disagreement in the sources is about whether Trump is deserving of his verdict or being persecuted, and that is not for us to weigh in here with how we present such notable historic information.

There is too much WP:EDITORIALizing going on here in this debate.2601:282:8903:B3C0:2863:9A38:BE25:70E6 (talk) 13:48, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

Please note, it is already in the lead, the RFC is about the first sentence only, no one has suggested removing it from the lead in this RFC. Slatersteven (talk) 13:55, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

Oppose This is all political. The trials only happened because he ran for office, those responsible for them supporting his rival. Dream Focus 14:09, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

"dismissed following his victory in the 2024 election."

Two more felony indictments, related to his interference in the 2020 election and his handling of classified documents were dismissed following his victory in the 2024 election.

@BootsED: The handling of classified documents case was dismissed July 15, the election was November 5. Hypnôs (talk) 20:51, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

I can see the confusion. I was referring to the Justice Department's dismissal of the case following his victory. BootsED (talk) 03:31, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

Convicted felon

should the article not mention that he's a convicted felon by say the second paragraph of the intro? 157.22.35.35 (talk) 23:50, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

It's in the third paragraph of the intro, it doesn't really matter where it is just that it's there. Akechi The Agent Of Chaos (talk) 00:36, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

I agree should be in introduction after they mention business man 38.95.21.27 (talk) 04:32, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

Agreed. 2600:1700:5CC0:3060:F899:671:20F3:5EB3 (talk) 06:41, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

Agreed, it should be the in the first sentence of the intro.

See RFC above. Slatersteven (talk) 10:44, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 11 January 2025

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

It should say convicted felon in the main article 38.95.21.27 (talk) 04:26, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit extended-protected}} template. see above RFC Cannolis (talk) 08:19, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

We don't use those exact words, but we do say the first U.S. president to be convicted of a crime in the lead and explain in the body: In March 2023, a New York grand jury indicted Trump on 34 felony counts of falsifying business records to book the hush money payments to Daniels as business expenses, in an attempt to influence the 2016 election. In May, he was convicted on all 34 counts. On January 10, 2025, Trump was sentenced to unconditional discharge which, under New York law, upheld the felony conviction without imposing further punishment. Space4Time3Continuum2x 🖖 15:24, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

Categories: