Misplaced Pages

Talk:Donald Trump: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from[REDACTED] with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 08:15, 22 November 2016 editKhirurg (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers31,710 edits →Celebrities Fleeing "Trump's America": "scraping" some more← Previous edit Latest revision as of 13:32, 24 January 2025 edit undoLowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs)Bots, Template editors2,312,064 editsm Archiving 1 discussion(s) to Talk:Donald Trump/Archive 187) (bot 
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Skip to talk}}
{{Talk header}} {{Talk header|hide_find_sources=yes}}
{{American politics AE|Consensus required=no|BRD=yes|1RR=no}}
{{Controversial-issues}}
{{tmbox
{{2016 US Election AE}}
|image = ]
{{WikiProjectBannerShell|blp=yes|1=
|text = '''Want to add new information about Donald Trump?'''<br/>Please consider choosing the most appropriate article, for example:
{{WikiProject Biography|living=Yes|class=C|a&e-work-group=Yes|a&e-priority=Mid|politician-work-group=Yes|politician-priority=Top|listas=Trump, Donald}}
{{div col}}
{{WikiProject Business|class=C|importance=Mid}}
{{WikiProject Donald Trump|class=C|importance=Top}} * ]
* ]
{{WikiProject Television|class=C|importance=Mid}}
* ]
{{WikiProject New York City|class=C|importance=High}}
* ]
{{WikiProject Florida|class=C|importance=Low}}
{{div col end}}
{{WikiProject Politics|class=C|importance=mid|American=Yes|American-importance=Top}}
... or dozens of other places, as listed in {{t|Donald Trump series}}. Thanks!
{{WikiProject Professional wrestling|class=C|importance=Low}}
}}
{{WikiProject Conservatism |class=C|importance=Mid}}
{{FAQ|collapsed=no}}
{{WikiProject Alternative Views|class=C|importance=low}}
{{WikiProject banner shell |class=B |blp=activepol |collapsed=yes |vital=yes |listas=Trump, Donald |1=
{{WikiProject United States|class=C|importance=Top|USTV=Yes|USTV-importance=Mid|USGov=Yes|USGov-importance=High|USPE=Yes|USPE-importance=Top|USPresidents=Yes|USPresidents-importance=High}}
{{WikiProject Biography |a&e-work-group=Yes |a&e-priority=Mid |politician-work-group=Yes |politician-priority=Top}}
{{WikiProject University of Pennsylvania|class=c|importance=Low}}
{{WP1.0 |class=C |importance=High |v0.7=pass |category=socsci {{WikiProject Business |importance=Mid}}
{{WikiProject Climate change|importance=High}}
| b1 <!--Referencing & citations--> = no
{{WikiProject Conservatism |importance=High}}
| b2 <!--Coverage & accuracy --> = yes
{{WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography |importance=Top}}
| b3 <!--Structure --> = no
{{WikiProject New York City |importance=High}}
| b4 <!--Grammar & style --> = yes
{{WikiProject Politics |importance=Top |American=Yes |American-importance=Top |political-parties=yes |political-parties-importance=High}}
| b5 <!--Supporting materials --> = yes
{{WikiProject Television |importance=Mid |american=yes}}
| b6 <!--Accessibility --> = yes}}
{{WikiProject United States |importance=Top |USTV=Yes |USTV-importance=Mid |USGov=Yes |USGov-importance=High |USPE=Yes |USPE-importance=Top}}
{{dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment | course = Misplaced Pages:Wiki_Ed/University_of_California,_Berkeley/Civic_Tech_and_the_Social_Media_President_(Fall_2016) }}
{{WikiProject United States Presidents |importance=Top |trump=yes |trump-importance=top}}
{{dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment | course = Misplaced Pages:Wiki_Ed/University_of_Oklahoma/History_of_Science_Since_the_17th_Century_(Fall_2016) | reviewers = ] }}
{{WikiProject University of Pennsylvania |importance=Low}}
|collapsed=yes
{{WikiProject 2010s |importance=Top}}
}} }}
<!-- end wikiproject banner bundle -->
{{American English}}
{{Banner holder |text= Page history |collapsed=y |1=
{{Article history {{Article history
|action1=GAN |action1=GAN
Line 37: Line 39:
|action2=GAN |action2=GAN
|action2date=17:59, 12 February 2007 (UTC) |action2date=17:59, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
|action2link=Talk:Donald Trump/Archive 1#GA failed |action2link=Talk:Donald Trump/Archive 1#GA failed
|action2result=failed |action2result=failed
|action2oldid=107442121 |action2oldid=107442121


|action3=GAN |action3=GAN
|action3date=04:35, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
|action3link=Talk:Donald Trump/GA1 |action3link=Talk:Donald Trump/GA1
|action3date= 17 September 2016
|action3result=failed |action3result=failed
|action3oldid=739866707 |action3oldid=739866707
|action4=GAN
|action4date=03:07, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
|action4link=Talk:Donald Trump/GA2
|action4result=failed
|action4oldid=782109977

|action5=GAN
|action5date=08:44, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
|action5link=Talk:Donald Trump/GA3
|action5result=failed
|action5oldid=870721866
|action6=GAN
|action6date=18:23, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
|action6link=Talk:Donald Trump/GA4
|action6result=failed
|action6oldid=906418948

|action7 = FAC
|action7date = 2019-08-31
|action7link = Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Donald Trump/archive1
|action7result = failed
|action7oldid = 913215099

|action8 = PR
|action8date = 2020-04-29
|action8link = Misplaced Pages:Peer review/Donald Trump/archive1
|action8result= reviewed
|action8oldid = 953988039


|currentstatus=FGAN |currentstatus=FGAN
|topic=business |topic=Politics and government
}} }}
{{Afd-merged-from|Health of Donald Trump|Health of Donald Trump|13 June 2019}}
{{Friendly search suggestions}}
{{Press | collapsed=yes
{{press | collapsed=yes|author=Cuozzo, Steve|date=November 16, 2013|url=http://nypost.com/2013/11/16/dont-trust-anything-on-wikipedia/ |title=Don't Trust Anything on Misplaced Pages|org='']''
|org='']'' |date=November 16, 2013 |author=Cuozzo, Steve |title=Don't Trust Anything on Misplaced Pages
|url2=http://www.theverge.com/2015/7/22/9014525/someone-just-deleted-donald-trumps-entire-wikipedia-page |org2='']'' |date2=July 22, 2015 |author2=Popper, Ben |title2=Someone just deleted Donald Trump's entire Misplaced Pages page|author3=Merrill, Jeremy|date3=February 1, 2016|url3=http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/02/us/politics/wikipedia-donald-trump-2016-election.html |title3=On Misplaced Pages, Donald Trump Reigns and Facts Are Open to Debate|org3='']'' |url4=http://www.cracked.com/blog/5-truly-bizarre-sections-otherwise-normal-websites_p2/ |title4=5 Secretly Bizarre Sections Of Websites You Use Every Day |author4=Germ, Erik |org4='']'' |date4=May 28, 2016|author5=Guo, Jeff|date5=October 25, 2016|title5=Misplaced Pages is fixing one of the Internet’s biggest flaws|url5=https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/10/25/somethings-terribly-wrong-with-the-internet-and-wikipedia-might-be-able-to-fix-it/|org5='']''|title6=The most challenging job of the 2016 race: Editing the candidates’ Misplaced Pages pages|org6=''The Washington Post''|url6=https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/politics/2016-election/presidential-wikipedias/?hpid=hp_no-name_graphic-story-b|date6=October 27, 2016|author6=Alcantara, Chris}}
|url=http://nypost.com/2013/11/16/dont-trust-anything-on-wikipedia/
{{Top25 | place = | week = ]}}
|org2='']'' |date2=July 22, 2015 |author2=Popper, Ben |title2=Someone just deleted Donald Trump's entire Misplaced Pages page
{{Top25 | place = 4th| week = ]}}
|url2=http://www.theverge.com/2015/7/22/9014525/someone-just-deleted-donald-trumps-entire-wikipedia-page
{{Top25 | place = | week = ]}}
|org3='']'' |date3=February 1, 2016 |author3=Merrill, Jeremy |title3=On Misplaced Pages, Donald Trump Reigns and Facts Are Open to Debate
{{Top25 | place = | week = ]}}
|url3=http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/02/us/politics/wikipedia-donald-trump-2016-election.html
{{Top25 | place = 3rd| week = ]}}
|org4='']'' |date4=May 28, 2016 |author4=Germ, Erik |title4=5 Secretly Bizarre Sections Of Websites You Use Every Day
{{Top25 | place = 7th| week = ]}}
|url4=https://web.archive.org/web/20170210205851/http://www.cracked.com/blog/5-truly-bizarre-sections-otherwise-normal-websites_p2/
{{Top25 | place = | week = ]}}
|org5='']'' |date5=October 25, 2016 |author5=Guo, Jeff |title5=Misplaced Pages is fixing one of the Internet's biggest flaws
<!--- Auto archiving configured by ] --->
|url5=https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/10/25/somethings-terribly-wrong-with-the-internet-and-wikipedia-might-be-able-to-fix-it/
|org6='']'' |date6=October 27, 2016|author6=Alcantara, Chris |title6=The most challenging job of the 2016 race: Editing the candidates' Misplaced Pages pages
|url6=https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/politics/2016-election/presidential-wikipedias/
|org7='']'' |date7=December 21, 2016 |author7=Staff Writer |title7=Most-edited Misplaced Pages pages of 2016 revealed
|url7=http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-38394685
|org8='']'' |date8=January 20, 2017 |author8=Gartenberg, Chaim |title8=Misplaced Pages editors can't decide if Trump is the president yet
|url8=http://www.theverge.com/tldr/2017/1/20/14336626/wikipedia-editors-edit-war-president-obama-trump
|org9='']'' |date9=June 5, 2017 |author9=Wyrich, Andrew |title9=Someone is trying to get Trump's official portrait deleted from Misplaced Pages
|url9=https://www.dailydot.com/layer8/donald-trump-official-portrait-wikipedia-copyright/
|org10='']'' |date10=22 November 2018 |author10=Warren, Tom|title10=Siri thinks Donald Trump is a penis|url10=https://www.theverge.com/tldr/2018/11/22/18108195/apple-siri-iphone-donald-trump-penis-wikipedia-fail-vandalism-editing
|org11='']'' |date11=22 November 2018 |author11=Blumenthal, Eli|title11=Misplaced Pages vandalizing causes Siri to show a lewd image when asked about Donald Trump |url11=https://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/talkingtech/2018/11/22/siri-glitch-shows-male-genitalia-when-asking-questions-trump/2088884002/
|org12='']'' |date12=23 November 2018 |author12=Griffin, Andrew|title12=Asking Siri for information about Donald Trump shows explicit image after Misplaced Pages edit|url12=https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-tech/news/donald-trump-siri-explicit-image-apple-wikipedia-edit-explained-a8648556.html
|org13='']'' |date13=23 November 2018 |author13=Gander, Kashmira|title13=Someone hacked Donald Trump's Misplaced Pages page, replaced photo with image of penis|url13=https://www.newsweek.com/someone-hacked-donald-trumps-wikipedia-page-replaced-photo-image-penis-1228571
|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
|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
|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/
|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
|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
|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
|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/
}}
{{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|May 26 2024|Jun 23 2024|Jul 14 2024|Jul 21 2024|Oct 20 2024|until|Nov 24 2024|Jan 12 2025}}
{{Annual readership|scale=log}}
<!-- end page history banner bundle --> }}
{{Banner holder |collapsed=yes |1=
{{Section sizes}}
}}

{{User:MiszaBot/config {{User:MiszaBot/config
|algo = old(7d) |algo = old(7d)
|archive = Talk:Donald Trump/Archive %(counter)d |archive = Talk:Donald Trump/Archive %(counter)d
|counter = 33 |counter = 187
|maxarchivesize = 150K |maxarchivesize = 200K
|archiveheader = {{tan}} |archiveheader = {{aan}}
|minthreadstoarchive = 1 |minthreadstoarchive = 1
|minthreadsleft = 0 |minthreadsleft = 3
}} }}
{{auto archiving notice
|bot = lowercase sigmabot III
|age = 7
|small=
}}
{| class=wikitable style="background-color:rgba(0,0,255,0.1); margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"
! Page views for this article over the last 30 days
|-
| {{Graph:PageViews}} <BR>
|}


__TOC__
==RfC: Lead issues regarding recent news/allegations==
<div class="boilerplate" style="background-color: #EDEAFF; padding: 0px 10px 0px 10px; border: 1px solid #8779DD;">{{Quote box
| title =
| title_bg = #C3C3C3
| title_fnt = #000
| quote = I'm closing this after receiving a request to do so.


== Current consensus == <!-- Must be on this page, not the subpage, to support mobile users -->
Regarding the question about whether to mention the topic in the lead, opinions are numerically nearly evenly divided. "Include" is slightly in the majority, particularly if one discounts the few opinions that incorrectly consider the mention of sourced ''allegations'' of misconduct libelous. Otherwise, though, there are valid arguments on both sides, and they boil down to whether the topic is so important to Donald Trump's life and career that it should appear in the concise summary that the lead is supposed to be. That is a question of editorial judgment, and I can't determine, as closer, who's right and who's wrong about this. So there's '''no consensus about whether the topic should appear in the lead.''' – The discussion mostly hasn't taken into account Trump's recent election victory, and I surmise that the lead will tend to grow to cover his (likely eventful) presidency. I therefore recommend that the discussion is repeated after some time to determine whether the issue is still considered to be of lead-worthy importance after the election.
{{/Current consensus}}


== Racially charged ==
Regarding the question about the length of the text in the lead (if the topic is covered in the lead at all), opinions range from one short sentence to a paragraph, but on average consensus seems to tend towards '''one or two short sentences.''' <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 20:54, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
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)
| width = 30%|halign=left}}
:{{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. &#8213;]&nbsp;] 05:54, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
:''The following discussion is closed. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.''<!-- from Template:Archive top-->
::<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. :) &#8213;]&nbsp;] 07:06, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
<!-- ] 09:21, 10 January 2017 (UTC) -->{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil|1484040113}}
::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)
;Summary of issue
:::{{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.
There has been debates, reverts, and contentious editing regarding the lead of this BLP (see the above talk page sections: ], ], ], ], ], ], and ]).
:::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. &#8213;]&nbsp;] 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.
There are multiple objections and issues raised, but they all center around the inclusion or exclusion of allegations of sexual misconduct, harassment, assault, and crimes by Trump against a number of women. The relevant information in the body of the article can primarily be found at ], which summaries the fuller article ].


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 far, the issues raise have been about (1) the existence of any mention in the ] and (2) the length of any such mention. Regarding (2), among those who think it should be included, some have suggested only one or two sentences be added while other suggest a stand-alone paragraph is warranted. Specific policies and guidelines raised in previous discussions include ], ], ], potential ] violations, and adherence to a ].
:{{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)
::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)
:::Thanks :) Yes the key issue is definitely it being uncited. ] (]) 17:48, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
:'''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)
::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)
:::It's sourced in ]. A citation should be added to the lead per ]. &ndash;&nbsp;]&nbsp;(]) 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. — ] (]) 17:08, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
*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)


*'''Support removal''', per ]'s comment (they've already written everything). ] (]) 18:37, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
Examples of past lede edits: , , .


"This section is pinned and will not be automatically archived." And why is that? If the discussion is over, why not let it be archived? This is a busy page, no need to keep a thread that is over if there isn't a strong reason for that. ] (]) 01:18, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
;Need for this RfC
Current discussions are disjointed, redundant, and contentious. Some attempts at consensus-building and !voting have been relative unfruitful. It is unclear if there is ] for anything. Unlike straw polls and other !votes, an RfC can help bring in new editors to voice their opinions and (hopefully) generate a stronger consensus. Per a request in the above section, I am making a good-faith attempt at creating a neutrally-worded RfC to assess consensus on the aforementioned issues. If you feel I have not adequately or correctly summarized the debate, please feel free to suggest clarification or changes to the background infomation. Because of the complicated nature of the issues and past discussion, please forgive my multi-question RfC. It is the only way I can see any RfC addressing the core issues and making any headway.


:Indeed. removed. ] (]) 01:28, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
;Questions
#Should the lede of this BLP include any summary of the allegations of sexual misconduct against Trump?
#If the material is included, to what extent should it be covered in the lead?


"Racially changed" is supported later in the article under the section ], so nom the text will not be removed. ] (]) 01:28, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
Thank you for your time and input. ] ] 23:39, 17 October 2016 (UTC)


== Tracking lead size ==
====RfC opinions and discussion====
Word counts by paragraph and '''total'''.
*'''Note''' - I have left messages on the talk pages of users who !voted in the above closed discussion inviting them to comment on this RfC. ] ] 23:46, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
{{hidden
* '''1. No; 2. One sentence.''' Our ] says that the lead should be a concise summary of the article's most important contents and as a general rule of thumb should be limited to 4 paragraphs. This article is ''extremely'' dense due to the... hm... richness of Mr. Trump's life, so some unusually extreme vetting must be done to keep the lead manageable. At this point, I have seen no evidence (such as reliable sources) indicating that the recent controversy surrounding allegations of sexual misconduct is any more biographically significant than other major controversies of the last year, including Trump University and the statements about Judge Curiel, which are not mentioned in the lead section. Therefore I oppose any inclusion at this point, and if we do include something, it should be minimal. --] (]) 23:48, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
| headerstyle = text-align:left; font-weight:normal;
*:One sentence could go on forever.] (]) 23:48, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
| header =
*'''No opinion at this time about whether it should go in the lead''' and '''if it is included it should not exceed 15 words'''. As of now, more than 15 words is ] especially given that not even the presidential debates are mentioned in the lead. There is also no justification for putting the word "rape" into the lead, nor for omitting Trump's denial of all the allegations. It can all be done in 15 words or less.] (]) 23:48, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
&mdash; '''614''' = 29 + 101 + 106 + 156 + 101 + 121
*::<s>I would like to add that the lead currently refers to "rape, and child rape". This is '''''truly outrageous crap''''' to have in this lead. After all, the rest of the BLP says nothing about any rape aside from the alleged child rape, for very good reason. The alleged adult rape victims withdrew the charges. For example, {{cite news |author=Collins, Eliza |url=http://www.politico.com/story/2015/07/ivana-trump-denies-accusing-donald-trump-rape-daily-beast-120721 |title=Ivana Trump denies accusing Donald Trump of rape |work=] |date=July 28, 2015}} As for the alleged child rape, according to '']'' newspaper, lawsuits by this "Jane Doe" against Trump "appear to have been orchestrated by an eccentric anti-Trump campaigner with a record of making outlandish claims about celebrities," a former producer on the '']''. See {{cite news |url=https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/jul/07/donald-trump-sexual-assault-lawsuits-norm-lubow|title=Rape lawsuits against Donald Trump linked to former TV producer; Norm Lubow, formerly a producer on the Jerry Springer show, apparently coordinated lawsuits accusing Donald Trump of raping a child in the 1990s |first=Jon |last=Swaine |date=July 7, 2016 |website=] | accessdate=October 17, 2016 }} <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 00:52, 18 October 2016 (UTC)</small></s>
| content =
*'''No''' and '''one short sentence''' - Would you have stuck Monica in Bill Clinton's lead a few days after the story broke? That scandal resulted in the historic impeachment of a president and threatened to force his resignation, and <u>the whole thing</u> gets two sentences and 57 words in the lead. &#8213;]&nbsp;] 23:50, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
&mdash; '''657''' = 46 + 101 + 116 + 175 + 176 + 43
**Bill Clinton's biography ''does'' include the Lewinsky controversy in the lead. A key difference, of course, is that Bill Clinton is a former President of the United States with a very long track record and impact, whereas Trump is a guy with no political experience who is mainly known around the world for being accused of sexually assaulting women and spewing racist comments. Another difference is that Lewinsky was a consenting adult, and that Clinton has not been accused of (or admitted to!) sexually assaulting an endless list of women over many decades. The comparison with the treatment of the Lewinsky case in Bill Clinton's article indeed ''highlights why this (much more serious) controversy should obviously be included in this article (on a guy whose credentials/public track record is nothing compared to Clinton; hence this controversy is more important for and defining of the topic Donald Trump than Lewinsky is of the topic Bill Clinton)''. --] (]) 01:04, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
***Here's my counter to the "long track record and impact" argument, and I'll pass on the rest and leave that to the closer.<br />] - file size 186K - readable prose size per ] 65K<br />] - file size 327K - readable prose size 88K<br />I know, I've been here before, we can get into which sub-articles about each person should be included in that comparison, but I'm passing on that too. What's clear is that Trump has had plenty of "impact", just of a different type than Clinton.<br />{{tq|mainly known around the world for being accused of sexually assaulting women and spewing racist comments.}} No POV in that argument! &#8213;]&nbsp;] 01:49, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
****Measuring impact by whether the article is bloated or not seems like an odd idea, and based on which policy/sources exactly? On Misplaced Pages, articles are supposed to be readable prose; it's not like there is a contest to make the longest article. A lot of hard work has probably gone into making the Bill Clinton article sufficiently concise. What you have found out is that Bill Clinton has a well written biography within the recommended range per ], whereas Trump has a bloated biography (not due to the very short mentions in the lead and body of the sexual assault scandal, but due to tons of excessively detailed material on trivial stuff such as "Football, cycling and boxing", which is given far more weight than the much more prominent controversy discussed here) near the "almost certainly should be divided" range per Misplaced Pages:Article size. --] (]) 02:20, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
*****Look, RfC survey sections are not for extended debates. I concede, you win. &#8213;]&nbsp;] 03:31, 18 October 2016 (UTC)


&mdash; '''418''' = 62 + 76 + 153 + 127
* '''<s>Short sentence including denial, no more.</s> No. Short sentence''' Anything else is ]. Editors arguing this is the most covered incident in his public life (or even his campaign) have a responsibility to demonstrate that with evidence. ] (]) 23:51, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
*'''No''' and '''very short sentence''' - As I mentioned in previous discussions, I feel that any mention in the lead is ''currently'' ] and ]. In the scope of this multi-decade biography, this topic is currently minor. Such discussion in the lead belongs more on the campaign page. ] directs us to summarize the article is a balanced manner. Currently, only a very small portion of the article covers this issue. Given that, it would not seem important enough to cover in the lead at this point. If, and only if, these allegations (1) result in a conviction or (2) are cited as the primary reason for Trump losing the election, then that would make them significant enough for the lead. In the event of the latter case or consensus forms for inclusion, I do agree with James J. Lambden that Trump's denial should be included if they remain allegations (but not if there's a conviction). ] ] 23:57, 17 October 2016 (UTC)


&mdash; '''406''' = 56 + 70 + 138 + 142
*'''Yesish''' -- A mention should be included in the lead given the extent of claims, the extent of time period, the extent of coverage, and the extent of apparent effect. I added the "ish" as I don't think it can be summarized in the lead. It can be mentioned and the body will include the summarization. I would go for two or three sentences in the lead. ] (]) 00:02, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
}}
{{hidden
| headerstyle = text-align:left; font-weight:normal;
| header =
&mdash; '''418''' = 53 + 64 + 158 + 143
| content =
&mdash; '''413''' = 54 + 62 + 153 + 144


&mdash; '''422''' = 58 + 57 + 141 + 166
*'''Short paragraph''' (ec) of two to four sentences. I have no idea where this "15 words" thing was pulled out of but it's completely arbitrary. This is by far the biggest issue of the campaign and the fact that it is still getting extensive coverage in sources weeks later justifies its inclusion and giving it more than just "15 words". But I'm actually more concerned about what is included rather than how long. Specifically the sentence should not be something along the lines "Trump denied some accusations that were made" and leaving it at that, which is what some of the editors wanted to have. Write it straight - NPOV, no monkey business. What, when, who, where and how. First the allegations and their nature, then the fact that he denied them. Both the Bush tape and the women coming forward should be mentioned. The rape allegation can be left out of the lede.] (]) 00:06, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
*'''Yes One Paragraph''' such as the current,
:::"Trump has been publicly accused by at least twelve women of sexual misconduct—including sexual assault, rape, and child rape—since the 1980s. Several of these allegations preceded Trump's 2016 candidacy for president; many more arose during that campaign, especially after revelation of a 2005 audio recording, in which Trump appeared to brag about committing sexual assault. He has denied the allegations, describing them as part of a wider campaign to smear his candidacy and reputation." ]] 00:21, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
*'''Yes''', per ] the lead '''{{tq|"should stand on its own as a concise overview of the article's topic"}}''' and '''{{tq|"summarize the most important points, ''including any prominent controversies"''}}'''. Donald Trump is mainly known (especially on a global scale) for his presidential candidacy, which is completely dominated by the sexual misconduct controversy. The sexual misconduct controversy has also received more coverage in reliable sources than any other topic related to Trump in his whole life. It is the most prominent issue related to Trump covered in reliable sources, and it is covered both in the article and in ]. The notion that such a prominent controversy should not be included in the lead is simply absurd and contrary to Misplaced Pages policy, such as Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style/Lead section. We should have '''two or three sentences''' (two sentences on the controversy itself with a possible third sentence devoted to Trump's defence/views/denial), as in the current paragraph, because it is impossible to cover this material in a responsible manner in just one sentence, which would also come across as an attempt to unduly downplay the issue. The two or three sentences must however not necessarily constitute a separate paragraph; the reason the three sentences became a separate paragraph in the first place was that this material was placed at the end of an extremely bloated paragraph.--] (]) 00:40, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
*'''Yes'''. The sources clearly support this. One to two sentences that very briefly describe that allegations have been made, with details covered in the body of the article. ~ ]<sup style="margin-left:-1.0ex;">]</sup> 01:06, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
*'''Yes''' - The content in the lead should cover Trump's Access Hollywood comments, the ensuing flood of allegations of sexual misconduct, and the impact to his presidential campaign and the GOP. Two to three sentences should be sufficient. Whether it's added to the campaign paragraph or a separate paragraph matters very little. The coverage of this scandal has gone well beyond the 24 hour news cycle. It's being covered in a sustained fashion by major international news agencies, and has even influenced pop culture . - ]] 02:57, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
*'''Yes'''. Even if it were a single phrase, this should be a separate paragraph. But this must be more than one phrase. Main point here is that all the allegations by different women are very similar and consistent with each other and with something Donald Trump said himself on the widely publicized tape. We must tell also that he blindly denied everything. Three short phrases should be enough. ] (]) 04:12, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
*'''Note:''' Based on the responses so far, and in the spirit of BLP, I have boldly merged the standalone paragraph into the campaign paragraph. I realize there are a couple of people who have argued for a standalone paragraph (specifically Volunteer Marek, SPECIFICO, and My very best wishes) while some have said it doesn't matter (Tataral, Mrx) and others oppose it (Dr. Fleishmann, Anythingyouwant, Mandruss, James J. Lambden) while others don't specify (saying maybe 2-3 sentences but without specifying where). This isn't meant to be a "close" or a final wording, but a quick course correction on a highly visible BLP. <span style="font-family:times; text-shadow: 0 0 .2em #7af">~] <small>(])</small></span> 06:42, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
*'''No <s>Yes but make it very limited</s>'''. <s>Ideally just one sentence (and include the denial). The allegations are unproven and made in connection to the presidential campaign so should not be in a separate paragraph but in with the rest of the lede's presidential campaign material.</s> However, lede material just summarizes important body content, so the content that the lede is summarizing is the content that is actually important and the content that should be used as the basis for deciding lede wording. This article is NOT ] and about 80% of the article is NOT about his presidential campaign. And ALL content is subject to BLP policy - the existence of an ongoing AfD is not an excuse for allowing BLP violations. ] (]) 15:46, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
:::In the light of later no reasons presented, and also after reading the content discussions further down the page, I have changed my opinion to no. Anything but no is giving an open door to endless conflict and the insertion of tabloid like claims simply for effect. ] (]) 02:41, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
*'''No''' - not in lead ...looking for real info in lead - lead is for summarizing main points of the article ] = best not to mention allegations that are barely covered in the article. Best to keep lead simply say "controversy has surrounded the presidential candidacy." ] -- ] (]) 21:19, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
*'''No''' for now, but revisit as needed. If it is included, I have no opinion.--] (]) 23:54, 18 October 2016 (UTC)


&mdash; '''437''' = 58 + 57 + 156 + 166
*'''No''' not in the lead. Largest problem I guess is the ] aspect of the way it's failed to meet ], by the lead having incorrectly presented a felony label, stating it in WP voice as fact rather than a second-party report, and that the article lower down is not saying what the cite said and also edited up the tape transcript. To me though, mostly it is just offtopic -- this is supposed to be a BLP article, and this material belongs to the campaign article or sexual allegations article. Finally -- this is a BLP so anything here should follow the additional bits from ] guidelines such as writing conservatively and avoiding tabloid. Right now this is too much sensationalism, not yet events in hand to gauge the BLP significance -- and edits may be suspect of being COI political motivated until a few weeks from now. ] (]) 00:20, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
::How does it violate ] and ]? The lead currently states ''"and multiple women '''alleged''' sexual harassment ... Previous sexual assault '''claims''' ... Trump vigorously denied the '''allegations"''''' -- ] (]) 19:52, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
*'''1. Yes.''' 2. As short as possible to specifically state the essential facts: The Washington Post released a 2005 recording of Trump bragging about making sexual advances towards women. Add "Trump denied the allegations," but we don't have to give Trump's full non-defense. That's what I would do, but I realize some editors would give more space to defend Trump. I disagree but would go along for consensus. I also argue that it ''must'' go in the introduction because the charges of sexual advances aren't in the Table of Contents and aren't easy to find in the body. The introduction should say, "This article discusses that incident." If I were writing it, I would put “Grab them by the pussy” in the lede. That will tell readers that it's about that incident, they're in the right place if they're looking for it. I may not get consensus for that, but that would best serve the reader. --] (]) 03:10, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
*'''Yes'''; the whole "tape, allegations, response, media plot" trail of events, in the lede, with 2 or 3 concise and succinct sentences. It speaks to his character and attitude...to moments in his life. ]<small>]</small> 12:16, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
*'''No''' - Per ]/] - The lead is meant to summarize the whole life and times of Trump. These recent allegations have make up so little of that life and times that they don't deserve mention. ] (]) 12:51, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
::First, ] is just an essay of the personal opinions of some WP editors, not a guideline or policy. In many cases, it doesn't make sense. When you have an article about a current issue, like an election, ''everything'' is recent. Would you like to delete everything more recent than 1 year from the article? Second, according to ], Trump has been doing this all his adult life, documented by his Howard Stern interviews and the complaints of many women. His sexual advances towards women are a major part of Trump's life and the personna that he himself presented. --] (]) 13:12, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
:::''His sexual advances towards women are a major part of Trump's life'', you really believe that? Please don't answer, its a rhetorical question. --] (]) 14:30, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
::::{{reply to|Nbauman}} - ] is a policy. re "''Trump has been doing this all his adult life''" - I don't really think you have any idea of what Trump has or has not been doing his whole life. Fact is that most of the "allegations" at this point are just that. Allegations. Frankly, I wouldn't be surprised if a lot of them are true, but I'm not so biased to assume they are. Unlike you apparently. ] (]) 14:54, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
:::::According to many ], his sexual advances towards women are a major part of Trump's life. http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-pol-trump-clinton-allegations-20161019-snap-htmlstory.html http://people.com/politics/every-sexual-assault-accusation-against-donald-trump/ and many more. --] (]) 04:55, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
::::::{{reply to|Nbauman}} - You get that there are probably millions of RS's about Trump, right? You understand that a very, very small portion of them specifically cover these sexual allegations? You realize it only seems to you like this issue is important because you have a hard time remembering things which have occurred outside the past week's news cycle? ] (]) 10:37, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
:::::::{{reply to|NickCT}} You get that the LAT and People magazine are major news media, right? I don't think there are any major news media covering the election that haven't covered Trump's sexual advances -- even the sober Christian Science Monitor http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/2016/1010/Debate-fact-check-Teasing-the-truth-out-of-Trump-and-Clinton- . You realize that May 14 http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/15/us/politics/donald-trump-women.html is longer than a week ago, right? You realize that I live in New York City and we've been hearing Trump brag about his sexual conquests since his appearances on the Howard Stern show, right? --] (]) 21:35, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
*''''No''''; These allegations have not been proven and are not a major part of his life. Mentioning them in the lead gives the article an anti-Trump bias. For comparison, the lead of Bill Clinton's article is much more positive and doesn't even mention the allegations about Clinton, other than his impeachment. ] (]) 15:10, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
*''''No... or at least, not yet.'''' This is why we have ]. The latest political firestorm may or may not end up being a defining characteristic worthy of the lede. We can't jam every accusation into the intro simply because it's today's controversy. Revisit this issue in six months or a year and see where it stands. ] (]) 16:22, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
*'''Yes''' - 1 or 2 sentences per ]. -- ] (]) 23:02, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
*'''Absolutely not'''. Completely undue. Defamatory content should not appear in a BLP.] (]) 02:53, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
*'''Comment'''. This RfC should be properly closed. Please do not change content under discussion during standing RfC. Thank you. ] (]) 04:31, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
:::While it ''should'' be possible to make a mention in the lede of the allegations without infringing on BLP requirements, ongoing RfCs don't place a hold on BLP obligations. ] (]) 19:27, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
*'''Yes, absolutely''' - we have a ] on this, which was ] ] at AFD for pete's sake. That article is linked and summarized within this article - and linked in the infobox - so ''of course'' the lede should have at least a few sentences about it. More generally: this is something that is covered in literally hundreds of reliable sources now, there's really no excuse for not giving that coverage due weight in the lede. My suggestion would be 2-3 sentences but the important thing is that it's mentioned. ] (]) 14:13, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
*'''Support inclusion''', because the introduction should summarise the main points of the article, and the allegations have been a significant element in the election campaign. A couple of sentences will probably suffice, outlining the allegations and that he denies them. ] (]) 16:34, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
* '''1. No. 2. Short mention of allegations.''' – This affair is nothing but ]ist hyperventilation. If and when such allegations go beyond gossip with actual trials, then let's revisit. Note that even ]'s lead section does not mention sexual impropriety despite abundant mentions in the article itself and on a dedicated page. The lead just states he was impeached and pardoned following the Lewinski scandal. — ] <sup>]</sup> 00:12, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
*'''Minimal, and only if conjoined'''. The sexual allegations section takes up 2% of the entire 16,000-word article. But the allegations are 12% (57 words) of the lead. So it's a no-brainer, IMO. I'd give the topic max 4-6 words in the lead, which means it could be conjoined with other controversial issues. However, if WP starts selling and relying of advertising, like the MSM, we could go back to 12%, or up to 50%, to remain competitive. --] (]) 18:56, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
::'''Addendum''': I'm not sure about any specific guidelines about allegations, but it seems totally wrong to include things such as allegations, accusations, hearsay, innuendos, insinuations, or gossip anywhere in a lead. It can turn leads into ]-type leads. I've seen a number of famous people resign over the years to fight off simple allegations, even before a court hearing. For instance, ], head of the IMF, resigned, and there was never even a trial. It was a pure case of "]", which IMO is possibly one of the worst effects of the readership-hungry MSM. --] (]) 01:55, 25 October 2016 (UTC)


&mdash; '''465''' = 87 + 60 + 154 + 164
*'''Yes, one sentence'''. The coverage for this instance is ''enormous.'' I frequently examine man news sources outside the US because I use those for Misplaced Pages work: and this incident received global coverage in a big way. Leaving it out is not an option: a paragraph, though, is undue weight. ] (]) 05:29, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
}}
*1. '''Yes''', 2. Up to the extent needed to adequately reflect it according ]. The current 3 sentences are appropriate according to the current status of findings. --]] 22:28, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
{{hidden
*'''Yes''' to include in lead, and the current wording and length is fine. Summoned to this by bot, and I commend EvergreenFir for an exceptonally clear and well-drafted RfC. So many RfCs are murky, this one set forth the issue clearly and in a neutral fashion. The coverage, as Vanamonde93 points out, is enormous. It has dominated the election campaign. An easy call. ] (]) 14:01, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
| headerstyle = text-align:left; font-weight:normal;
*'''Yes''' prominent controversies can be covered in the lead per ] and this controversy is definitely prominent enough for inclusion. But we should only have '''1 sentence''' because per ] "The lead section should briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article." Furthermore, anything more than a sentence could give ] to the controversy since it's barely even covered in the article. ] is an essay we could choose to follow if we wanted to, but since it's just an essay- there is no point in following it unless there is a very good reason why we should do so. <small>(Summoned by bot).</small> ] (]) 15:14, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
| header =
*<s>'''Yes, a few sentences.'''</s> '''Yes, one sentence.''' <u>] detailed analysis of the coverage of this topic in mainstream media sources has changed my mind. While I might not argue for exactly 12 words of coverage, I think it should be at least a factor of two away from that ideal. The lead certainly isn't balanced in other areas (though it should be), so aiming for about twenty words should let it be covered accurately enough to avoid misinterpretation. Controversial subjects usually require more precise language, but I don't think that means they're being given undue weight.</u>
&mdash; '''438''' = 58 + 60 + 156 + 164
:
| content =
{| <!-- Template:Collapse --> class="collapsible {{#switch:{{lc:no}}|uncollapse|uncollapsed|expand|expanded|yes|y=uncollapsed|#default=collapsed}}" style="background-color: transparent; text-align: left; border: 1px solid silver; margin: 0.2em auto auto; width:100%; clear: both; padding: 1px;"
&mdash; '''432''' = 58 + 60 + 145 + 169
|-
! style="background-color: #F0F2F5; font-size:87%; padding:0.2em 0.3em; text-align: left; " | <span style="font-size: 115%;">My comment copied from below</span>
|-
| style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
<div><u>Sources:</u>


&mdash; '''439''' = 46 + 60 + 181 + 152
*The ] says, ''"The lead should stand on its own as a concise overview of the article's topic. It should identify the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any '''prominent controversies.'''"''
}}
*] says, ''"Misplaced Pages articles concerning living persons may include material—where relevant, properly weighted, and reliably sourced—about '''controversies or disputes''' in which the article subject has been involved."''
*The ] also says, ''"When writing about controversies in the lead of the biography of a living person, notable material should '''neither be suppressed nor allowed to overwhelm:''' always pay scrupulous attention to reliable sources, and make sure the lead correctly reflects the entirety of the article. Write clinically, and let the facts speak for themselves."''</div>
|}
:In my opinion, we shouldn't give too much weight to the fact that the article covers some trivial topics more than important ones right now. It will probably have to be reworked later on, since its readable prose size is 89 kB. ] (]) 18:16, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
*'''Yes, of course''', with two sentences. It is already clear that this issue amounts to a significant turning point in his presidential campaign, which is obviously the biggest part of his notability. ] (]) 02:39, 27 October 2016 (UTC)


== Tracking article size ==
*'''No''' per ], ], ]. Allegations have no place in the lede. Let's also keep in mind this is a separate and different article from ]. A short sentence to the effect of "The campaign has been surrounded by controversy." or something like that should suffice. ] (]) 03:57, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
] size in words &ndash; Wiki markup size in bytes &ndash; Approximate number of additional citations before exceeding the ] limit.
::{{u|Athenean}}, we already have the sentence: ''"Trump's campaign has received unprecedented media coverage and international attention. Many of his statements in interviews, on Twitter, and at campaign rallies have been controversial or false. Several rallies during the primaries were accompanied by protests or riots."'' To clarify, are you suggesting something in addition to this? --] (]) 16:57, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
{{hidden
| headerstyle = text-align:left; font-weight:normal;
| header =
&mdash; 15,818 &ndash; 421,592 &ndash; 103
| content =
&mdash; 15,883 &ndash; 427,790 &ndash; {{0}}46


&mdash; 15,708 &ndash; 430,095 &ndash; {{0}}12
*'''Yes''' prominent controversies can be covered in the lead per ] and this controversy is definitely prominent enough for inclusion, meets ] and ] and can be written ]. But we should only have '''1 sentence''' because per ] "The lead section should briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article." ]<sup>]</sup> 09:18, 27 October 2016 (UTC)


&mdash; 15,376 &ndash; 414,196 &ndash; {{0}}67
*'''No''' this man is a 70 year old billionaire, tv guy, etc and page is about his life.. 2 week news story is not why he is famous <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 13:01, 27 October 2016 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
}}
:::''"2 week news story is not why he is famous"'' - that's not what this is at all.] (]) 13:35, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
{{hidden
| headerstyle = text-align:left; font-weight:normal;
| header =
&mdash; 15,479 &ndash; 415,176 &ndash; {{0}}64
| content =
&mdash; 15,279 &ndash; 404,464 &ndash; 122


&mdash; 15,294 &ndash; 405,370 &ndash; {{0}}80
*'''Yes to include more than one sentence.''' The Access Hollywood tape appears to be an integral part of the narrative of how this election has unfolded, and hence of the narrative of Donald Trump's political career. It is having too many other effects in the election and political landscape to be considered just another controversy. Now, nearly three weeks later, sources report these impacts in other races , the media , and the Republican party . To do it NPOV justice, it should be framed as part of the election and it seems like more than one sentence will be required. It could be either a standalone paragraph or in a campaign paragraph, I think. ] (]) 15:13, 27 October 2016 (UTC)


&mdash; 14,863 &ndash; 402,971 &ndash; 190
* <s>Less than 12</s> '''<u>9'''–'''25</u> words''', otherwise '''no''', per MOS:INTRO and WP:UNDUE/BALASP.
: ''Relative emphasis'', ]. The ] holds "for both the lead and the body of the article. If there is a difference in emphasis between the two, editors should seek to resolve the discrepancy."
: Calculating emphasis by total readable prose size:
:: ] = 275 words,
:: ] = 14,675 words,
:: 275 words ÷ 14,675 words = 0.019.
:: ] = 451 words,
:: 0.019 × 451 words = '''8.5''' words.
: ''Balancing aspects'', ]. "An article ... should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to the weight of that aspect in the body of reliable sources on the subject."
: Calculating weight by the number of search results in five of the and news agencies:
<small>
:: Search results: = about 5,720 results,
:: Search results: = about 220,000 results.
:: 5,720 results ÷ 220,000 results = 0.026,
:: 0.026 × 451 words = '''11.7''' words.
:: Search results: = about 1,740 results,
:: Search results: = about 195,000 results.
:: 1,740 results ÷ 195,000 results = 0.009,
:: 0.009 × 451 words = '''4.0''' words.
:: Search results: : about 60,700 results,
:: Search results: : about 3,380,000 results.
:: 60,700 results ÷ 3,380,000 results = 0.0180,
:: 0.018 × 451 words = '''8.1''' words.
:: Search results: = about 409 results,
:: Search results: = about 6,080 results.
:: 409 results ÷ 6,080 results = 0.0673,
:: 0.0673 × 451 words = '''30.3''' words.
:: Search results: = about 169 results,
:: Search results: = about 5,090 results.
:: 169 results ÷ 5,090 results = 0.033,
:: 0.033 × 451 words = '''15.0''' words.</small>
: Trimmed mean = (8.1 + 11.7 + 15.0)/3 = '''11.6''' words. --] (]) 06:06, 29 October 2016 (UTC) 12:34, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
::A most beautiful and dispassionate argument; I applaud your research, {{u|Dervorguilla}}! — ] <sup>]</sup> 09:13, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
:::I must admit - that's pretty solid. Compressing it into 12 words will be... interesting. This approach, though time-intensive, could be used for balancing the lead in other areas too. For instance, there's a sentence that mentions that his campaigns have often been accompanied by protests and rallies, but as far as I can tell, there is literally just ''one'' corresponding sentence in the article body to back it up. ] (]) 16:08, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
::::{{re|JasperTech}} I'll take the challenge: "After lewd comments from 2005 emerged, 15 women accused Trump of unwanted sexual advances." That's 14 words. Add one cite about the tape and one about the accusations; done! — ] <sup>]</sup> 20:14, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
::::: The earlier RFC made the mistake of counting words and was widely derided/disapproved of. We are writing an article not a spreadsheet and I strongly object to going down the "exactly x words" route. Dervorguilla's analysis does not account for synonyms, for whether a mention of Trump was on "page 1" or on page b7 of a newspaper (or in the classifieds, or about a Trump property, or in a weekly recap of "the apprentice"), etc. Weight simply cannot can't be" calculated" this way. ] (]) 20:53, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
{{od2}}
: {{Reply to|Fyddlestix}} "''Counting words''" is actually ]. "Undue weight can be given in several ways, including ... '''quantity of text''', prominence of placement..." Adding synonyms -- in particular, the word "groping" -- does make sense, though. (So does substituting the phrase "sexual assault" for the words "sexual AND assault".)<small>
:: Search results: = about 4,970 results,
:: Search results: = about 242,000 results.
:: 4,970 Results ÷ 242,000 results = 0.021,
:: 0.021× 451 Words = '''9.3''' words.
:: Search results: = about 12,000 results,
:: Search results: = about 172,000 results.
:: 12,000 Results ÷ 172,000 results = 0.070,
:: 0.070 × 451 Words = '''31.5''' words.
:: Search results: = about 104,000 results,
:: Search results: = about 3,390,000 results.
:: 104,000 Results ÷ 3,390,000 results = 0.031,
:: 0.031 × 451 Words = '''13.8''' words.
:: Search results: = about 520 results,
:: Search results: = about 6,230 results,
:: 520 Results ÷ 6,230 results = 0.081,
:: 0.081 × 451 Words = '''36.3''' words.
:: Search results: = about 322 results,
:: Search results: = about 4,660 results.
:: 322 Results ÷ 4,660 results = 0.069,
:: 0.069 × 451 Words = '''31.2''' words.</small>
: Mean = (9.3 + 31.5 + 13.8 + 36.3 + 31.2)/5 = '''24.4''' words. <small>
:--] (]) 12:34, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
*'''No''' See ], another populist politician subject to similar accusations. There is a section on sexual misconduct but nothing in the lede, because it doesn't define who he is. ] (]) 02:21, 31 October 2016 (UTC)


&mdash; 14,989 &ndash; 409,188 &ndash; 180
*'''No''' This is a ], let's not forget. This is extremely defamatory stuff in the most visited BLP article in Misplaced Pages, and worst of all: it's Donald Trump! This guy is known to have sued many people and institutions of defamatory things like this. Let's not play with fire here. ] (]) 05:37, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
}}
{{hidden
| headerstyle = text-align:left; font-weight:normal;
| header =
&mdash; 14,681 &ndash; 404,773 &ndash; 187
| content =
&mdash; 14,756 &ndash; 403,398 &ndash; 191


&mdash; TBD &ndash; 422,683 &ndash; {{0}}95
*'''Yes, one sentence'''. The coverage of this is enormous (world-wide), to not mention that this is a key issue would be borderline censorship, there is no need to go through a, (accused), grope-by-grope account, which is dealt with in other articles. ] (]) 16:26, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
}}


== Edit War ==
{{collapse top|discussion re editor conduct}}
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.
'''Notice''' Pleace take into account that there is an ] opened by DrFleischman against ] and DrFleischman just wrote to "''My very best wishes''" on his talk page: . I'm really shocked. So as I understand, that AE-case is deliberately used to force content out of this article by trying to force ''one'' user to grant a consensus here. This is in no way acceptable. --]] 15:11, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
For some weird reason, these are the choices at hand:
{{collapse bottom}}
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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. ] (]) 19:11, 26 December 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. &#8213;]&nbsp;] 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. ] (]) 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. ]] 17:10, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
::"Dormancy (2021–2025)". Or remission. ;) &#8213;]&nbsp;] 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. ] (]) 18:55, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
:::We thought it was the end of the movie but it was just an intermission. ]] 21:54, 27 December 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)
: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)
Why not use the model of the Cleavland article? ] (]) 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. ]] 22:02, 27 December 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?}} &#8213;]&nbsp;] 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. &#8213;]&nbsp;] 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)
:::::::::Looks like you made this change re archiving . ] (]) 07:19, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::::::"Whatever you want to do is fine with me." ] (]) 17:06, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
=== Making a section heading change ===
Just a reminder that the inauguration is in a couple of days and the time for taking an action discussed above is coming. It appears that there is consensus to make an edit after the inauguration that is the following section heading change,
:from '''First post-presidency (2021–2025)'''
:to '''Between presidential terms (2021–2025)'''.
It's fine with me if anyone makes the change. I'll leave it to you. Regards, ] (]) 11:14, 18 January 2025 (UTC)


=== Inter-presidency? First post-presidency? Which one? ===
*'''Comment''' - Probably needs noting that down-page discussions have resulted in a consensus on the wording of a description of the Bush-Trump tape in the lede. See discussion closures and . I'm unclear how those closures impact this RFC - but I would encourage both new commenters and those who have already commented to take a look at the wording and sourcing that is in the lede currently (ie, in of the page). It is a single sentence (+ another discussing Trump's response) that is exceedingly well-sourced, and - after much discussion downpage - the wording of it appears to have consensus. ] (]) 04:07, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
::No, it's two sentences, not one, when you include Trump's response, and I don't think there's consensus on the "smear campaign" clause. --] (]) 17:16, 4 November 2016 (UTC)


Can we start an RFC? Right now it's at the subject "Between Presidential Terms" which doesn't read right. ] (]) 05:53, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
===Addition of sexual misconduct content to lead section while RfC is ongoing===
:Use the ] page, as a model. ] (]) 05:54, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
{{u|Awilley}}, I appreciate to find middle ground, but no consensus seems to be forming around adding two sentences to the lead section about the recent controversy. If we end up with ] then we should remove this content, so could you please remove it until consensus supports otherwise? --] (]) 19:26, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
:We don't use RfC unless we fail to reach consensus without RfC. I don't think we have attempted the latter as of yet. &#8213;]&nbsp;] 05:58, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
:Let's give it a few days. Headcount is only one aspect of determining consensus. -- ] (]) 23:13, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
:Yeah, although I made the edit per Bob's suggestion ], Interpresidency might be better. ] (]) 11:31, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
::{{ping|User:DrFleischman}} I think you misunderstood my edit. I didn't ''add'' 2 sentences to the lead section, I took an already existing 3-sentence paragraph from the lead section, condensed it into 2 sentences, and merged it into the campaign paragraph. Take a closer look at the diff you linked. I'm sure you'll agree that there is also no consensus forming around having an entire paragraph in the lead. I'm not sure what the status quo was when the RfC was started, but hopefully it will end with something more definitive than "no consensus". <span style="font-family:times; text-shadow: 0 0 .2em #7af">~] <small>(])</small></span> 00:39, 20 October 2016 (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> ==
{{ping|Awilley}} A, that edit of yours during the RfC was entirely out of process. There was clearly no consensus for your version, and consensus is required under the circumstances. Please self-revert that and let's continue to resolve via established channels. Bold doesn't mean OK. Thanks. ]] 23:22, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
{{small|Original heading: "When Trump's new potrait is taken during his second term, should that replace the photo of his last Presidential potrait?" &#8213;]&nbsp;] 12:59, 3 January 2025 (UTC)}}
::I think what Awilley did was mostly a proper course correction justified by comments thus far at this page. Editors who have commented in this subsection have further tweaked it, for the better I think.] (]) 23:28, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
:::Well if he doesn't revert himself, I am going to. We don't adjust to whoever comments first. And you know that. ]] 01:27, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
::::The lead is relatively quiescent now. If there are things about it that you dislike, let's talk about it. I'm against turning the clock back to before Awilley legitimately implemented talk page consensus.] (]) 01:32, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
:::::You shoulda thoughta that before mounting various RfC's. ]] 01:43, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
::::::Not sure what you mean.] (]) 01:45, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
{{od}}, here is my edit summary: "Reverting huge edit to lead. Per WP:BLP, as I have explained and no one has disputed, 'Sexual assault is a broad term that often (if not usually) suggests rape or attempted rape'." My view is that numerous editors have tried during the past week to explicitly put "rape" into this lead, and having failed the next best thing is to insinuate rape in the lead. If that is not the intent, it has surely been the effect. In any event, the purpose of my edit was to revert that.] (]) 03:24, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
:
Is there a consensus against using the words "alleged sexual assault?" I can't find it. Also, this language is the direct language used by the consensus in the press. It satisfies ] and ] There is no reason not to use that language.] (]) 16:23, 20 October 2016 (UTC)


:I think it makes sense to replace it to the new one once it becomes available. Current official picture should be then moved to the section about his first presidency. ] (]) 21:11, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
:Sorry, I probably read through the Talk page too quickly before writing a summary on my recent . Yes, it seems that since the ] page interchangeably uses "sexual assault" and "sexual harassment," it doesn't matter which one is used. I do think that "assault" sounds more severe than "harassment," which sounds more severe than "misconduct."
::Yes I also think it's reasonable to replace the current portrait with the 2025 version once it's available. ] (]) 00:19, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
:::The 2025 portrait is now available. Hopefully someone can update it. ] (]) 17:41, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
::::No, it is not. That is a photograph taken by a private individual, not a government portrait. There is no evidence that the photographer of this photograph has or ever will release it under an acceptable free license. It does not suddenly become public domain just because Trump wants to use it. Nobody other than the photographer or someone they sign rights away to, not even the President, can release copyright on an image they did not take. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez &#124; ] &#124; ] 18:28, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
:Photos for both President Trump and Vice President Vance have been listed on the official White House website, is it good to now post them on the wiki page?
:https://www.whitehouse.gov/administration/donald-j-trump/
:https://www.whitehouse.gov/administration/jd-vance/ ] (]) 18:11, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
::The previous image is more suited for his[REDACTED] page, dare I say even worth breaking precedent for. The new image is not suitable for the far future. ] (]) 07:53, 22 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)
:EDIT: In my opinion, "assault" makes the most sense, considering that it is used 44 times in the other article (including references), compared to only three times for "harassment" and three times for "misconduct." ] (]) 16:53, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
:For infoboxes for politicians, Misplaced Pages uses the most recent official portrait. &#8213;]&nbsp;] 13:05, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
::Do you think it's appropriate for Misplaced Pages to choose ambiguous terms that suggest Trump may have done a lot worse (rape, attempted rape) than most reliable sources say is being alleged? I don't. Incidentally, this discussion seems scattered all over this page, and it should be consolidated in the "Less obvious BLP violation" subsection, so feel free to move both of our comments there.] (]) 19:43, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
:::I think it will make the most sense for future readers if we leave these comments here and continue the discussion down there. ] (]) 19:51, 20 October 2016 (UTC) ::The previous image is more suited for his wikipedia page, dare I say even worth breaking precedent for. The new image is not suitable for the far future. ] (]) 07:53, 22 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)


== Proposal to supersede consensus #50 <span class="anchor" id="RfC to supersede consensus #50"></span> ==
=== Addition of sexual misconduct content to lead section while RfC is ongoing, take 2 ===
<!-- START PIN -->{{Pin message|}}<!-- ] 16:59, 16 January 2035 (UTC) -->{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil|2052579597}}<!-- END PIN -->
So we currently have three sentences in the lead section about the sexual misconduct allegations. '''Please, someone, where is the consensus for this?''' --] (]) 21:08, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
{{small|1=Uninvolved closure requested. &#8213;]&nbsp;] 16:59, 18 January 2025 (UTC)}}
:I've removed the material from the lead section, which keeps being re-added despite the pending RfC. Reviewing the above RfC, I don't see consensus to keep anything in the lead section about the allegations of sexual misconduct, let alone 3 sentences. '''Please do not re-add this material until there is consensus to do so.''' --] (]) 20:25, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
{{not a ballot}}
:{{u|Jeppiz}}, please self-revert your of this material, which lacks consensus, before administrative action becomes necessary. --] (]) 20:32, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
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)
:::{{u|DrFleischman}} I utterly reject your accusations and remind you of ]. All I did was to restore material you deleted (and which I didn't add). For you to call that an edit war is frankly ridiculous. As for consensus, nowhere does it say that consensus or lack of consensus is in favour of leaving material out rather than in. Of course consensus is preferable but rather unlikely in this article. That's not an excuse to impose censorship of any criticism. ] (]) 20:47, 24 October 2016 (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)
::::This is anything but censorship. The material is in the body of the article, and no one is trying to keep it out, least of all me. The majority of participants in the RfC above agree that 3 sentences in the lead section is ]. As for excluding material when there's no consensus, see ] on the subject. No consensus generally means to revert back to the article before the bold edit(s), and when in doubt, exclude contentious material from BLPs. --] (]) 20:53, 24 October 2016 (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)
*:*::Eminem "criminal"? Is this a joke? ] (]) 20:53, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
*:*:::He pleaded guilty to weapons charges for two incidents in 2000, got probation both times. It's mentioned in ]. He wasn't running for president at the time ]. ]] 21:08, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
*:*::::{{Ping|Space4Time3Continuum2x}} in the sense: almost all American rappers who started rapping between the early 90s and early 2000s committed criminal actions, so Eminem (like many other rappers) isn't a correct example for this talk page. ] (]) 21:30, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
*:*:::::I think Alalch was just referring to the OP's consistency claim by pointing out that the article on Eminem, who had pleaded guilty to a felony, also doesn't call him a felon or criminal in the first sentence (or anywhere else, AFAIK — I just skimmed the article). WP says we should avoid labels and, instead, describe what happened. ]] 12:59, 14 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. &#8213;]&nbsp;] 18:17, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
*:'''Support.''' Factual, verifiable, and most importantly widespread coverage. Satisfies ]. ] (]) 21:08, 11 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. &ndash;&nbsp;]&nbsp;(]) 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". &ndash;&nbsp;]&nbsp;(]) 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. &#8213;]&nbsp;] 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. &#8213;]&nbsp;] 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)
*::Yes. He is famous for being a controversial president, making inflammatory remarks and having divisive policies. The felony convictions are not the reason he is notable, his presidencies and business career are. The conviction should be mentioned in the lead, but not the first sentence. ] (]) 14:21, 15 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)
*: &#8213;]&nbsp;] 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}}. &#8213;]&nbsp;] 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[REDACTED] 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)
**:The US is not a true direct democracy...all citizens did not vote all votes were not counted..if that had happened there is no way he would win the popular vote ] (]) 18:54, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
**::{{Ping|Anonymous8206}} obviously it also applies to Biden, not just Trump. ] (]) 12:30, 18 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[REDACTED] 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[REDACTED] 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[REDACTED] 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[REDACTED] 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. &#8213;]&nbsp;] 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. &#8213;]&nbsp;] 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. &#8213;]&nbsp;] 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[REDACTED] 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[REDACTED] 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. &#8213;]&nbsp;] 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)
*:::::::::::Whether we are admins is irrelevant; their opinion doesn't count for more than ours anyway. Nor do we need to be admins to highlight issues of AGF. — ''']''' <sup>''(])''</sup> 15:58, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
*:::::::::::Czello is correct. You have a distorted view of what admins do, and of the division of responsibility between admins and non-admins. I wish behavior issues were handled solely by admins, but that is not the reality. One of en-wiki's greatest flaws is the requirement for ordinary editors to police the very people they are expected to collaborate with. I don't know how many other wikis have the same flaw. &#8213;]&nbsp;] 17:35, 11 January 2025 (UTC)


*'''Comment''' While I assume good faith, some users seem to use veeery long RfCs as a way to obstruct the addition of any material, no matter how factual, that doesn't favour their candidate. RfCs should not be use to impose censorship on Misplaced Pages. ] (]) 20:51, 24 October 2016 (UTC) * Yes please take users to ANI or their talk page, do not discuss user conduct here. ] (]) 22:08, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
::That is the antithesis of AGF, and is completely unconstructive IMO. All I see is that you are imposing your will against the majority of your fellow editors, regardless of your good intentions, RfC bedamned. --] (]) 20:55, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
:::{{re|DrFleischman}}
:::*The ] says, ''"The lead should stand on its own as a concise overview of the article's topic. It should identify the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any '''prominent controversies.'''"''
:::*] says, ''"Misplaced Pages articles concerning living persons may include material—where relevant, properly weighted, and reliably sourced—about '''controversies or disputes''' in which the article subject has been involved."''
:::*The ] also says, ''"When writing about controversies in the lead of the biography of a living person, notable material should '''neither be suppressed nor allowed to overwhelm:''' always pay scrupulous attention to reliable sources, and make sure the lead correctly reflects the entirety of the article. Write clinically, and let the facts speak for themselves."''


*'''Support''' Forget about conviction. We've never had a POTUS who was even criminally indicted.] (]) 22:43, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
:::The RfC should be about how ''much'' content to put in the main paragraph - not whether it should be included at all. The quotations above clearly show that the lead paragraph needs to cover the allegations at least to some extent. ] (]) 21:25, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
::::You are free to add your perspective to the RfC above, but ''this'' discussion is about something different. It's about whether we should be re-inserting and re-inserting and re-inserting three sentences into the lead section during a pending RfC when there's no consensus to do so. --] (]) 22:14, 24 October 2016 (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)
*::@] 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 ].
*::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)
@,&: please refrain from making reverts that could be seen as a "1RR Editwar" towards exclusion of the material that has a long consensus to be included and a RfC that is clearly leaning towards including (17:13), it would be very "Trumpish" to deny this fact. ;) --]] 17:48, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
:Why isn't a CONVICTED FELON text on the intro? ] (]) 04:07, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
:{{u|Schmarrnintelligenz}}, where is this so-called longstanding consensus? Misplaced Pages is ] so we don't go by majority vote, and even if we did, a majority of RfC participants are against including 3 sentences in the lead section. I am in fact about ready to take this to ANI or AE for those who (collectively) repeatedly reinsert controversial material into a BLP without consensus, and those who (collectively) repeatedly falsely cite some mysterious, unwritten consensus. I'm having a hard time seeing this as anything other than pre-election POV pushing and disruption. Please convince me otherwise. --] (]) 18:52, 25 October 2016 (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. — ''']''' <sup>''(])''</sup> 09:05, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
::I agree with DrFleischman's assessment. We are talking about the LEAD here folks, where it was boldly added and reverted and discussion was started and I guess continues?!? There is NO clear consensus for inclusion in the LEAD, full stop, so we should default to the previous versions. Folks can quote WP:LEAD all day, but it comes down to editorial agreement/consensus. --] (]) 19:07, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
:'''Oppose''' - not notable enough yet to warrant mention in the first sentence. Of course if that changes in the future, so should the lede. ] (]) 19:53, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Comment''' I just wanted to interject that while I favor inclusion of the allegations in the lead section, and have opined to that effect in the RfC, my general feeling is that such things should be ''excluded'' pending conclusion of an RfC, per our general attitude toward BLPs. ] (]) 19:55, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
:'''Oppose''' - it is true, but doesn't warrant first sentence status as it's not at all what he is most notable for. I would support adding something about his being the first president to be convicted of a felony somewhere in the first paragraph. Being a felon isn't notable enough, but being the first president/felon is arguable noteworthy enough for first paragraph status. Separate from that I'd oppose calling him a criminal even if we did include his conviction in the first sentence as 'criminal' is too generic a term that could be interpreted in many ways. "Convicted Felon" seems more specific and more in keeping with other articles that referencing well known criminals ] (]) 20:00, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
::Good points. But it's also worth noting that this single RfC about sexual allegations only, is already 6,600 words long, yet it concerns a subsection only 2% of the article body and isn't even in the table of contents. The article has numerous other controversies with much more commentary, all unrelated to sex, but none of which are mentioned in the lead. This obsession with sexual issues appears to be intent on equating Trump with ], whose article was 38% about sexual issues. The implication from this debate is that merely making a public allegation against someone is all it takes to place that allegation in the lead, and thereby undermine the neutrality of a bio with MSM news and ] commentary. Leads are too important in massive articles and should be heavily monitored to comply with ] guidelines, ''not'' those used by ]. --] (]) 20:33, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
:''Oppose'' It's certainly relevant enough to have farther down in the lead, but it's not one of the primary reasons he's notable. I'd be against removing it entirely as reliable sources do talk about his felony convictions regularly, but first sentence is way too aggressive given that his level of notability wasn't affected by the felony conviction. ] (]) 15:55, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
:::Can we please reserve these types of arguments to the RfC above? This section is about what to do in the short term while the RfC is pending. --] (]) 20:38, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
:'''Oppose''' There is a lot of talk in this about ] however this is about the first sentence. ] is the real guide here.
::::Yes, let's not re-litigate the underlying passage. I was commenting on what to do while this RfC was pending. ] (]) 13:45, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
:*"Do not overload the first sentence by describing everything notable about the subject."
*This material should remain out of the lead until the RfC closes, or there is a clear consensus (at least 67% in favor, after discounting !votes that do not cite a policy-based reason. {Currently, I see one !vote on each side of the dispute that would be almost entirely discounted}).- ]] 16:51, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
:*"The first sentence should introduce the topic, and tell the nonspecialist reader what or who the subject is, and often when or where. It should be in plain English."
*According to the previous section (RfC itself), <u>there is consensus that the content should remain in the lead, although not necessarily as a separate paragraph</u>, or at least this is my reading. ] (]) 19:26, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
:The nonspecialist reader needs to know this is a man born in 1946 and served/is serving as the POTUS. Adding more detail will only make the first sentence further from plain English. ] (]) 22:21, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
::You are entitled that reading, though others are entitled to the opposite, and I think there's no doubt that consensus is against having three sentences in the lead, as you have during the pendency of the RfC. The whole time you ignored my repeated good faith inquiries in this subsection and the one immediately above. This is known as disruption. --] (]) 19:31, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
#
:::I am sorry, but you are mistaken. This is not a BLP violation as something extraordinary well sourced, highly notable and already described below on the page. It is generally accepted that we should ''not'' change version of text under discussion during standing RfC. Repeatedly doing so is indeed disruptive. ] (]) 19:39, 26 October 2016 (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)
::::I don't see any consensus for this third sentence you inserted: "Two sexual assault claims, made against him prior to the campaign, also received increased media attention." This wasn't in the BLP when the RFC began, there's clearly no consensus to have a third sentence in the lead about the general subject, this sentence refers to stuff that has gotten relatively little press coverage, and the allegations discussed in this third sentence were all withdrawn at one time or another, though some of them are subsequently revived.] (]) 19:53, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
:::::* version of the page which existed at the moment of posting this RfC. Strictly speaking, any modifications of the last paragraph in intro of this version is a violation of the RfC guidelines. But OK, some people improved this last paragraph (according you your suggestions!) and made it more neutral and less visible by placing it in the end of another paragraph. But you demand to remove this completely, even before the official closing of an RfC. This is not the way to go. ] (]) 20:17, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
::::::::*I haven't demanded that, and have taken no position about removing it completely.] (]) 20:25, 26 October 2016 (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)
There is clearly consensus to include this material, as established numerous times over the last two weeks. There may perhaps not be consensus for a separate paragraph, but the current short mention at the end of another paragraph that has been stable over nearly 2 weeks should not be removed without any consensus. Also note that we don't count votes here; what matters is the strength of policy-based arguments. A removal of very well sourced material because it doesn't favour one's preferred candidate in an election is wholly inappropriate. --] (]) 02:21, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
*:{{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)
*::I was convicted in a court of law, once, decades ago (actually I pled guilty, a distinction without a difference). According to , I'm a criminal. I'll wear that as part of my sentence. If you called me a criminal as one of my handful of defining attributes, I would likely take offense. I won't apply a different standard to Trump; I love Misplaced Pages more than I hate Trump. &#8213;]&nbsp;] 11:50, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
*:While I am opposed as well I disagree with your argument. have numerous articles that do mention someone's conviction in their first paragraph so there is plenty of president for declaring someone a convicted felon already. ] (]) 20:02, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Strongly oppose''', I don't understand the users who agree (obviously I don't judge). ] (]) 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[REDACTED] 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)
:The added material is clearly undue, as the tag indicates, and has obviously corrupted the lead, IMO. Allowing the addition of a , supported by wikilinking to other articles based on allegations and controversies, violates many ] ]. My own concern is not related to guilt or innocence so much as the corruption of WP guidelines. I also wonder how many, if any, of the editor-voters who insist on keeping the sex topics in the lead, despite the allegations being just 2% of the body, are U.S. editors. There would seem to be more ] in other places than this obsession with a kissing and groping candidate from another nation. --] (]) 16:23, 27 October 2016 (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. ] (]) 05:05, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
*::They were not convicted of a crime, for those convicted see ], ], ]. ] (]) 05:42, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
*:::For relevant political examples see ] and ] ] (]) 12:53, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
*:I'd say Trump is most famous for his inflammatory rhetoric, immigration policies, and January 6. The hush money conviction is not in the top 5. ] (]) 20:03, 13 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. ]<sup>]</sup> 07:13, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Comment''' 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[REDACTED] works.
* '''Please note:''' There is a relevant, pending complaint to enforce arbitration remedies at ]. --] (]) 17:01, 27 October 2016 (UTC)


: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.
==== Helpful interim edits ====


:There is too much ]izing going on here in this debate.] (]) 13:48, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
The ] guidelines do say it's OK to make helpful edits to content under RfC discussion. Question: Does anyone here see this one as ''un''helpful?
{{cot|{{small|1=Off-topic about IP addresses, ], resolution of a double !vote, etc. Ok to continue within the collapse. &#8213;]&nbsp;] 06:11, 12 January 2025 (UTC)}}}}

::Are you the same IP as above {{ip|2601:282:8903:b3c0:e03b:9d22:3c30:1a19}} that voted support? Because they geolocate to the came place and ISP. ALso looks like {{ip|65.153.22.75}}. ] (]) 17:21, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
:: 'Trump bragged about...' -> 'Trump jokingly bragged about...'<ref>{{cite news |last1=Fahrenthold |first1=David |title=Trump Recorded Having Extremely Lewd Conversation about Women in 2005 |url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-recorded-having-extremely-lewd-conversation-about-women-in-2005/2016/10/07/3b9ce776-8cb4-11e6-bf8a-3d26847eeed4_story.html |work=The Washington Post |date=October 8, 2016 |quote=‘This was locker-room banter...’ Trump said in a statement.}}</ref>
:::{{ping|PackMecEng}} When the first halves of two IPv6 addresses (2601:282:8903:b3c0) are the same, they are always the same device. The device changes the latter half frequently and that is beyond the user's control. This editor can demonstrate their good faith by striking one of their two bolded !votes; else we have a clear ] situation.{{pb}}As for 65.153.22.75, it's probably a situation of IPv6 for their phone and IPv4 for their computer or other non-phone device. That address has not posted a bolded !vote that I can see, so the only problem is possible ]; seems to me they are consuming significantly more than their share of oxygen in this discussion. &#8213;]&nbsp;] 19:31, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

::::@Mandruss Says you, with practically half the comments here coming from you. Pot meet kettle. ] (]) 19:37, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
{{Reflist-talk}}
:::::] is not about comment count, as a lazy read of just its nutshell will reveal to you. I don't think I have repeated essentially the same arguments at great length and ad nauseam. Are you going to strike or not?? &#8213;]&nbsp;] 19:47, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

::::::@] Already did. Changed from a vote to “a comment”. Wasn’t intentional. I’m not trying to double dip. Thought I was voting on a separate vote started below in a different subsection. Also, some of us anons without accounts sometimes text from a home PC. Then use our mobile device when we are out and about. I’m in my 60s and behind the curve when it comes to texts. But not pretending to be anyone other than who I am. And that’s all that needs to be says about it. Verbose or not, you too are strongly opinionated and invested here as well, and commented more than your fair share too. Given the stakes and unprecedented nature of this heated historical moment, it’s reasonable, expected, and par for the course. We are simply just both spirited strong-willed blokes. Have a good one. ] (]) 20:20, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
The word ''banter'' means "animated joking back and forth." (''Merriam-Webster Unabridged''.) So "jokingly bragged" is a reasonable paraphrase of "bragged as part of this banter". Alternative wording:
:::::::{{tq|Wasn’t intentional. I’m not trying to double dip.}} And I gave you the benefit of the doubt, per ]. You'll note that I did not accuse you of anything. (Some editors should take note: we are entitled to our suspicions, but expressing them absent ''clear evidence'' is a violation that should be dealt with more harshly in my view. Regrettably, some editors don't know what "clear evidence" means. You violated that principle at least once, , and then doubled down . That remains unacceptable in my opinion.){{pb}}My view of constructive talk page behavior is shared among many experienced editors: Don't repeat yourself&mdash;we heard you the first time; the more repetition, the longer the thread and the less likely it is that new arrivals will read existing discussion. Comments are never between just two editors, but some editors act as if they are. &#8213;]&nbsp;] 20:54, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

:::@] Thanks for catching this. Thought I was on a different subspace (the one below that started a new vote). I corrected it. Wasn’t trying to double dip. It’s now a comment. Cheers ] (]) 20:07, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
:: 'Trump jocularly bragged about...'
::::Thanks! I appreciate it. ] (]) 20:09, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

The subject made the clarification about "banter" in an authoritative press release and was quoted by the ''Washington Post'' in its breaking story; to me, this looks like it would meet all the ] criteria. --] (]) 13:22, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

:This would be very inconsistent with the majority of RS (which mention neither "jokingly" nor "banter"). And given Trumps well documented, easily verifiable propensity to fib there's no way we should be giving his own excuses more weight than a very large number of RS that say something different (although we could certainly note his perspective I guess - it just shouldn't be treated as factual). ] (]) 13:31, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
::Agreed. This is decidedly a minority view, and it doesn't help that it's the subject's own view (spin). We would also want to consider what reliable sources have had to say about this press release. ] (]) 13:35, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

:: {{reply to|Fyddlestix|Nomoskedasticity}} Thanks, and you're 100% right about their not mentioning "jokingly". Indeed, many don't bring up Trump's statement at all. Of those that do bring it up, however, the vast majority actually mention "banter" (usually citing Trump's phrase, "locker-room banter"). Indeed, you'll have trouble finding even one mainstream source who would assert that it ''wasn't'' locker-room banter -- the polite term for "bullshitting". (, ''vb''. "To lie or exaggerate to.") Trump acknowledges he was exaggerating to Bush; most professional journalists already suspected he was exaggerating to Bush.
:: So at this point it looks like there's nothing to worry about: We can just go ahead and add "banteringly". (Do let me know if you come up with anything interesting, though.) --] (]) 15:04, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
::: I strongly object to that - you and I must be looking at very different sources because the suggestion that "most professional journalists already suspected he was exaggerating" appears completely unfounded to me. To me it appears crystal clear that most professional journalists have taken Trump's statements very seriously, and the 15 women who've come forward to accuse Trump of doing exactly what he said he had done on the tape suggests that this was very far from "bullshit" (NB: the media has obviously taken those women's claims seriously too). We can say that Trump ''says'' this was banter (and properly source that statement), but we can't say that it ''was'' banter (much less "bullshit," or a similar synonym) - because most sources suggest that it was actually a pretty accurate description of things Trump has done and how he behaves. ] (]) 15:52, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

:This is not helpful, and discussion of the language used if we do include something is already ongoing below in the section entitled "Language in lead section about sexual misconduct." --] (]) 17:26, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

=== Addition of sexual misconduct content to lead section while RfC is ongoing, take 3 ===
We currently have two sentences in the lead section about sexual assault. I don't see consensus for this. Can someone please point me to it? Or do I have to list each and every editor who has violated active arbitration remedies by restoring content without consensus? --] (]) 17:06, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
:Do you think an early close to the RfC would help? It's been running for over 2 weeks now, and could provide some sort of guidance. <span style="font-family:times; text-shadow: 0 0 .2em #7af">~] <small>(])</small></span> 18:04, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
::Yes, I think that would be helpful. The last time I requested an early close I got slapped, so I'm not going to do it myself. --] (]) 21:29, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
:::Yes an early close would be very helpful, or at least an evaluation of the consensus so far, by an involved editor.- ]] 22:20, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
::::I think you mean UNinvolved... --] (]) 22:43, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
:::::Sorry, yes! MrX is distracted as usual.- ]] 23:08, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
::The RfC process '''appears to have stagnated''', in spite of ''some'' consensus on ''some'' questions seemingly being reached. The process as of November 6 has become protracted, unduly cumbersome and -- disturbingly -- convoluted in labyrinthine nuance variously attracting especial degrees of ongoing and exceedingly superfluous analysis; the situation is in my view potentially obstructing realization of the consensus the RfC was designed to achieve i.e. it is arguable RfC at present is self-defeating to some extent and/or, at the least, self-serving insofar as a '''consensus does not appear any closer to being represented in the article proper'''.

::Good faith edits with reference to ] are increasingly reverted on account of extant RfC processes alone. Contentious content in the lede -- arguably though not necessarily representing a somewhat extreme end of the very spectrum from which consensus (that is to say the interim results of '''another RfC''') is or has previously been drawn -- remains ''in situ'' '''in the lede''' while circular arbitration in the guise of '''this''' RfC paradoxically "guarantees" it remain there, and this is an altogether troubling state of affairs. Artifacts of these RfCs interacting with eachother appear then to contravene neutrality-in-general, for it would be preferable (surely) to exclude from the lede material that is subject to arbitration/RfC if the latter and unresolved RfC pertains to inclusion within that section - regardless of whether or not the content itself reflects consensus(!)

::Clearly a tension exists, for notwithstanding the RfC vis- the content itself reflected, at least for a time, a consensus toward including the content verbatim in the article at all, the current RfC even in its present quasi-"non exhaustive" state appears to reflect a growing consensus that aforementioned content be '''excluded from the lede'''. Whomever is responsible for producing a remedy to this circumstance ought be circumspect of this tension, for it is potentially biasing, and '''a fortiori''' an excellent reason to at the very least '''suspend the content's appearance in the lede''' until a degree of consensus is reached and endorsed by an adjudicator in the form of making a binding or partially-binding edit. For these reasons I contend '''analysis by a team of administrators vis- prevailing consensus be executed as a matter of priority.'''

::If that can not be achieved because "RfC is not a vote" then it '''ought be put to a vote instead.''' (and I apologise in advance if in so making this suggestion I open a Pandora's Box, but in my defense the status quo has no inferior, not that I can see...) I concur with the sentiment the RfC process vis-a-vis the "controversies in lede" has exceeded due tenure and indeed that practical inertia and a problematic (at times invidious) editorial predicament arising thereof are both real and extant phenomena which '''require to be addressed as soon as practicably possible.''' I will attempt to escalate awareness of this "Elephant in the Room" without, I should hope, invoking an RfC '''of''' an RfC which in furtherance to causing tedium would ironically defeat such a veritable attempt to break the cycle of circularness now inherent in these proceedings. ''']''' 05:15, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
::*I do not quite understand what you are trying to say, though I did see that your (wordy) edits to what I think was well-established text were reverted. ] (]) 05:30, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

:::I have pointed out what I believe to be innocent processes that are emergent and by-product of concurrent RfC's which, to some extent and to the detriment of the editorial process, overlap. These processes are complex but also simple if one appreciates they are born of a bureaucratic process which has become complicated because the outcome of the second (and current) RfC ('''include content in lede?''') potentially co-varies with and may become biased by the outcome of the first RfC ('''include content as it is currently worded?'''). I am additionally concerned that the latter RfC appears to be inert insofar as a "consensus" ''de jure'' has not been agreed upon i.e. the RfC is not closed, which is problematic given:
:::# The contentiously-worded (though from prior RfC, reached by consensus) content remains '''''in situ''''' in the lede while RfC continues (perhaps perennially),
:::# A ''de facto'' consensus '''does''' appear to have emerged in this talk page which actually leans '''against''' including the material in the lede, and
:::# Indeed a number of editors are now expressing the view that the current RfC be closed and concluded.

:::On the question of your final remarks whereupon you blunder into seeming ], well, '''of course''' my reasons, and the reasons of other editors of the English Misplaced Pages - are at least partially editorial in nature. If editorial capacity becomes diluted in (and/or thwarted by) excessively bureaucratic process that is flawed and seemingly unchecked then that is an even broader matter, even more of a concern, '''''a fortiori''''' the concerns I and other editors have raised, an even better reason to urge those with due capacity and responsibility to act. What I have done is called for action, such that editors may -- in furtherance to acting with regard to consensus -- act in the first place. I can make no further attempt to appease your incomprehension, unless of course you have the ability to arbitrate or, perhaps, comment meaningfully. ''']''' 06:44, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
::::I think I made only two remarks, so I assume you think both are somehow ''ad hominem''--that's great that you think that, but it does not matter so much to me. Let's see if your commentary here gains traction. My incomprehension, by the way, is easily appeased, I think. ] (]) 13:22, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

===Closure request===
FYI, I have requested an RFC close .] (]) 00:04, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

:At 16:53, 10 November 2016‎ ] removed and archived the last part of this discussion -see ] It appears that a consensus was reached concerning the language to be used in dealing with the sexual allegations in the lead section. Discussion(s) was closed by ] ]<sup>]</sup> 03:18, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
::], the discussions ] were apparently ''separate'' from the RFC. Those discussions (which were scattered around the talk page until refactored together by the closer) were relatively sparsely-attended, and were about such narrow topics as whether "Trump bragged about groping and forcibly kissing women..." should be changed to "Trump privately bragged about his capacity for groping and forcibly kissing women due to his fame..." (the consensus was "no"). The RFC needs to be closed, and so I am requesting that.] (]) 05:54, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
{{archive bottom}}

== New picture ==
{{cot|1=Superseded by active RfC. &#8213;]&nbsp;] 16:28, 17 November 2016 (UTC)}}
I think it's time to put a more appropriate image in the infobox.

--] (]) 21:19, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

:Are you serious or joking? Please check out the talk page archives. --] (]) 21:31, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
:: See . It's very unlikely that you'll get much support for reopening that debate now, as the discussion was quite recent and resulted in a firm consensus. ] (]) 21:48, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
:{{reply to|Reollun}} The current image looks OK. How could a better image be chosen? ] (]) 06:45, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

:{{reply to|Reollun}} I presume it will have to be changed since he is now preisdent-elect.
--] (]) 09:13, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Why would a person who just won the presidential office have a frown on them??? Use the photo from Wiki Commons (https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/a9/Donald_J._Trump_October_2016.jpg/113px-Donald_J._Trump_October_2016.jpg) instead. ] (]) 03:49, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
{{cob}} {{cob}}
::You can't really cite the coverage in the press as "consensus" as that's heavily subject to ]. — ''']''' <sup>''(])''</sup> 19:04, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
:::@] This is actually the opposite of RECENTISM, as the verdict was many moons ago, been debated to death here, and given the thoughtfulness of the American legal system in its methodological approach (especially in the drawn out fashion under Biden and with all the delays) this has been given MORE than enough time for us to be able to call it. A convicted criminal being sentenced after a serious trial is literally the closure of said dragged out process. This is a dodge, and ] recent, and is ] our job to avoid reporting harsh truths when it becomes necessary to do so. ] (]) 23:38, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
::::This 2601:282:8903:B3C0 IP is engaged in ridiculous Wikilawyering all throughout this section. Sentencing was yesterday, hence RECENTISM. WP:NOT is not at all related to anything here. Nor are the other essays raised, such as SPADE. &ndash;&nbsp;]&nbsp;(]) 00:03, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::@] No, but you are flirting with trying ] the system here by misrepresenting others here. And engaging in a borderline personal attack.
:::::This isn't a game, and the sentencing is the conclusion of Trump's verdict from MONTHS ago. What is "ridiculous" is the suggestion that this is somehow RECENT news. '''Trump was a convicted criminal MONTHS ago, remember??''' And the American legal system doesn't say that a conviction doesn't count UNTIL you are sentenced. The sentence is simply the punishment. The conviction is the important part.
:::::The only reason why sentencing is even relevant now in this 'second-look-of-sorts' at including information about Trump's criminal behavior in the opening is because there was a chance the Judge may have reversed himself and dismissed the case. Between the SCOTUS giving its blessing on Trump's sentencing and the Judge doubling down, this old news about Trump's verdict now has proper closure. And we can easily report on it more directly.
:::::The only ] is see here is you trying to find some fancy way around reporting obvious factual pertinent information for whatever personal agenda you have to bury it in the lead. Re-read ] It clearly says that in the lead, {{tq|"It should identify the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, INCLUDING any prominent controversies.}} There is nothing recent about Trump's verdict, it is literally one of the most controversy and notable things about him, as he is the only American President in all of world history to be a convicted felon. And he's been a convicted felon for a while now, nothing recent about it. ] (]) 01:28, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::{{tq|whatever personal agenda you have to bury it in the lead.}} You did it again. Consider this fair warning: One more and I'll see you at ], unless someone sees fit to do it now. {{small|(To those such as Slatersteven who would scold me for for saying this here instead of your UTP, I would respond that that doesn't work for some IPv4 editors and most IPv6 editors. The UTP disappears into the ether every time the IP address changes, which is quite frequently, so it's rarely worth one's time to post on it. You yourself have posted in this discussion under seven different IP addresses, one IPv4 and six IPv6, each with its own UTP.)}} &#8213;]&nbsp;] 01:48, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::Like I said, Wikilawyering. And yes, also failing to AGF. A closing admin will take it into account. &ndash;&nbsp;]&nbsp;(]) 01:42, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
::::The previous debates resulted in no consensus to include in the lead. It hasn't been persistently a presence in the press or something he's ''primarily'' known for since the initial conviction. It's back in the press now, hence recentism. — ''']''' <sup>''(])''</sup> 08:15, 12 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. ] (]) 13:55, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
== Infobox image ==
{{cot|1=Superseded by active RfC. &#8213;]&nbsp;] 16:29, 17 November 2016 (UTC)}}
I think it's time to change the lead image. The smiling Trump is reflective of the man who is now President-elect of the United States. Trump is not the man in deep contemplation but the man who contemplated a winning strategy and stands ready, and happy to serve.--] (]) 08:27, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
:Agree, of course. The same goes for ], the pages about the Republican primaries, etc. We have , it's time to use it. This is not equivalent to "beating a dead horse" anymore. ] (]) 08:39, 9 November 2016 (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)
{{od}}I placed a new, less obscured image of Trump in the infobox.
*:] served time in prison, was fined, and lost his law license because of the campaign finance laws violations on behalf of Trump. Cohen wasn't running for office when he was punished. It appears more logical to say that Trump got away because he was running for the presidency. ] (]) 15:47, 11 January 2025 (UTC)


*'''Strong support''' On Misplaced Pages, I think there are systemic issues with the handling of political articles. It is best that readers be made aware, as soon as possible, that this is not the place to go for balanced coverage of topics involving political ideology. Calling Trump a "criminal" in the very first sentence would telegraph that to readers quite marvelously. By all means, have at it. ] (]) 15:48, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
If this is reverted, this image is the proposed image:
*:The president-elect is a career criminal dating back to 1968 when he falsified medical records to include bone spurs in furtherance of draft dodging felony, before he became businessman and media personality. ] (]) 16:08, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
<gallery>
:::I know he is. It is a good edit. Go at it. ] (]) 16:21, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
File:Donald Trump speaking with supporters at a campaign rally at the Phoenix Convention Center.jpg|Image 1
::Lol ] (]) 16:24, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
File:Donald Trump by Gage Skidmore 10.jpg|Image 2
*'''Oppose''' - The body, of course, the lead, absolutely, the first sentence? Not yet, it is not one of the defining characteristics of what makes him notable. I could certainly see that changing, but it is not at that point by RS coverage yet. ] (]) 16:06, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
File:President Trump 2.jpg|Image 3
File:Donald Trump Arizona 2016.jpg|Image 4 (cropped of Image 1)
</gallery>


Please remember this is a BLP, and any accusations must be backed up with sources, and he can't be accused of breaking laws with out there even being an investigation by the authorities. ] (]) 16:12, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
Placed this in the talk page just in case! --] (]) 08:43, 9 November 2016 (UTC)


:'''Support''' Outside of playing more golf on the dime of taxpayers than any other President (a little humor), unfortunately the hard truth is that according the consensus of the sources he is known for being America's first convicted felon to be elected to the highest office of the land. He and he alone enjoys that distinction. There has been no other President in the last few hundred years charged with hundreds of crimes, or even a single felony, let alone convicted of one. That alone makes this not only notable but necessary to highlight in the lead.
:It needs to be DISCUSSED first Gage/Calibrador, stop imposing it, most of us like to follow rules...--<span style="color:blue;font-weight:bold;font-size:medium;font-family: Monotype Corsiva;">]]</span> 08:58, 9 November 2016 (UTC)


:The biggest disagreement here among the naysayers (and some trolls) seems to be that this "is controversial",
Reminder : this image has also been proposed (see section above and previous discussions) ] (]) 08:59, 9 November 2016 (UTC)


:So let's look at ], shall we? It clearly says, {{tq|"It should identify the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, INCLUDING any prominent controversies.}}
:(moved image to gallery above)
:Since the biggest disagreement here among the naysayers (and some trolls) seems to be that this "is controversial", many are saying we should NOT highlight it front and center, etc".


:I want editors to note that ] in fact wants us TO INCLUDE PROMINENT CONTROVERSIES. Either some misguided editors need to refresh their memory and read this, and we all seem to agree Trump's many crimes and convictions need to be included in the article regardless as they are empirically sound, so this should be distilled to what is appropriate for a lead.
: ] is following the rules, but you are not. I agree with the logic of ], and I vote to keep the contribution of ]. Several others have already reverted your disruptive edit concerning this matter, ]. Please see WP on conduct—anything remotely percieved as bullying is to be avoided, and don't be resistant to allow others to contribute within guidelines. You're not the only user here, and so far you're the only one resistant to this edit. ] (]) 09:22, 9 November 2016 (UTC)


:-->Is it "notable" per ]? Yes, for the same reason that President Barack Obama being elected the first African American President, as it has been pointed out to death here.
::Sorry for placing it without discussion! One of the reasons I uploaded my image is that in the current image, the microphone is in the way. The other proposed image seen in the reminder has a microphone too but is not bad.--] (]) 09:03, 9 November 2016 (UTC)


:-->It is summarized? Yes, this has played out in the public, and with the press, and here and now has found proper closure with sentencing and with the blessing of even the SCOTUS.
Also, here is another proposed image:
:(moved image to gallery above)


:-->Is it prominent? It is at least one of the things Trump is known best for as President since no other President enjoys this exclusive, historic, unique distinction.
Should be enough options for now.--] (]) 09:12, 9 November 2016 (UTC)


:And for those saying that this celebrity or that politician isn't highlighted in the lead as a criminal and yadda, yadda, yadda, then I suggest fixes those articles if they too fit the above criteria.
: I think ]'s first proposal (at the top of this section) is the better one. Please be aware though that the image should not be changed without clear consensus here. This article is subject to 1RR sanctions and I've reluctantly just had to block an editor who exceeded ] who was edit warring over the image. '''This is a reminder to all editors not revert more than once on this article in a 24 hour period.''' ]] 09:55, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
::Indeed, I did not revert's ZiaLater's edit on the page because I did not like the image but because he/she did not follow the protocol which is that images need to be discussed here and a proper outcome (if there is one) needs to be adhered to. You cannot just go 'willy-nilly' changing the image to suit the one you want. The image has been changed on that page many many times so a proper procedure should now be followed, that said, it would be wise if admins watching the page do not block users trying to restore the longstanding image by mistake, As i was told by another admin, the IRR on that page is not very clear..That said, I do like the first image but it has to be zoomed in a bit, its supposed to be a headshot, not a longshot :)--<span style="color:blue;font-weight:bold;font-size:medium;font-family: Monotype Corsiva;">]]</span> 10:24, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
:::Yes, there's been quite a bit of confusion and discussion about discretionary sanctions lately; in the case of the editor I blocked they had breached 3RR not just the discretionary 1RR sanction so it was a fairly clear-cut decision. You're quite right, admins should not block users trying to restore the longstanding image (unless it's clear the consensus has changed of course). ]] 10:29, 9 November 2016 (UTC)


:For those letting possible political bias interfere with their duties as an editor, my ask is please keep it simple and lets not treat one controversial subject differently than any other. This isn't about whether Trump deserves his conviction. It's about its notoriety, notability and whether the consensus in the press reflects as much. And we must reflect the press per ] otherwise we are basically endorsing a loophole around the ] violation. ] (]) 18:23, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
*Ok, I added a gallery now, its an easier method and makes it less congested, peopel can add more options (just make sure its an actual headshot and recent and not images from 2014 or before).--<span style="color:blue;font-weight:bold;font-size:medium;font-family: Monotype Corsiva;">]]</span> 10:54, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
::A few things, pretty much no one is saying it should not be in the lead. What they are discussing, and what this RFC is about, is if it should be in the first sentence. So that kind of undercuts all of your points. Next do not accuse people disagreeing with you of being trolls or that it must be political bias. That is not helpful to discussions here. ] (]) 02:34, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
*1, 2 and 4 are fine as far as I'm concerned. What matters is that we have to replace the current photo ASAP. ] (]) 15:50, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
:::From my experience, the editors who complain about other people editing based on their "political bias" are usually the ones whose editing is most influenced by their political biases. &ndash;&nbsp;]&nbsp;(]) 02:16, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
*I like Image 2 the most but it would be better if the microphone was photoshopped out. 1, 3, and 4 are also feasible. Note that the photo of Trump on the ] article has been changed as well. ] ] 16:06, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
* '''Oppose''', this conviction is nowhere near what Trump is best known for and would be wildly ]. If he'd been convicted in relation to January 6th, then sure, but this is minor at most. Better mentioned later in the lede. ] (]) 18:46, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
*I vote for Image 4. ] (]) 16:44, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
*:@] That’s fallacious. There’s nothing minor about 34+ felony convictions. In accordance to American law, the justice system upgraded those minor misdemeanor charges into felonies because the jury found that Trump had been committing multiple misdemeanor crimes as part of a felony criminal to influence and interfere with the 2016 election. Convictions for interfering with a democratic election is the opposite of “minor”. ] (]) 18:50, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
*:{{Ping|Kowal2701}} I agree, Trump best known for this conviction? It sounds like a provocation by users who dislike him (and I don't like him much either, but I'm objective). ] (]) 18:51, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
*::Agreed, frankly it'd be a bit embarrassing if this were to succeed (although nom is clearly good faith) ] (]) 18:53, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
*:::Thank you, I'd add that this is not a fringe RfC, I looked up a similar mid-2024 RfC that was closed as no consensus, and it noted the support side had a majority, which took me by surprise as I would have opposed back then, he was not officially a felon yet. ] (]) 19:24, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
*::@] How is it “provocation” that Trump is a convicted criminal for 30 plus serious felonies involving an election interference scheme? Lol That was the finding by a jury, not a simple allegation. If it’s provocative or even embarrassing then that’s the natural consequence for the one committing a crime. That’s on the convicted, not on us. I challenge your “objectivity”. Liking him or disliking him has nothing to do with this. That saying, you can have your own set of opinions but not your own facts?? The law and the nature of convictions happens to carry some ugly truths. So do we waterdown the Ted Bundy page or the Harvey Weinstein page for fear of personal embarrassment of said subject? Trump is also an adjudicated sexual assault perpetrator. That’s also a first for Presidents. That other saying, if the shoe fits? Objective indeed. ] (]) 19:33, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Comment''' — See the lead sentence of the Misplaced Pages article ]. Regards, ] (]) 02:50, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
*:I think we can safely assume you're an Opposer without a !vote to date. The "other side" has already been , correctly in my opinion. Trump is neither Obama (Supporters) nor Cohen (Opposers). He is a whole new animal, so we should not look to precedents either way (especially cherry-picked precedents). &#8213;]&nbsp;] 03:30, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
*::{{Ping|Mandruss}} why "animal"? ] (]) 03:39, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
*:::, noun sense 5. &#8213;]&nbsp;] 03:42, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
*::::Thank you, it's always nice to learn new things. ] (]) 03:48, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
*::I put it out there so that editors could chew on the lead sentence of an article about someone convicted of crimes and involved in the 34 felony counts of Trump. Another one involved and having a Misplaced Pages article is ]. As far as I'm concerned, either way works: without "criminal" is more appropriate as far as writing a Misplaced Pages article, whereas with "criminal" in the lead sentence it puts up front the tone of the article that follows. Regards, ] (]) 08:11, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
* '''Comment''' Although I voted support, I think calling him a "criminal" is too non-specific and is a loaded term. The fact that ]'s racial identity as "the first African-American president in U.S. history" is worthy enough to be included in the first paragraph of the lead; but Trump's 34 felony convictions and being the first acting and former president in U.S. history to be a convicted felon is not worthy of being included in the first paragraph of the lead, is a double standard. I think a separate RfC to simply debate whether this unique status should be included in the first paragraph of the lead may be warranted, irrespective of the exact wording. ] (]) 22:36, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
*:Have we had a separate discussion about first paragraph as opposed to first sentence? I may have missed it, or my memory may be starting to fail in my somewhat-old age. If so, can someone provide an archive link? If not, we don't go to RfC unless we fail to reach consensus without RfC. Assuming no political motivations per ], there isn't any particular rush to get this resolved in this biography; four months would not be excessive for something so significant. &#8213;]&nbsp;] 23:17, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
*::Separate - no. It came up during about adding "convicted felon" to the first sentence. There was also and two brief ones ( and ) that didn't get much traction. When this discussion has been closed, we should start a separate one about mentioning the felony conviction in the first paragraph. It was major headline news, including Trump's extensive efforts all the way up to the Supreme Court to get the case dismissed. (And now he can't buy or own a gun but next week he'll be able to deploy nuclear missiles {{Oldsmiley|roll}}.) ]] 16:44, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
*:I see you and Bob K31416 believe that "criminal" is too non-specific, loaded, and set the tone for the article that follows. I thought the complete opposite when I started this RfC, and still do. I don't like the term "convicted felon" in previous RfC, and I'm not a fan of an entire sentence for how he is the first convicted president in U.S. history. I intended "criminal" to dispassionately mean he was convicted of a crime without specificity, and that it simply mentions in passing one of his many other titles such as the unspecific politician, businessman, media personality titles, such that no tone is set for the rest of the lede at all. A person who has no idea who he is and stumble upon the four titles would think this is probably interesting, and it gets super interesting when the person reads "who became 45th (and 47th) ...", the same way I found it interesting when I first read "politician and humanitarian" in ]. ] (]) 15:41, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
*::Should this article really be geared towards a hypothetical reader who doesn't know who Trump is? Does such a person even exist? ] (]) 20:25, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
*:::...Yes, since that's the entire long-term point of something like an encyclopedia. We should be writing articles so that people can read them in 100 years and come away feeling like they've been informed in a broad way, not like they've read a contemporary news article about the subject. That's why ] exists. ] (]) 22:05, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
*::::{{Ping|Big Thumpus}} I agree with you, but it's also true that in 100 years there will probably be other virtual encyclopedias, and perhaps Misplaced Pages will be replaced with something even better and much more automated. ] (]) 22:15, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
*:::::Venturing even further off topic, a future Misplaced Pages will be written mostly by AI bots (maybe that's what you meant by "automated"). If done correctly, that will largely eliminate editor bias. &#8213;]&nbsp;] 22:32, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
*::::::{{Ping|Mandruss}} "...will be written mostly by AI bots (maybe that's what you meant by "automated")." Yes. ] (]) 22:40, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
*:::::::Yeah, I spoke in haste. And countless humans will be forced to find new hobbies. &#8213;]&nbsp;] 22:42, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' Being convicted of any offense for which not punishment inflicted doesn't make someone notable. Also, there are plenty of politicians and others who have been convicted of crimes who are not described as criminals and lots of criminals (probably including U.S. presidents) who have never been convicted of anything. Anyway, it would just make the article look absurd and discredit it in the eyes of readers. ] (]) 23:36, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Comment''' — I briefly tried to find sources that describe Trump as a "criminal", i.e. using that word, and I was unsuccessful. Maybe someone else can find such sources. Thanks. ] (]) 16:48, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
*:How about the court? ] (]) 16:58, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
*::{{emoji|1F44D}} ]] 17:24, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
*::Thanks but is that referring to the type of court or the defendant? ] (]) 18:01, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
*::: {{sert|1}} ]] 18:09, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
*:::Not sure what difference it makes as he was convicted in a criminal court. As said below, a convicted felon is by definition a criminal. Nonetheless, I !voted Oppose. ] (]) 18:21, 14 January 2025 (UTC)


A convicted felon is by definition a criminal ] (]) 16:56, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
* '''Comment:''' Why don't we wait until his presidential picture is released? We are going to change this picture to only have to change it again soon. When will this non-sense end? <span style="color:#008080;">'''Chase'''</span>|<sup><small style="font-size:75%;">]</small></sup> 23:10, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
:'''Donald John Trump''' (born June 14, 1946) is an American politician, media personality, businessman, criminal, native New Yorker, father, husband, and amateur golfer who served as the 45th ] from 2017 to 2021.{{pb}}All of which is eminently ] and amply supported by RS. That does not mean it should be in the first sentence or even the first paragraph. Please stop with the arguments. &#8213;]&nbsp;] 23:10, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
::I totally, completely agree with ]. ] (]) 21:00, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
::+1 ] (]) 21:01, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
:::It's a statement of fact...if you had to sum him up in one sentence that pretty much covers it..this is exactly what the first sentence is supposed to do ] (]) 23:59, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
::::Which entirely misses my point. Done trying to communicate with you on this issue. &#8213;]&nbsp;] 00:11, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Support'''. His conviction got a huge amount of attention, and sources have pointed out that he is notable as the first US president who is also a convicted criminal. It's at minimum as notable as "media personality". ] (]) 13:32, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
*:I wouldn't mind removing "media personality" TBH. He is notable for being president twice and for being a businessman. He is not notable for his felony convictions. They should be in the lead, but not the first sentence. ] (]) 14:17, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
:::The fact of the matter he is not a media personality he's a former media personality..if being a convicted felon is less significant than that what would be ? It belongs in the first sentence..it is relevant if for no other reason there are a lot of people who look at Misplaced Pages articles and never get past the first sentence...I generally don`t get past the first paragraph..I was taught in school to get to the point in the first sentence..that the first sentence should support the first paragraph and the first paragraph should support the body of the work..I support wording it as convicted felon rather than criminal as it is more descriptive and accurate ] (]) 18:59, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
::::BTW, what's the meaning of the term "media personality"? Thanks, ] (]) 20:36, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::It sounds better than "reality television host". BTW without hosting "The Apprentice", Trump likely never becomes president or charged with any crimes, so note the ] in saying he isn't notable for it. &ndash;&nbsp;]&nbsp;(]) 20:43, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::Do you have a source that explicitly states that Trump wouldn't be a president or convicted criminal without having been a TV host? ] (]) 21:16, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::::Can I prove a negative? Of course not. I said "likely" and that is my opinion. &ndash;&nbsp;]&nbsp;(]) 21:25, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::See ]. He was a media presence (radio and TV talk shows, cameos in movies and on TV shows, source for tabloids and society pages of NY Times and other papers) before, during, and after the Apprentice, not to mention his Twitter activities. See also the first discussion for this consensus which had 10 options to choose from. Examples for definitions: (''Media personalities, encompassing TV hosts, news anchors, and social media celebrities, are individuals known for their presence in various media platforms''), (''A modern term for the carefully formulated and overtly fake publicly displayed personality used by ‘celebrities’ who lack natural presentation talent''). ]] 21:23, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::Do you expect me to take your arguments serious when you are citing Urban Dictionary? ] (]) 08:11, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
::{{Ping|Cortador}} I don't agree with you at all, because it would probably be the only article in the entire encyclopedia to contain this term in the initial part of the lead; some users are very angry with Donald, but no valid reason has been presented for the inclusion of the (pejorative) term "criminal" only on the Trump page. ] (]) 23:01, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
:::"Other articles don't do X" is not and has never been a valid argument here. Also, I recommend you don't edit based your personal feelings, but on how sources report on the subject of an article. ] (]) 09:59, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Strongly oppose''' He's not known for being a criminal ''qua'' criminal. Trump's crimes are inextricably linked to his career in either business or politics. They were business-related/political in their very nature. It more than suffices to mention the convictions further down the line, but to insert "criminal" in the very first sentence is manifestly undue. ] ] 12:18, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
*:{{+1}}. ] (]) 18:23, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Statistics''': Although this is not a vote, at the present time there are 22 Oppose opinions expressed, and 8 Support opinions being expressed; along with these there are nearly a dozen Comments which have been added sometimes neutral and sometimes of explicit viewpoints. ] (]) 00:38, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
*:Thanks. Despite protestations to the contrary, there is no clear policy basis for either side; it's all "editorial judgment". So a closer would have no reason to override the numbers. If I were on the Support side, I'd concede to save everybody a lot of time, but I know better than to hope for that. &#8213;]&nbsp;] 00:47, 17 January 2025 (UTC)


] The fact that trump is a convicted felon is extremely relevant and should be in the first sentence of the article for obvious reasons ] (]) 17:30, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
::::How long does it take for this official picture to be revealed? . As president elect of the United States, Trump should at least have a decent picture until the official one is unveiled.--] (]) 03:00, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
:We heard you the first time. And the second time, and the third time, and the fourth time, and the fifth time, and the sixth time... I've lost count. Endless repetition does not strengthen one's argument, it just makes one look silly and annoys people. &#8213;]&nbsp;] 17:54, 17 January 2025 (UTC)


:The first sentence is supposed to explain why the subject is notable. Trump is notable for his business career and his two presidencies, not the hush money payments. It should be in the lead, but it is undue for the first sentence. ] (]) 17:34, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
* '''No change''' until his official portrait emerges. That was the consensus in zillions of prior discussions. — ] <sup>]</sup> 23:13, 9 November 2016 (UTC)


* '''Change picture'''. Out of all the photos to chose from, this was obviously a negative POV choice. There's no reason not to change to an image with a formal pose. -- ] (]) 23:27, 9 November 2016 (UTC) The fact that trump is the only us president to be a convicted felon is more important than his business career..he specifically as a us president had crossed the line with regard to the law morality and ethics ] (]) 18:29, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
:Seventh time. ] (]) 18:43, 17 January 2025 (UTC)


*'''Oppose''' - This fact appears to be fading as his inauguration approaches. Per ], it just doesn't belong in the intro. ] (]) 05:54, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
* '''Change picture''' to 3 or 4. 3 is him grinning and not smiling as much while 4 is closer and shows him smiling. The current image shows him hunched over behind a microphone.--] (]) 02:56, 10 November 2016 (UTC)


:Now 8...if it`s all about who gets the last word here no problem...trump is a convicted felon and now president...it is a turning point in history...it is going to be the only thing he`s remembered for in the end ] (]) 13:51, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''No change''' per JFG, although zillions may be a slight overstatement. &#8213;]&nbsp;] 05:13, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
::{{Ping|Anonymous8206}} insisting will not bring users closer to your idea. Really boring. ] (]) 14:47, 18 January 2025 (UTC)


* '''Change picture''' I don't like Trump, but he does look pretty damn presidential in picture #3 ] (]) 15:15, 10 November 2016 (UTC) It is time for everyone who has posted here to shut up, Nothing new is being added, and just let oterh have their say. ] (]) 14:52, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
:It's about ripe for a closure request, I think, unless the Supporters concede. I'll submit the request soon. Then we wait for probably 4&ndash;8 weeks for a closer. Discussion can continue during the wait, but I agree that little of use is being added lately and we don't need more pointless clutter. &#8213;]&nbsp;] 04:22, 19 January 2025 (UTC)


::You get the last word as always and that`s just the it is right ? ] (]) 16:12, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
'''How much longer is this going to go on?''' Pretty soon all of Trump's and Clinton's supporters that come to this page are going to line up and vote accordingly here. So we must let Misplaced Pages ] determine what photo is used. -- The existing photo of Trump, clearly wearing a frown with eyes shifted to his left, violates ], as it is a "disparaging" image of Trump. Since there are more formal pictures that could have been chosen, this is a POV issue as well. All president's biographies, and even that of ], present the subject with a favorable pose. We need to treat this biography like any other. The image should be changed now and administrators should make sure Misplaced Pages policy is maintained for all editors. -- ] (]) 00:09, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
:::Didn't you know? I have been anointed by God. &#8213;]&nbsp;] 16:37, 18 January 2025 (UTC)


I have now asked for this to be closed, enough is enough. ] (]) 16:47, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Comment:''' Image 3 has been placed into the infobox for now since most agreed with in and because most agreed that the previous image was not NPOV. Image 3 can stay for now but if others want to agree on the other proposed images, decide below. The previous image, however, should not be placed back. At least for the next few months until his official portrait is unveiled, we can have a NPOV image for him.--] (]) 02:14, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
:{{Ping|Slatersteven}} "...enough is enough." Exactly, this RfC is a waste of time. ] (]) 18:02, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
"Criminal" in the lead ''sentence'' is a bit tough, but there is precedent to describe him as the first felon to be president in the lead ''paragraph''. These ''firsts'' can be seen in ], ], ], ], ], etc. ] (]) 23:45, 20 January 2025 (UTC)


== 2nd Term time ==
*'''Comment''' I do agree with others that the current photo is not ideal. It is difficult to find a photo that is both available for usage per its licensing and also one that everyone can agree upon, but I think the current one could be much better. ] (]) 04:55, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
*'''Comment''' ] mentions the behaviour or "Trump's and Clinton's supporters" : I am not a Trump supporter, but that doesn't stop from thinking that the photo should be changed. Quite simply because it does not only make Trump look bad (hence violating NPOV) : it makes ''Misplaced Pages'' look even worse. ] (]) 13:07, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
=== Trump Picture!!! ===


I believe that under the section that says assuming office where it says January 20th, 2025, should have an end date of January 20th, 2029, considering the fact that this is his second term and he will not be eligible to run in the 2028 election, if it cant say that under "assuming office" then it should say that the day he becomes President, thank you. ] (]) 02:04, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
Can we now please get a new picture of '''PRESIDENT ELECT TRUMP'''?--] (]) 17:08, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
:This is under discussion ]. --] (]) 17:10, 9 November 2016 (UTC) :No, per ]... who's to say it doesn't end before that date? - ] (]) 02:15, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
::. {{shrug}} &ndash;&nbsp;]&nbsp;(]) 02:17, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
:::Also, it will not be longer then january 20th 2025, since the 22nd amendment limits presidents to 2 terms, to change that, he needs two thirds of congress, which he wont get. ] (]) 02:33, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
::::That's ]. You're saying he will need two thirds of Congress. You're saying he will respect the 22nd amendment. You're saying that the end date will be in 2029. But we don't know any of that, because none of those have happened. ] (]) 08:46, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
:::Further more, the suggested content is verifiable ] (]) 02:35, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
::If[REDACTED] "does not predict the future" then there should not be "assuming office" at all, thank you for offering me a contradiction. ] (]) 02:30, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
:::The current treatment is standard for all U.S. presidents, most likely for all politicians. See Joe Biden on and on . See Donald Trump on and on . See Barack Obama on and on . And so on.{{pb}}The end date is added after leaving office; see Barack Obama on and on .{{pb}}This article is not going to deviate from that standard. If you want to propose a change to the standard, this is not the place&mdash;discussion on this page governs only this article.{{pb}}A recent proposal to change "Assuming office" to "Scheduled to assume office" for all officeholders-elect failed at Village Pump, see ]. &#8213;]&nbsp;] 05:25, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
::::Off-topic question: why do the infoboxes for Trump in 2017 and Obama in 2009 show their correct positions (e.g. incumbent) but not the correct age at the time (71 and 48, respectively)? Looks as though the template always uses DOB + difference to current year (Trump 78, Obama 63). ]] 15:29, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::The {{tlx|birth date and age}} template calculates the age based on the current date when the article is rendered, so it wouldn't work when displaying years-old revisions. Similarly, if an image is deleted after the time of the revision, it's redlinked when displaying the revision. Similarly, if a template is modified in a way that changes its output, the change is reflected for all old revisions of articles that use the template. Anything not physically in an article's wikitext is unreliable for old revisions. &#8213;]&nbsp;] 20:14, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
:Constitutionally, his second term will expire at Noon EST on 20 January 2029. However, we aren't 100% certain if he'll serve the entire term. We assume he will, but that's it. ] (]) 06:03, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
:] ] (]) 08:47, 21 January 2025 (UTC)


== New Trump-produced portrait <span class="anchor" id="Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 15 January 2025 (2)"></span> ==
: Seems not to matter now. The practice is to keep the official government photo of their last government position -- so in a couple months it would become his official Presidential Photo, and then it stays that forever. ] (]) 01:47, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
<!-- START PIN -->{{Pin message|}}<!-- ] 23:59, 30 June 2025 (UTC) --><!-- END PIN -->
{{edit extended-protected|Donald Trump|answered=y}}
Change Trumps official portrait to the 2025 portrait ] (]) 23:59, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
:]&nbsp;'''Not done for now''': please establish a ] for this alteration ''']''' using the {{Tlx|Edit extended-protected}} template.<!-- Template:EEp --> &mdash; In any case, what 2025 portrait? There should be a new one available after he takes office. It might be a month or two, so be patient. Don't worry, we have this covered. &#8213;]&nbsp;] 00:10, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
::https://www.timesnownews.com/world/us/us-news/donald-trumps-inauguration-portrait-sparks-mugshot-comparisons-on-social-media-bad-article-117280859 - this is what I believe they where talking about, Trump today had a unofficial portrait taken of him for his inauguration. I think that is what they where talking about. I personally think we should wait until after he takes official, but it is a recent photo and honesty would be more appropriate to use then the current portrait taken in 2017, which is over 8 years old. ] (]) 03:13, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
:::{{Agree}} I think so too! https://commons.wikimedia.org/File:TrumpPortrait.jpg ] (]) 03:52, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
::::Should be noted on the page that this is his ''inauguration'' portrait, not his official portrait (at least not yet). Biden and Harris (and Trump and Pence) had different inauguration portraits than official presidential portraits. ] (]) 04:02, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::Were they included in Misplaced Pages articles without being deleted by the WP copyright police? &#8213;]&nbsp;] 04:14, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::Bidens page used his official portriat as Vice President until April 9th, 2021 when his official portrait was released by the White House. Just double checked way back machine ] (]) 06:59, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
:::Thanks for the explanation. It baffles me how often people expect us to read minds, remotely over the internet. I'm converting this to a discussion thread: Edit request is for things that don't require discussion, such as typo corrections, grammar corrections, reverts of clear violations of consensus, and so on. &#8213;]&nbsp;] 03:55, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
::The photo is the current profile picture for the official POTUS account, signifying it as an official photo ] (]) 04:41, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
:Oppose. All other factors aside, the reason we can use the White House-produced portraits is because they are produced by the U.S. Government and not subject to copyright issues. That is not the case for this photo. Looks like a non-starter to me. &#8213;]&nbsp;] 04:01, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
::That's my concern too. I was trying to figure out any more information, but I can find no evidence whatsoever that this was created by an employee of the government acting in their official duties. does not suggest that he is working for the government - but for Trump directly. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez &#124; ] &#124; ] 04:05, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
:::Special Case for Presidential Transition Teams. The presidential transition team is federally funded and operates in coordination with government agencies. This would fall under PD. ] (]) 04:19, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
::::We'll see. Anyway, we need a new consensus to supersede consensus 1, as stated elsewhere. Everyone needs to leave the infobox image alone pending that new consensus. &#8213;]&nbsp;] 04:23, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
::And since Consensus 1 references potential copyright issues on the inauguration image from 2017, I've now reverted this change in image until a new consensus forms and any copyright issues are resolved. I've also asked at ] for more opinions regarding the copyright status. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez &#124; ] &#124; ] 04:17, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
:::Ah, thanks. It didn't occur to me that someone would be so WP:BOLD, so I wasn't even watching the article. &#8213;]&nbsp;] 04:20, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
::::Consensus 1 references {{tq|temporarily suspended by #19 following copyright issues on the inauguration portrait}} - any idea where these issues were brought up, especially any related deletion requests on Commons that may be able to be referenced? -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez &#124; ] &#124; ] 04:24, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::The author... Daniel Torok...said the following in my inquiry to him: "Should be public domain on the 20th but with the exception that it can’t be used for commercial purposes without WH approval" From the source himself. Looks like the author intends PD for the photo. No issue to publish. ] (]) 04:34, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::That is not public domain then. Images uploaded to Commons must be '''free to use for any use, with only attribution allowed to be required'''. See ]. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez &#124; ] &#124; ] 04:37, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::::All presidential portraits have the same terms as the 2025 author mentioned. ] (]) 04:39, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::::No they do not. Official portraits created on behalf of the US Government by an employee of the US Government are explicitly public domain. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez &#124; ] &#124; ] 04:40, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::In this case, the official portrait will be this image. They will not retake it. The author is going to PD the image for the National Archives. ] (]) 04:43, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::::::Of course they'll retake it. The White House would never let that be the "official" portrait. &#8213;]&nbsp;] 04:48, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::::::Misplaced Pages does not operate on "the author is going to PD " at some undetermined point in the future. Until it is public domain, it is not public domain. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez &#124; ] &#124; ] 04:46, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::::Nope! The author took it on behalf of the federally funded transition team. The author said he is not enforcing the copyright and that it will be full PD on Jan 20. Additionally, the "can’t be used for commercial purposes without White House approval" portion is not enforceable because the WH cant take action on behalf of the author nor should any NC restriction apply to such from the WH. ] (]) 04:50, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::::::::The image cannot be used until it is explicitly released under a free license by the author or when it is entered into the public domain on the 20th, as has already been explained. The author simply stating that he does not intend to enforce the copyright is not sufficient. See ] ] (]) 05:46, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::::::Misplaced Pages copyright policy is an arcane science not meant for mere mortals. After all, a local consensus to include would not mean squat to the copyright police. Wait for Commons feedback. If they sign off on it, we can discuss other factors. I would still oppose, but it would be premature to say why. &#8213;]&nbsp;] 05:49, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
:Made an account just to change this. Yes! ] (]) 04:25, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
::@], it would just get deleted. Wait until the official portrait is released by the White House itself. ]<sup>]</sup> 19:12, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
:* '''Wait''' - Until ] has the second term portrait. https://www.loc.gov/free-to-use/presidential-portraits/
:] (]) 04:31, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
::'''Wait/Oppose''' based on above arguments (particularly in regards to copyright). ]<sup>]</sup> 19:11, 16 January 2025 (UTC)


'''Comment'''. It's a photo the Trump transition team published on their X account, i.e., it's not in the public domain. is the deletion request on Wikimedia Commons. We'll replace the 2017 official portrait if and when the new administration releases an updated official portrait. <small>What was TeamTrump, whoever they are, thinking when they published the pictures, Trump with a droopy eyelid and Vance looking like a tired, bearded hamster.</small> ]] 15:08, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
::Agree. &#8213;]&nbsp;] 05:05, 10 November 2016 (UTC)


:I challenge you to take an actually good photo of Trump. --] (]) (]) 15:55, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
This is my opnion but I don't think the new picture looks presidential with the black background and the expression on his face. I proposed a new picture in a new topic
::Our current one is a good photo, if one is able to perceive it objectively. Good composition, lighting, and color balance, there's a somewhat-genuine-looking smile, and there's no ]. &#8213;]&nbsp;] 06:54, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
:{{tq|Trump with a droopy eyelid}}, the "fuck with me and I'll bury you" scowl, and almost comical dramatic film-noir lighting. &#8213;]&nbsp;] 01:45, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
::]'s character ] from the film '']'' comes to mind when you describe the portrait like so. <span style="text-shadow: #E9967A 0em 0em 1em;">]]</span> 01:51, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
:::Maybe the scowl is just me. At minimum, he's trying to look like ] or something. He's trying to project an image or persona, which is not encyclopedic. It belongs on his personal website, not Misplaced Pages. (Again, this is cart-before-horse pending resolution of the copyright question. Sorry.) &#8213;]&nbsp;] 02:24, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
::::It's not just you. It's pretty obvious that they're channeling the Fulton County Jail mugshot. They're probably using it for another round of extracting donations from the MAGA cult members. But, hey, if it becomes the new official presidential portrait I'd be all for it, wrinkles and all. Doesn't do justice to the bronzer, but at least the soft focus didn't get anywhere near Kary Lake's preferred settings ( or ). ]] 13:57, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::Maybe it's just me, but aside from the copyright issues of this image, I think that there are some warranted ] concerns here with the lighting/post-production and expression (which I think is aimed at conveying something), as outlined by {{u|Mandruss}}. We often use officially produced portraits of cabinet members and members of Congress because they are current, of high quality, and free use as works of the U.S. Government (usually confirmed by their metadata). I would posit that these are routine images taken without much thought given for the pose, composition, lighting, etc. aside from what a typical portrait photographer would consider. However, I am not sure the same can be said for this image. ] (]) 02:05, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::I broadly agree with this train of thought. Even if the copyright concerns are resolved (such as the photographer themselves releasing into public domain), I would only support this image if there is ''no'' other free image that even comes close to being as neutral. I broadly agree with the idea that we should ''try'' to update the image to one that reflects his current (approximately 8 years older) appearance, if/when a free option is available that otherwise works. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez &#124; ] &#124; ] 02:19, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::+1. Well said. &#8213;]&nbsp;] 02:39, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::If it is a portrait produced under directive by Trump and co., then I think that if it looks devious, that's the choice of Trump, and we use the official portrait anyhow. Ultimately, if what ends up being the official portrait is something comparable to this & that is the image millions see as they look at Misplaced Pages, so be it. That image is what Trump wants to project? We go along with it.
::::::Let's not ignore our common sense when we look through this article and we see that a good chunk of it is damning info about crime, uprising, totalitarianism, and fascism. Perhaps a portrait of this caliber would be poetic in a way, representing the content within? <span style="text-shadow: #E9967A 0em 0em 1em;">]]</span> 14:36, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::::{{tq|That image is what Trump wants to project? We go along with it.}} Absolutely not. Trump's wishes are completely irrelevant here. That applies as much to the infobox portrait as to any other content in this article. &#8213;]&nbsp;] 14:45, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::::I'm not saying we make Trump's Infobox the way he wants because we want to appease him, I'm saying that we go along with the portrait per policy, and that if it looks horrible, by all means it will be reflective of the horrible things that he has done that are present in the article. <span style="text-shadow: #E9967A 0em 0em 1em;">]]</span> 14:59, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::Like, even if it's a shitty portrait, it would be ] as it would represent the contents of the article therein. Point is, a shitshow should be represented thusly if that's what Trump is gonna send to the Library of Congress. <span style="text-shadow: #E9967A 0em 0em 1em;">]]</span> 15:03, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::::::Let's try this: Why are we spending so much time discussing a hypothetical that is extremely unlikely to become a reality? Check out the Commons deletion request; it's almost certain to pass and the image will be deleted. &#8213;]&nbsp;] 15:07, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::::{{u|BarntToust}}, as I indicated above, it is not a WP policy to use official images, and we are not obligated to do so if we feel they might violate our NPOV policy. Usually that is not a consideration, but like many things, that could be a point of discussion here. ] (]) 15:21, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::::Oh boy! https://www.whitehouse.gov/ has those exact portraits uploaded now. Public domain licenses thus attached. My point still stands: Trump is known for doing not-good things, the portrait happening to reflect that not-good-ness is reflective of the article, which also does not violate NPOV. <span style="text-shadow: #E9967A 0em 0em 1em;">]]</span> 17:16, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::::In short, having a devious-looking portrait—for a felon who has been ], made racist and sexist remarks, ], ], so on and so forth—is not a problem? <span style="text-shadow: #E9967A 0em 0em 1em;">]]</span> 14:40, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::::this is about the portrait and not the politics. ] (]) 18:14, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
:TeamDrumpf , so that's what they're thinking. Incoming prez's resembles image at ]. I'm assuming you meant {{tq|Vance looking like a tired, bearded hamster}} as a complement to his work ethic, and as hamsters are cute. Def no BLPVIO there. <span style="text-shadow: #E9967A 0em 0em 1em;">]]</span> 22:05, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
::Hm, work ethic ... Let's go with that, and hamsters '''are''' cute. ]] 14:06, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
Depending on how Trump's new official photo looks, I would be in favour of just keeping his photograph as-is. The current one looks really good. ] (]) 06:19, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
:Yeah, but it will be 12 years old by the time he leaves office. People don't like such old photos in infoboxen. A lot think it's too old ''now''. It's unlikely a new official White House portrait will be unacceptably poor in quality; those guys know what they're doing. Anyway, we're hoping but don't know there will be another official portrait after he takes office. Trump may order this "inauguration" portrait to be the one used on the White House page, and it may be within his presidential powers to do that. &#8213;]&nbsp;] 06:34, 18 January 2025 (UTC)


===Duplicate edit requests/discussions===
--] (]) 2:46, 9 November 2016 (UTC)


I'd like to start a discussion here on duplicate discussions. At this point, they are going to keep coming in, likely multiple per day. Does anyone disagree that, after leaving them up for a reasonable amount of time for the user to see a response (I suggest 12 hours), they can simply be removed from the talk page so they don't get archived and clog up the archive?
::: Hello everyone,


Alternatively, if people prefer letting them get archived still, would anyone disagree with archiving them 12 hours after answered so the talk page does not get cluttered up? I am open to shorter timescales as well in either case, but would recommend a couple hours at least. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez &#124; ] &#124; ] 02:26, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
::: The only images we should be considering are those which A. include President-elect Trump smiling, and B. include an '''American flag''' in the background. This is the standard for literally all U.S. president's WP pages, and U.S. presidential candidate's WP pages. Therefore, only ''image # 2'' would qualify. We should change to this photo immediately, and if in a few months there is an 'official photo', we can later change to that one. ] (]) 12:03, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
::::Agree. Can we ''at last'' change that photo ? Quite frankly, the current one is making[REDACTED] look ridiculous. ] (]) 09:12, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
{{cob}}


:@] make an request to ] to semi-protect the talk page. It's mostly IP editors doing this. <span style="text-shadow: #E9967A 0em 0em 1em;">]]</span> 02:28, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
== When is the article getting unlocked? ==
::Talk pages are generally not protected if it can be avoided... but if an administrator agrees that is viable here (for at least the next week or so), then I would support waiting on this to see if they die down (and letting auto archiver take over the ones that are already here for now) with that. Going to make that request now, thanks. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez &#124; ] &#124; ] 02:31, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
:::And requested: {{slink|WP:Requests for page protection/Increase|Talk:Donald Trump}}. Comments there are welcome, and if another solution is thought up here, please feel free to go contest that request. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez &#124; ] &#124; ] 02:39, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
:They're gone after 24 hours per consensus 13. It's not like we have to live with them for the standard seven days. And it's a temporary problem that doesn't come up very often. I don't think they "clog up" the archive, as nobody browses archive pages top to bottom, and they don't create a lot of false positives in archive searches (in my experience). &#8213;]&nbsp;] 02:57, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
::Ah, I missed consensus 13's allowance for manually archiving after 24 hours. I agree that the "clogging" of the archives is the ''least'' significant issue. The clogging of ''this page'' however.. hopefully if an admin agrees temporary semi protection is warranted that will suffice, but if not (or if it's still a problem) I still think 24 hours may be too long if they continue increasing. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez &#124; ] &#124; ] 03:02, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
:::I wouldn't oppose semi, but some competent IPs might. In my view, avoidance of that is just one of the benefits of registration. &#8213;]&nbsp;] 03:07, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
:Presuming the proposed image, isn't a White House image. Recommend we stick with the 2017 image, for now. ] (]) 06:37, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
::Does the image’s publishing on whitehouse.gov make it public domain? ] (]) 18:49, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
:::Normally yes, we would be able to assume that anything posted on whitehouse.gov that isn't identified as copyrighted is free to use (either public domain or CC-BY license).
:::However, Trump's White House has a history of trying to "steal" images that look good to him. In 2017 he directed his White House staff to do the same thing - take his copyrighted photos that were taken of him by a private photographer for his inauguration materials and post them on WH.gov without a copyright notice. The private photographer had no idea Trump was planning to do so, and while the photographer was okay with Trump using them on the White House website, he did not wish them to be freely licensed/public domain.
:::So in this case, given the historical wanton theft of copyright, it is prudent to assume they are not until the private photographer makes an irrevocable statement that they have done so. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez &#124; ] &#124; ] 18:58, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
::::This should be determined at Commons, not here. A deletion request was recently closed rejecting that argument and keeping the photo: ] -- ] (]) 19:16, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::The closer said {{tq|this is freely licensed now (20 January)}}. What does "freely licensed" mean? I'm not convinced that that is a proper closing. ]] 19:30, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::It's not a proper closing. While Commons does have different policies, they do have a policy akin to SUPERVOTE on Misplaced Pages, where an administrator should not close a discussion without summarizing the arguments made and explaining why they discounted some of them if it's not obvious. I'm shocked that the admin engaged in such blatant license laundering. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez &#124; ] &#124; ] 19:37, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::::Then deal with it using Commons policy and procedure. I realize you are doing that, but we don't have to preemptively remove it from WP in the meantime. For now, we have an image on Commons and if we think it's the best image we should use it. -- ] (]) 19:43, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::::There was no license laundering. You are making assumptions without providing any tangible proof or evidence. The photo is published on the White House website under a Creative Commons license (as we already know it wasn't the work of a federal employee). That's it. ] (]) 00:59, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::The White House cannot license a photo they do not own. I'm not sure how many times you have to be told that ]. You've already been told by at least one other commons admin that you were wrong, as well as multiple other commons users opining that you were wrong. Following me to enwiki to harass me here over it is not appropriate. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez &#124; ] &#124; ] 01:07, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::::::I'm not harassing you. I'm just responding the very unfortunate accusations you have made against me without daring to mention me! ] (]) 01:16, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::::::Gotta ask, how do you know Trump doesn't own it and thus releases it by CC 3.0? Yeh, why are we all on Enwiki now? <span style="text-shadow: #E9967A 0em 0em 1em;">]]</span> 01:17, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::::The onus is on the users arguing for keeping it to '''prove''' that Trump owns it and can release it under that license. Not on the users arguing for deletion. See ]. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez &#124; ] &#124; ] 01:18, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::::::::And how are you to prove that Torok owns it? He just took the thing, as he worked for Trump Inaugural Committee. I say it's likely they own it, and the White House published with CC 3.0.
::::::::::::Lo, the ]. <span style="text-shadow: #E9967A 0em 0em 1em;">]]</span> 01:24, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::::::The presumption is that the photographer owns the copyright, unless and until it is proven otherwise. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez &#124; ] &#124; ] 01:30, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
:::No, it doesn't. See . The website doesn't say whether individual photos were "government-produced" or "third-party content on this site ... licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License". The photo was taken before Trump's inauguration, so it's not government-produced. The licensing statement at ] is wrong. ]] 19:27, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
:{{ping|Pantarch}} You are in violation of the BRD enforcement - that edit was reverted and you have reinstated it. Please self-revert until the discussion here has come to a conclusion. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez &#124; ] &#124; ] 19:43, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
::The conclusion was reached on ]. I don't understand what you want to discuss here; you are needlessly discussing an alleged copyright infringement that should be discussed elsewhere. ] (]) 19:54, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
:Has anybody noticed that this is in the wrong subsection? I'm not in a mood to fix it. &#8213;]&nbsp;] 20:01, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
::Instead, have you noticed that there are so many duplicates on Wikimedia Commons, many with the wrong license – the correct one is CC BY 3.0 US. ] (]) 20:03, 20 January 2025 (UTC)


===Commons deletion request closed as keep===
There isn't a lot being updated, because pretty much nobody is allowed to. ] (]) 15:02, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
Me, I'd call that a supervote by the closer. And the closure rationale exists nowhere but in the page history? But what do I know. As I said above, Misplaced Pages copyright policy is an arcane science not meant for mere mortals. &#8213;]&nbsp;] 19:52, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
:It is a supervote, it's now at ] as a blatant supervote and ]. The files have also already been renominated for deletion (if the admin refuses to vacate their close, that's the only way to discuss further unless another admin comes around and wheel wars them to reopen it - they don't have a deletion review for keep closures).{{pb}}We should not rush to change the image until it is fully resolved. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez &#124; ] &#124; ] 19:55, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
::My bad, I failed to read existing discussion. Overdue for bed. &#8213;]&nbsp;] 20:02, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
::What determines the matter to be resolved? The discussion is closed. ] (]) 20:05, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
:::All duplicates should be deleted, and the correct license, i.e., {{cc-by-3.0-us}}, should be inserted on the remaining ones. ] (]) 20:09, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
::::That doesn't change the fact that you've violated the BRD restriction on this page, {{yo|Pantarch}}. You are in violation of an arbitration enforcement remedy on this page and I strongly encourage you to self revert before it ends up at AE for violating BRD. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez &#124; ] &#124; ] 20:14, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::I didn't violate the ] restriction because my edit wasn't reverted:
:::::"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" ] (]) 20:45, 20 January 2025 (UTC)


== Challenge consensus item 44 ==
:Please understand that there is a reason why US prez pages are usually heavily protected. It's cuz they're most susceptible to vandalism. We honestly don't need trolls ruining the page; and with all this controversy going on with the US's up and coming prez, I'd say it's foolish that Donald's page isn't well guarded. --] (]) 14:02, 10 November 2016 (UTC)


I would like to '''challenge''' consensus at ], item 44.
:Also consider that this is the first time I've personally seen this protection template used, the 30/500, even when considering other presidents (they are almost always semi-protected). Donald Trump is an extremely provocative and controversial figure, and I'd imagine that the edit warring on this article would have been record breaking. I'm honestly surprised that they didn't go with Full-Protection (administrators only), but the 30/500 (30 days tenure, 500 edits), combined with all the other special rules, is fair. I don't expect this level of protection to end anytime soon - in fact, I bet it will need to be on here until Trump is out of office. ] (]) 23:38, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
: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. (])
I do not believe that Trump and ] having talks about denuclearisation is necessary to impart general knowledge of Trump to the reader. It is not notable to try to "convince the ] not to ], and the fox then ] with you about it". Trump has done things far more directly notable than try to convince Kim to get rid of nukes, and those subjects will need to be expressed in the lede more than this, per ]. Things have been historically crowded at the lede, and I figure this ought to be discussed. <span style="text-shadow: #E9967A 0em 0em 1em;">]]</span> 01:19, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
:This made worldwide news at the time and was part of Trump's agenda for months, including several meetings with Kim and other stakeholders. It was a distinct break with the policy of other sitting presidents. It should be featured in the intro.--] (]) 01:53, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
:Meeting with Kim Jong Un was a major bullet point in his presidency with regard to foreign policy. I do not believe the progress—or lack thereof—on denuclearisation is worth noting in the lead, however. Especially given North Korea ]. To me, the unclear results are considerably less notable than the summits themselves. ''']]''' 02:38, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
::I agree and I believe RS supports this. The summits were widely publicized , I would need to see wide publication of retrospective analysis indicating that the results of the summits were unclear in order to believe the results deserve equal weight as the summits themselves in the lead. ] (]) 23:19, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
:Trump meeting Kim is one of the big highlights of his first presidency. The first thought that a person reading this, not catching up with news everyday, could have is if it had any consequences, any result. So clarifying that it didn't change much things/ or changed few things is, what I feel, essential. --{{User:ExclusiveEditor/Signature}} 14:41, 17 January 2025 (UTC)


== "He became a millionaire at age 8" ==
== Colleges attended by Donald Trump ==


{{u|Mandruss}}: You are . Before people started "improving" what used to be the "Personal life" section (early life and education, family, health, and wealth) and messing with the cites, we had AND the actual sources for the information, two New York Times articles. Buettner/Craig p.30/31 mentions the trusts Fred T set up for his children by putting apartment complexes in their names and paying them rent, but it's not the source for "millionaire by age 8" (or for "became a millionaire at age 8":). NYT: {{tq|By age 3, he was earning $200,000 a year in today’s dollars from his father’s empire. He was a millionaire by age 8. In his 40s and 50s, he was receiving more than $5 million a year.}}<ref>{{cite news|last1=Barstow|first1=David|author-link1=David Barstow|last2=Craig|first2=Susanne|author-link2=Susanne Craig|last3=Buettner|first3=Russ|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/02/us/politics/donald-trump-wealth-fred-trump.html|title=11 Takeaways From The Times's Investigation into Trump's Wealth|work=]|date=October 2, 2018|access-date=October 3, 2018}}</ref> I've given up trying to correct the cites or anything else in that section.
I suggest adding the following information to this article:
{{reftalk}} ]] 12:08, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
:When you start giving up, I start getting worried. Looks like a job for {{u|SusanLesch}}. &#8213;]&nbsp;] 13:09, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
::It sometimes feels like the incoming tide and me with a bucket on the mudflats. ]] 14:18, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
:::Ut oh, possible beginning of burnout. Been there, done that, semi-retired. &#8213;]&nbsp;] 14:25, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
::::Is "semi-retired" like the Walking Dead? You're editing just like me (undue? - puhleaze:). I'm more "when the going gets tough", although now I take a deep breath before I get going. ]] 17:16, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::Looks like you spend about 95% of your time here, like me. Unlike me, you do a lot of heavy lifting, "real editor work". I'm mainly a gnome and a janitor. {{small|"puhleaze" is undue:).}} &#8213;]&nbsp;] 17:24, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
:'''Comment'''. Our former source, the NYT article, was written by the same duo who wrote the book we're citing. I dare assume a book has even better fact-checking. -] (]) 14:59, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
:How is this not puffery? ] (]) 13:22, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
::? Does it resemble anything at ]? &#8213;]&nbsp;] 14:05, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
:::Well do we attribute the claim? ] (]) 14:09, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
:::Also ] can be linked to this, is there really a major part of his life and success? ] (]) 14:10, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
::::The context was a bit clearer when the sentence was part of the Wealth section and the Wealth section, in turn, was part of the erstwhile Personal life section. The context is the NYT refuting Trump's claim of being a self-made millionaire/billionaire. ]] 14:15, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::So then it should, not have been moved, or the context altred. ] (]) 14:17, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::You're preaching to the choir. ]] 14:19, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::::Agree with Space. This sentence is needed to refute Trump's narrative. I cited the footnote and have no problem with the current wording. -] (]) 14:51, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::::Yeah, fight the power! ] (]) 17:06, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::Did Trump make much more money on his own than what he got from his father? Thanks, ] (]) 15:43, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::Maybe, and . But the point here was his claim that he started from a loan of a mere million and that he had to pay it back. ]] 17:22, 17 January 2025 (UTC)


==Large subsections in the First Presidency section==
Donald Trump attended Fordham University from 1964 to 1966. After two years, he transferred to the University of Pennsylvania. He graduated from U. Penn.'s Wharton School in 1968 with a bachelor’s degree in economics.
As a regular rule of thumb, Wikipiedia presidency articles limit the size of subsections to 2-3 paragraphs or less whenever there is a main article for the material being covered. This is done to avoid the reduplication of the same material around Misplaced Pages as opposed to keeping everything in one place and not covering the same material in different articles. The current Trump article in the First Presidency section seems to bypass this approach in at least two of the sections: the one on Foreign Policy, and the other on COVID which itself appears to have 7 further subsections. Both COVID and Trump Foreign Policy have their own fully developed articles on Misplaced Pages, and there does not appear to be a reason to reduplicate the material here on the Trump article. Should those sections be summarized and reduced in size to 2-3 paragraphs each without the multiple subsections? ] (]) 16:51, 17 January 2025 (UTC)


===COVID section trims to large subsection in the First Presidency section===
Source: http://heavy.com/news/2016/05/where-did-donald-trump-go-to-college-education-young-biography-news/ published May 27, 2016
:Yes. Maybe reduced to even less than that. I've been thinking about the Covid section but haven't thought much about the Foreign policy section. There will be plenty of material coming up for the article. Plenty.
] (]) 03:39, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
:As an example of reduction, here's a possible change of the first paragraph of the Covid section,
::'''from''' "The first confirmed case of COVID-19 in the U.S. was reported on January&nbsp;20, 2020. The outbreak was officially declared a public health emergency by Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary Alex Azar on January&nbsp;31, 2020. Trump initially ignored public health warnings and calls for action from health officials within his administration and Azar, focusing on economic and political considerations of the outbreak. In February 2020 he publicly asserted that the outbreak in the U.S. was less deadly than influenza, was "very much under control", and would soon be over. On March&nbsp;19, he privately told Bob Woodward that he was deliberately "playing it down, because I don't want to create a panic"."
::'''to''' "Trump initially ignored public health warnings and calls for action from health officials within his administration, focusing on economic and political considerations of the outbreak.".
:Regards, ] (]) 18:10, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
:You're correct. We have a good opportunity to carry such an edit off, too. I'd support you if you undertook to make such trims. ] (]) 23:00, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
::Agreement with {{u|Riposte97}} and {{u|Bob K31416}}. The section of COVID under the first presidency has 7 sections, and is the summary given above by Bob K31416 intended for the entire COVID section, or, for one of those subsections. Your summary is a good one and let us know which subsections of the COVID section it covers. Possibly you have a similar summary in mind for the Foreign Affairs section as well which you could share with us. The summary so far look pretty good. ] (]) 15:35, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
:::My example was just for the first paragraph, as I mentioned, perhaps somewhat unclearly? I basically kept one sentence. The idea was to reduce the paragraph to a summary or main point without changing the tone. I think any attempts that might change the tone would jeopardize the success of reduction, which may be difficult to get agreement on in any case. It might be useful to get the thoughts from two of the most active editors, ] and ]. Cheers, ] (]) 21:59, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
::::Responding to ping. I'm terrible at this kind of thing, which is why I tend to avoid it. All I know is that the article has needed dramatic reduction for many years. &#8213;]&nbsp;] 23:02, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
:::I looked some more at the Covid section with an eye to similar reductions like the first paragraph. Unfortunately, I didn't find the rest of the Covid section amenable to that approach, at least for me. Maybe it would take the main people or person responsible for the Covid section to make an appropriate reduction. Regards, ] (]) 04:18, 20 January 2025 (UTC)


:Most likely the section will gradually be reduced in size, as more info is added into the Second Presidency section. ] (]) 00:51, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
I also concur with making this edit. The Education section does not mention any schools or years. The Washington Post has reported on his K-12 and higher education institutions. Source: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/answer-sheet/wp/2015/07/17/yes-donald-trump-really-went-to-an-ivy-league-school/ ] (]) 16:24, 16 November 2016 (UTC)


*Building on the idea stated above from {{u|Bob K31416}}, I've added a short summary for each of the subsections in the COVID section and combined them together which now looks like:
==Question about extended-autoconfirmed protection==


::"Trump initially ignored public health warnings and calls for action from health officials within his administration, focusing on economic and political considerations of the outbreak. Trump established the ] on January&nbsp;29.<ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.cbsnews.com/news/coronavirus-outbreak-task-force-created-by-trump-to-lead-us-government-response-to-wuhan-virus/|title=Trump creates task force to lead U.S. coronavirus response|work=]|date=January 30, 2020|access-date=October 10, 2020}}</ref> Prior to the pandemic, Trump criticized the WHO and other international bodies, which he asserted were taking advantage of U.S. aid.<ref name="Politico_WHO">{{cite news|last=Ollstein|first=Alice Miranda|title=Trump halts funding to World Health Organization|url=https://www.politico.com/news/2020/04/14/trump-world-health-organization-funding-186786|access-date=September 7, 2020|work=]|date=April 14, 2020}}</ref> In April 2020, Republican-connected groups organized ] against the measures state governments were taking to combat the pandemic;<ref>{{cite news|last=Wilson|first=Jason|url=https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/apr/17/far-right-coronavirus-protests-restrictions|title=The rightwing groups behind wave of protests against Covid-19 restrictions|date=April 17, 2020|work=]|access-date=April 18, 2020}}</ref><ref>{{cite news|last=Andone|first=Dakin|url=https://cnn.com/2020/04/16/us/protests-coronavirus-stay-home-orders/|title=Protests Are Popping Up Across the US over Stay-at-Home Restrictions|date=April 16, 2020|access-date=October 7, 2021|work=]}}</ref> Trump encouraged the protests on Twitter,<ref>{{cite news|last1=Shear|first1=Michael D.|author-link1=Michael D. Shear|last2=Mervosh|first2=Sarah|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/17/us/politics/trump-coronavirus-governors.html|title=Trump Encourages Protest Against Governors Who Have Imposed Virus Restrictions|date=April 17, 2020|work=]|access-date=April 19, 2020}}</ref> although the targeted states did not meet his administration's guidelines for reopening.<ref>{{cite news|url=https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/493701-trump-support-for-protests-threatens-to-undermine-social-distancing|title=Trump support for protests threatens to undermine social distancing rules|last1=Chalfant|first1=Morgan|last2=Samuels|first2=Brett|date=April 20, 2020|work=]|access-date=July 10, 2020}}</ref> Trump repeatedly pressured federal health agencies to take actions he favored,<ref name="CNN-testing-pressure"/> such as approving unproven treatments<ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/2020/06/15/hydroxychloroquine-authorization-revoked-coronavirus/|newspaper=]|date=June 15, 2020|access-date=October 7, 2021|title=FDA pulls emergency approval for antimalarial drugs touted by Trump as covid-19 treatment|first1=Laurie|last1=McGinley|first2=Carolyn Y.|last2=Johnson}}</ref><ref name=pressed>{{cite news|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2020/09/12/us/politics/trump-coronavirus-treatment-vaccine.html|title=Trump Pressed for Plasma Therapy. On October&nbsp;2, 2020, Trump tweeted that he had tested positive for ], part of a White House outbreak.<ref>{{cite news|last1=Liptak|first1=Kevin|last2=Klein|first2=Betsy|date=October 5, 2020|title=A timeline of Trump and those in his orbit during a week of coronavirus developments|url=https://cnn.com/2020/10/02/politics/timeline-trump-coronavirus/|access-date=October 3, 2020|work=]}}</ref> By July 2020, Trump's handling of the COVID-19 pandemic had become a major issue in the presidential election.<ref name="Election_NBCNews">{{cite news|url=https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2020-election/warning-signs-flash-trump-wisconsin-pandemic-response-fuels-disapproval-n1232646|title=Warning signs flash for Trump in Wisconsin as pandemic response fuels disapproval|date=July 5, 2020|work=]|first=Adam|last=Edelman|access-date=September 14, 2020}}</ref> "
Is the extended-autoconfirmed protection added yesterday (which is currently set as "indefinite") going to be kept infinitely, or reduced to high-risk semi-protection once the vandalism risk has reduced? I understand that this is among the most controversial articles on here right now, but I thought it was only Misplaced Pages policy to infinitely extended-autoconfirmed protect articles relating to Israel and Palestine. My understanding is that it is only used temporarily on other articles. By "indefinite", does it mean that it will be extended-autoconfirmed protected until the vandalism risk goes down (which could be several weeks/months)?
<!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 21:19, 10 November 2016 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:Indefinite is convenient but not infinite, and there's no real reason it should last for a long time. When assessing how long it will last, we look at how hot the topic is, and any related vandalism on other articles. Obviously within one or two days of the election it's still going to be quite hot but I don't see it lasting for several weeks or months. I hereby ping {{ping|Ks0stm}}, the protecting admin, for any further comment. -- ] <sup>]</sup> 21:54, 10 November 2016 (UTC)


Possibly editors can mention if this looks like a fair summary to replace the current very long COVID section in the article which contains seven (7) subsections with this trimmed version. The trimmed version would then add all of the Further information links for all of the main articles on Misplaced Pages which already exist. ] (]) 15:19, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
Thanks - yeah, I thought it was probably protected indefinitely because we don't know how long he is going to be this controversial (among many) for. Regardless of my own views, I had no intention to vandalise, or even edit the page; I was simply curious because protection beyond semi/move is modaretely rare.
:I think you're on the track of something good. My first thought is to eliminate the last sentence because it is about Biden. Cheers, ] (]) 19:54, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
::Agreed and dropping the last sentence. Pinging {{u|Riposte97}} and {{u|Bob K31416}} to see if this looks like a good version to use to trim the current long COVID section. ] (]) 23:33, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
:::This is a huge improvement. Hopefully the whole article can proceed this way! ] (]) 00:15, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
:::I think you need more editors participating. The relative lack of interest, positive and negative, for this large change does not bode well. All I can say is that I wouldn't oppose your edit. For one thing, it wouldn't be set in stone and editors could modify it once it is in the article. A Bold-Revert-Discuss might get more editors to discuss it. Good luck, ] (]) 00:58, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
:::Just noticed something else in the sentence that begins, "Prior to the pandemic...". It probably went with other material that was about the pandemic. Alone it isn't about the pandemic. Regards, ] (]) 02:28, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
:::I started looking at how you got these sentences and it appears that you tried to do what I did with the example of the first paragraph. Good try. Regarding the sentence starting with "Prior..." that I mentioned above, I found that it was the sentence you selected from the subsection . Here it is underlined and enlarged in context,
::::<u>Prior to the pandemic, Trump criticized the WHO and other international bodies, which he asserted were taking advantage of U.S. aid.</u> His administration's proposed 2021 federal budget, released in February, proposed reducing WHO funding by more than half. In May and April, he accused the WHO of "severely mismanaging" COVID-19, alleged without evidence that the organization was under Chinese control and had enabled the Chinese government's concealment of the pandemic's origins, and announced that he was withdrawing funding for the organization. These were seen as attempts to distract from his mishandling of the pandemic. In July 2020, he announced the formal withdrawal of the U.S. from the WHO, effective July 2021. The decision was widely condemned by health and government officials as "short-sighted", "senseless", and "dangerous".
:::I think that to find a reduction of this that has a better chance for being accepted, we need to call on one of the main and currently active contributors to the article like ] and see what they think about reducing this subsection and if they have any suggestions of how to do it. With their participation, it would have a much better chance of being accepted. Otherwise it would take a much bigger participation for a reduction to have a chance. Cheers, ] (]) 17:08, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
::::Those are useful comments for this from Bob K31416. Regarding the response by the top editors you mention, then Mandruss has already responded above and its completely up to the other top editors if they would like to comment while consensus is being established. If there is consensus between 3 or more editors without contest, then the edit can normally move forward into the main article. I'm presently for supporting the edit as you have stated in your research above, and I'll join in with {{u|Riposte97}} and {{u|Bob K31416}} if either one of them is ready to bring this edit into the article. I'm also ready to add my trimmed version of the Foreign policy section under First Presidency here as well for discussion on Talk. It was mentioned at the start of this thread in order for both trimmed subsection versions (COVID and Foreign policy) to go together into the article at the same time, or if its preferred to do them one subsection at a time. ] (]) 19:53, 22 January 2025 (UTC)


===Foreign Policy section trims for very large subsection (already has its own Main article)===
] (]) 22:39, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
As a second subsection In the First Presidency section of the article, the Foreign Policy section appears to be too long, and it reduplicates much of the material already covered in its Main article on Misplaced Pages. Here is one suggested version of the trimmed version (now trimmed down to 2 paragraphs) which could replace the current long presentation of material. The system space savings in the main Trump biography article here would be significant. Proposed trimmed version with links to main article:
:{{re|Gourleyo|Zzuuzz}} Yeah, the only reason I didn't set an expiry is because I didn't want the article completely unprotected upon expiry, and there's no way to have it automatically roll back to semi-protection instead of no protection. Any admin can feel free to reset this to semi whenever they feel the time is right to give semi-protection another chance. ] <sup>(]•]•]•])</sup> 07:54, 11 November 2016 (UTC)


'''Foreign policy'''
That's pretty much what I guessed - we don't know how long the page is going to be a top target for vandals, and if you set an expiry date, it will automatically revert to having no protection at all (and since he's the future President the vandalism risk is likely to remain high, so the admins probably want the protection back to semi).


Main articles: Foreign policy of the first Donald Trump administration and Trump tariffs
] (]) 10:59, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
:I've today set the protection back at semi (which is always going to be a minimum for this article). I would have preferred some of the latent disputes to have settled a bit more and I'm sure there'll be some more controversy, but the huge spike in traffic is over and the number of editors has greatly reduced. Extending ECP until, say, January doesn't seem justified. Any admin is welcome to change the protection if/when there are significant new developments. -- ] <sup>]</sup> 19:35, 16 November 2016 (UTC)


Further information: Russia–United States relations § First Trump administration (2017–2021), China–United States relations § First Trump administration (2017–2021), 2017–2018 North Korea crisis, and 2018–19 Korean peace process
== He is not President-elect of the United States.... yet ==


See also: List of international presidential trips made by Donald Trump § First presidency (2017–2021)
hello, this point must be changed... Donald Trump is not, yet, ]... ] (]) 21:33, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
:{{replyto|Sg7438}} could you clarify your point? The link you shared describes his situation quite perfectly, thus substantiating why he should be listed as the president elect. ]&nbsp;] 21:44, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
:: Apparently the Electoral Colleges don't cast their votes until December 19. ]&nbsp;<span style="color:red">🍁</span>&nbsp;] 21:52, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
:::of course : if i understand american election (i'm french), he'll be elected december 19th... He seems to be just ''expecting'' the ] vote, no ? so, he's not '''president elected''', yet : let's wait : tell me if i'm wrong ! ] (]) 21:59, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
::::You are incorrect. He is receiving top Secret Service briefings, which are only given to POTUS and POTUS-elect. ] (]) 22:04, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
:::::See https://www.usa.gov/inauguration-2017#item-213261 Cheers! ] (]) 22:05, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
::::::It's "President Elect" not "Elected". Also, per , the title of President Elect is used for the apparent winner of the election between the general election in November, and the inauguration in January. ]&nbsp;] 22:07, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
{{od}}Also see ], which is a correct description of Trump's position between now and the inauguration. The vote of the Electoral College does not change his title (assuming the electors vote "faithfully" on December 19). <span style="font-family: Gill Sans MT, Arial, Helvetica; font-weight:140;">]</span> <sup>''] ''</sup> 22:15, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
:Obama is calling him "President-elect"- I think it doesn't get any more official than that. ]<sub>&nbsp;]•]</sub> 00:16, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
:He is the presumptive president-elect since the electoral voting is on December 19. It's just the same nature as he was the presumptive Republican nominee before the votes were cast at the RNC convention in July. ] (]) 16:27, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
::President-elect is the proper title for the position he is in right now. Between the general election and inauguration. If the electors end up being faithless (extremely unlikely) only then would the title change. ] (]) 20:50, 17 November 2016 (UTC)


Trump's foreign policy during his first presidential term was wide-ranging and addressed international issues and tariff concerns with multiple geopolitical participants including Russia, East Asia, and the Middle East. Trump described himself as a "nationalist" and his foreign policy as "America First". He supported populist, neo-nationalist, and authoritarian governments. Unpredictability, uncertainty, and inconsistency characterized foreign relations during his tenure. Tensions between the U.S. and its European allies were strained under Trump. He criticized NATO allies and privately suggested that the U.S. should withdraw from NATO. Trump supported many of the policies of Israeli Prime Minister ].<ref>{{cite news|last=Sommer|first=Allison Kaplan|date=July 25, 2019|title=How Trump and Netanyahu Became Each Other's Most Effective Political Weapon|work=]|url=https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/.premium-how-trump-and-netanyahu-became-each-other-s-most-effective-political-weapon-1.7569757|access-date=August 2, 2019}}</ref> In 2020, the White House hosted the signing of the ] between Israel and the ] and ] to normalize their foreign relations.<ref>{{cite news|last=Crowley|first=Michael|author-link=Michael Crowley (journalist)|date=September 15, 2020|title=Israel, U.A.E. and Bahrain Sign Accords, With an Eager Trump Playing Host|work=]|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2020/09/15/us/politics/trump-israel-peace-emirates-bahrain.html|access-date=February 9, 2024}}</ref>
== Trump's Religion ==


An ] between ] and the ] has been ongoing since January 2018, when U.S. president ] began ] on China with the goal of forcing it to make changes to what the U.S. says are longstanding unfair trade practices and ].<ref>{{cite news |last=Swanson |first=Ana |date=July 5, 2018 |title=Trump's Trade War With China Is Officially Underway |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/05/business/china-us-trade-war-trump-tariffs.html |work=] |access-date=May 26, 2019 }}</ref> The ] stated that these practices may contribute to the U.S.–China ], and that the Chinese government requires transfer of American technology to China.<ref name=Report>, Office of the U.S. Trade Representative, March 22, 2018</ref> The Trump administration weakened the toughest sanctions imposed by the U.S. after Russia's ].<ref>{{cite news|first=Patricia|last=Zengerle|title=Bid to keep U.S. sanctions on Russia's Rusal fails in Senate|url=https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-russia-sanctions/bid-to-keep-u-s-sanctions-on-russias-rusal-fails-in-senate-idUSKCN1PA2JB|work=]|date=January 16, 2019|access-date=October 5, 2021}}</ref><ref>{{cite news|first=Jeanne|last=Whalen|url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2019/01/16/rare-rebuke-trump-administration-some-gop-lawmakers-advance-measure-oppose-lifting-russian-sanctions/|title=In rare rebuke of Trump administration, some GOP lawmakers advance measure to oppose lifting Russian sanctions|newspaper=]|date=January 15, 2019|access-date=October 5, 2021}}</ref> Trump withdrew the U.S. from the ], citing alleged Russian noncompliance,<ref>{{cite news|first=Shannon|last=Bugos|title=U.S. Completes INF Treaty Withdrawal|url=https://www.armscontrol.org/act/2019-09/news/us-completes-inf-treaty-withdrawal|website=]|date=September 2019|access-date=October 5, 2021}}</ref> and supported a potential return of Russia to the ].<ref name="G8">{{cite news|last=Panetta|first=Grace|date=June 14, 2018|title=Trump reportedly claimed to leaders at the G7 that Crimea is part of Russia because everyone there speaks Russian|work=]|url=https://www.businessinsider.com/trump-claims-crimea-is-part-of-russia-since-people-speak-russian-g7-summit-2018-6|access-date=February 13, 2020}}</ref> Trump repeatedly praised and, according to some critics, rarely criticized Russian president ]<ref>{{cite news|last=Baker|first=Peter|author-link=Peter Baker (journalist)|date=August 10, 2017|title=Trump Praises Putin Instead of Critiquing Cuts to U.S. Embassy Staff|work=]|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/10/world/europe/putin-trump-embassy-russia.html|access-date=June 7, 2020}}</ref><ref>{{cite news|last=Nussbaum|first=Matthew|date=April 8, 2018|access-date=October 5, 2021|title=Trump blames Putin for backing 'Animal Assad'|work=]|url=https://www.politico.com/story/2018/04/08/trump-putin-syria-attack-508223}}</ref> but opposed some actions of the Russian government.<ref>{{cite news|title=Nord Stream 2: Trump approves sanctions on Russia gas pipeline|url=https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-50875935|work=]|date=December 21, 2019|access-date=October 5, 2021}}</ref><ref>{{cite news|title=Trump expelling 60 Russian diplomats in wake of UK nerve agent attack|url=https://cnn.com/2018/03/26/politics/us-expel-russian-diplomats/|work=]|first1=Jeremy|last1=Diamond|author-link1=Jeremy Diamond|first2=Allie|last2=Malloy|first3=Angela|last3=Dewan|date=March 26, 2018|access-date=October 5, 2021}}</ref>
I saw a previous conversation on this, but I think someone should add a section for Trump's religion in the info box. He is a member, albeit inactive, of the Reformed Church in America and his membership is in Marble Collegiate Church on Fifth Avenue in New York.<ref>{{cite web|last1=Barron|first1=James|title=Overlooked Influences on Donald Trump: A Famous Minister and His Church|url=http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/06/nyregion/donald-trump-marble-collegiate-church-norman-vincent-peale.html|website=nytimes.com|publisher=New York Times|accessdate=November 10, 2016}}</ref>
* You should probably read through the discussions as to why religion is generally considered inappropriate for politicians' infoboxes. This is much more so for "inactive" members of any religion. ]&nbsp;<span style="color:red">🍁</span>&nbsp;] 23:27, 10 November 2016 (UTC)


:Suggesting this for discussion with editors concerning bringing some trimmed version of this section (this one in 2 short paragraphs) into the main Trump article to replace the long one. ] (]) 16:33, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
{{reflist-talk}}


:It needs more than a single paragraph. At minimum, it should mention the North Korean visits, the trade war with China, and the ], in addition to what is mentioned in that trimming. I understand that it needs trimming, but the section should probably be 3-4 paragraphs post-trim, not one. I would recommend keeping that paragraph as an overview and then adding an Asia paragraph (China, North Korea), a Middle East paragraph (Israel, Abraham Accords), and a Europe paragraph (Russia), although that last one could maybe be merged with one of the other two. ] (]) 16:53, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
:: I truly don't understand how ''not'' putting Trump's religion is justified. The "inactive members" thing would appear to not be relevant as he is roughly as active as recent prior presidents have been (sure, George Bush was a born-again, but others are very similar to Trump), he said numerous times on the campaign trail that " a Presbyterian," etc. etc. "Generally considered inappropriate" yet in basically every American politician's infobox. Just because of bunch of Misplaced Pages editors think that to contempt Western religion makes them intellectual doesn't mean it should inexplicably be phased out of infoboxes, starting with Trump. --] (]) 16:11, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
*I would agree with including his religious affiliation, it is one of the things I look for in an infobox, and is to be found in the info boxes of other presidents and vice presidents, it seems rather odd not to have it. It is certainly more relevant than the man's signature. ] (]) 05:12, 14 November 2016 (UTC)Cyndane5 ::{{u|QuicoleJR}}: I've followed your suggestions a little further and have added them into the last version to now give a 2 paragraph version of the trimmed section. Is this the type of trim which you had in mind in your comment above? ] (]) 00:21, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
:::That is a lot closer to what I was thinking of, although I still think it needs a sentence or two about Israel. The Abraham Accords are considered one of Trump's biggest foreign policy accomplishments in his first term, they are pretty important. ] (]) 00:46, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
::: I hope you all are not going to try to drag up this extremely contentious debate again. At the very least, read the numerous, lengthy discussions before dragging up old arguments again. ]&nbsp;<span style="color:red">🍁</span>&nbsp;] 21:26, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
How about any kind of indication as to where the discussion on this issue might be found. Rather than snidely dismissing their suggestions. ] (]) 02:02, 21 November 2016 (UTC) ::::{{u|QuicoleJR}}: I'm going to agree with you and make the addition to the end of the first trimmed paragraph of Foreign Policy above. Is it closer to the revisions you have in mind? ] (]) 00:56, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::I think this looks good. ] (]) 01:13, 24 January 2025 (UTC)


== Potential addition to the first paragraph of the lead ==
== Revert to image that gained consensus ==
{{cot|1=Superseded by active RfC. &#8213;]&nbsp;] 16:33, 17 November 2016 (UTC)}}
There was a consensus that ] is the best image to use here, and yet another editor put in the current image, claiming some others liked it on this talk page. However, lacking a detailed discussion and consensus like the other one received, the above-linked image must be used until a new consensus is reached. This is standard practice. I cannot enforce this again due to 1RR; I suggest someone else does. ] ] · ] · ] 02:03, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
:Done. --] (]) 02:14, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
::{{u|TBM10}}, just as a note, the end result of the discussion ] was that ] be used. ] (]) 02:29, 11 November 2016 (UTC)


The page ] includes the following statement: {{tq|Upon taking office, he will become the second president in U.S. history to serve non-consecutive terms after ] in 1893, the ], the first to take office after having been ], and the first ] to take office.}} These are a lot of historical firsts.
:::Yes, most agreed that the ] was not appropriate or NPOV. Overall, most people agreed that Image 3, or ], should be used as it is more neutral.--] (]) 02:45, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
::::Oh my god, people. Please look at the many discussions of the infobox image, which received votes from scores of editors and went through a formal analysis and vote based on photography and appearance attributes. Just because a small handful of editors now seem to like this one just based on gut feeling, saying "I like this one", you're making a mess of something that actually achieved a proper consensus. Respect it, or again open a full RfC with multiple image options and tagging multiple WikiProjects and other relevant groups. What you have here is an embarrassing form of 'consensus'. ] ] · ] · ] 03:23, 11 November 2016 (UTC)


Misplaced Pages pages on other presidents often mention historically significant information in the first paragraph of the lead, see for instance: ] and the mention that "he was the first African-American president in U.S. history"; ]'s "He was the longest-lived president in U.S. history and the first to reach the age of 100"; ]'s "he became the only U.S. president to resign from office, as a result of the Watergate scandal"; ]'s "He was the youngest person elected president at 43 years"; ]'s "He is the longest-serving U.S. president, and the only one to have served more than two terms"; ]'s "He was one of only two presidents to serve non-consecutive terms"; among others.
:::::100% agreement. &#8213;]&nbsp;] 04:25, 11 November 2016 (UTC)


With this in mind, it seems fitting that information on Trump being the second president to serve non-consecutive terms, the oldest individual to assume the presidency, the first to take office after being impeached, and the first convicted felon to take office, all fall within historical notability and many presidential firsts that should be mentioned in the first paragraph per precedent on other pages. ] (]) 05:33, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::I agree. Far too much discussion on this.--] (]) 08:29, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
:Also, Trump is the richest U.S. president ever. ] (]) 09:05, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
{{cob}}
::That would violate consensus #38. ] (]) 19:01, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
:Bear in mind that anything added to the lead has to be in the body first, with citation. And the sourcing must be ''direct''; no deduction may be required to get from the cited source to the content. &#8213;]&nbsp;] 14:08, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
:The former US president has accomplished a lot of firsts. We shouldn't flood the intro with all of'em. ] (]) 18:26, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
:Part of that sentence is going to be moot in less than 24 hours. Second non-consecutive term and Grover Cleveland: last I heard "second" isn't the same as "first", so this is more ole Grover's claim to fame. I think it's better to mention the impeachments and acquittals the way the lead does now. Oldest: not leadworthy, I don't think we even mention it in the body. First convicted felon: a label to be avoided per ]. I do think we should move the sentence about the felony conviction into the first paragraph but that is a separate discussion. ]] 18:53, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
:What about "Trump has been an influential and polarizing figure in modern American politics." It's definitely supported by sources and the article itself. ] (]) 13:02, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
::@] @] @] @] @] We need to figure this out soon, its going to look so weird if the lead paragraph is only one sentence ] (]) 16:05, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
:::This section is not about that. See ]. &#8213;]&nbsp;] 16:09, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
:"convicted fellon" should be specific or it would go against MOS:CRIMINAL, I also doubt that it carries enough weight. I agree with OP that something in the first paragraph is needed. For me the choice is straight forward, looking at sources what characterize Trump is the aggressive stance toward the many economical issues, means trade war, mass deportations, etc. ] (]) 13:09, 21 January 2025 (UTC)


== Trump New Picture == == Net worth and consensus 5 ==
{{cot|1=Superseded by active RfC. &#8213;]&nbsp;] 16:34, 17 November 2016 (UTC)}}
I know, his picture was changed 30 minutes to an hour ago but based on all the other president pictures, it is no good and looks unprofessional in my opinion.


] item 5: {{tq|Use Trump's annual net worth evaluation and matching ranking, from the ''Forbes'' list of billionaires, not from monthly or "live" estimates.}}
I found a picture that looks like a presidential picture and I think should be used. I am currently getting permission from the photographer.


We currently source net worth to which is part of said ''Forbes'' list of billionaires. But that page identifies the number as "Real Time Net Worth", which is inconsistent with consensus 5 (real time=live). I seem to recall that the ''Forbes'' billionaires list used to provide a separate number that was not real-time, but I don't see that now. What's going on? Do we need to change the article? Do we need to supersede #5 with a new methodology, such as updating the article from the real-time number on the first day of each month or each year? &#8213;]&nbsp;] 09:43, 19 January 2025 (UTC)


Also, the "matching ranking" was removed from the article at some point. &#8213;]&nbsp;] 09:49, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
--] (]) 2:40, 8 November 2016 (UTC)


It appears ''Forbes'' now has two billionaires lists: one real-time and one annual. A Google search for yields , which lists Trump at $2.3B and #1438 in the world. Seems like that should be our methodology: update the article each time the new annual list comes out. This methodology would reduce net worth from real-time $6.3B to annual $2.3B; I can't explain the huge difference except that maybe ~10 months have passed since the 2024 list came out. The 2025 list might list him much higher, I don't know. Can't say I understand anything about ''Forbes'''s methodologies. &#8213;]&nbsp;] 10:48, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
:If you can get permission, Example 1 is pretty good. If you receive permission, let us know. As for now, the current image is more NPOV than the original, but hopefully you can get their permission.--] (]) 02:48, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
:My bad. I was unaware of consensus item #5. Forbes, ], may not be the authority we'd like to have but they're all we've got. -] (]) 14:16, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
::{{re|Dyl1G|ZiaLater}} I understand you are proposing a picture change in good faith, however it will not be accepted unless you run a formal RfC. The sooner you start the process, the sooner it will end. Besides, I personally don't see how the longstanding picture is disparaging; it actually gathered consensus repeatedly over many many other pictures that various editors deemed "more presidential". In this picture, Trump looks serious and attentive, his face is in focus, the colors are neutral, well it's just fine. (And for the record, I once advocated for a picture change as well, at least an edit of this one to remove the microphone and background artefact, but I accepted consensus to keep this one). — ] <sup>]</sup> 16:34, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
::Good enough for me: "Forbes also publishes various 'top' lists which can be referenced in articles." Ok, barring objections, I'll change the article to conform with #5 in a day or two, using the 2024 list. &#8213;]&nbsp;] 14:34, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
::Planned update:{{tq2|In 2024, '']'' estimated Trump's net worth at $2.3&nbsp;billion and ranked him the 1,438th wealthiest person in the world.<!--UPDATE ANNUALLY per ], item 5.--><ref>{{cite web |last1=LaFranco |first1=Rob |last2=Chung |first2=Grace |last3=Peterson-Withorn |first3=Chase |year=2024 |title=Forbes World's Billionaires List - The Richest in 2024 |url=https://www.forbes.com/billionaires/ |website=] |access-date=January 20, 2025}} - Enter "donald trump" in the search box.</ref>}}...which will conflict with the preceding sentence:{{tq2|According to ''Forbes'', Trump's wealth in 2024 comprised approximately $1.1&nbsp;billion in real estate, $1&nbsp;billion in golf clubs and resorts, and $3.5&nbsp;billion in stock in ]—today his primary asset.<ref name=Forbes>{{cite news|title=Here's How Much Donald Trump Is Worth|url=https://www.forbes.com/sites/danalexander/article/the-definitive-networth-of-donaldtrump/|date=November 4, 2024|access-date=December 15, 2024|work=]|first=Dan|last=Alexander|orig-date=September 27, 2024}}</ref>}}There's already a conflict, but it's not so large. Maybe the $5.6B sum is assets only and the $2.3B is assets minus liabilities? There's a paywall in my way for the $5.6B source. &#8213;]&nbsp;] 16:08, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
::{{ping|SusanLesch}} Did you write the $5.6B sentence? If so, can you answer this? Is "wealth" a synonym for "assets"? I wasn't aware of that. If not, should it be changed to "assets" for clarity? &#8213;]&nbsp;] 16:52, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
:::Not for me to say.
:::Our ] list was published in April 2024. The breakdown I cited was November 2024. Truth Social's value fluctuates that wildly. -] (]) 17:06, 19 January 2025 (UTC)


:Another "improvement" I missed — March 2024 feels like B.C. now (see "Net worth update" link, below). I just reverted to the consensus 5 version. <s>The ranking on the used to be in the upper left corner of the Forbes webpage (see ]) but the Wayback machine’s toolbar is superimposed on that part of the archived pages. Now you '''do''' have to scroll down to "Forbes Lists" to see the annual ranking.</s> The problem was the link — the original link to the "Full profile" works as before. The link has to specify the list; there are others, such as the . The list is published in April, AFAIK. ]] 17:24, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
::FYI, the last big push to change the image consisted of a week or two of heated debate in a series of talk threads, followed by a big RfC. After the RfC got several dozen !votes, the activity died to the point that the archive bot archived the RfC before it was closed. And nobody complained about the lack of a close, nobody restored the RfC from the archive or asked that that be done, because we were all suffering from severe infobox image fatigue. I think many of us still are, I know I am. In the end, all that editor time and energy were wasted. My advice is to wait for the official White House portrait. &#8213;]&nbsp;] 16:43, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
:::{{ping|Mandruss}} Agreed. - <span style="font-family:Trebuchet MS">] <small>(])</small></span> 16:47, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
:Adding the ] and ]. ]] 17:29, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
::I like my "Planned update" better (both its text and its citation), but whatever. &#8213;]&nbsp;] 22:46, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
::{{ping|Space4Time3Continuum2x}} Also, do you see an apparent conflict between those two sentences? If you're a reader, does that raise an eyebrow? If so, how would you resolve it? &#8213;]&nbsp;] 23:40, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
::: was the Wealth section before the election. The section could have used some trimming and updating but not the wholesale deletion of most of the contents. Gone is information that I don't think is "overdetail" for the successful business tycoon persona that he was/is projecting (tax returns showing losses, tax fraud, etc.). After the trim most of the section was about Forbes, from "John Barron" to Trump’s billionaire listing on November 4 and , 2024. When I reverted the last sentence to consensus 5 adherence, I didn't look at the second to last sentence which was also added , together with the one that violated consensus 5. IMO, it also falls under #5. It's merely a wordier description of Trump's ranking on the billionaires' list on the day before the 2024 election. This sentence should be removed.


:::No objection to the wording of the last sentence you proposed in your planned update, above. Don't know about the citation. The url would require the reader to enter "Trump" in the text field, then click the name and the "Full profile" button (exactly what you argued against in last year's discussion, methinks). The current url takes the reader directly to Trump's full profile but that page doesn't name the editors. Either way we'd have to update the cite when the new list is published (year and access date in the current form, and, if necessary, the names of the editors in your proposed cite). ]] 10:52, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
@JFG How do I start a formal Rfc? --] (]) <!--Template:Undated--><small class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added 18:00, 11 November 2016 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
::::{{tq|The url would require the reader to enter "Trump" in the text field, then click the name and the "Full profile" button}} - No, they need only enter "donald trump" in the search box, which my citation explains to them. Bingo, it shows both ranking and net worth on the resulting line. No need to go any further for verification. And this way they would see only the annual, not both annual and real-time.{{pb}}Don't hold me to anything I said last year, or even last week. My thinking evolves.{{pb}}No objection to removing anything else that you see fit to remove. &#8213;]&nbsp;] 11:38, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
:{{re|Dyl1G}} Instructions are at ]. Enjoy! — ] <sup>]</sup> 20:43, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
:::::I removed the second to last sentence. (Entering just "trump" yields the same line, BTW) Why don't you want readers to see the real-time up-and-down? ]] 12:01, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::{{tq|(Entering just "trump" yields the same line, BTW)}} Yeah, I know. I could change that. If another Trump became a billionaire, we could change it back. {{tq|Why don't you want readers to see the real-time up-and-down?}} Just seems simpler and more straightforward, providing the required verification and not confusing matters by putting other information in front of them. A citation is for article content verification only, not "further reading" or "more information". &#8213;]&nbsp;] 12:09, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::::I really wonder how Forbes is calculating 'real time net worth'. That seems like a misleading gimmick to me.{{pb}}Also, I was under the impression Trump holds the majority of his own meme crypto coin. That alone is valued in the tens of billions. Has Forbes excluded that for a reason? ] (]) 20:27, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::::As I said, {{tq|Can't say I understand anything about Forbes's methodologies.}} I doubt any editor at this article does. I think I saw where Forbes describes its methodologies somewhere, but I can't recall where I saw that. Pretty much moot, since we have no better alternative. We can't do OR. &#8213;]&nbsp;] 23:16, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::::This looks fine. Naturally more can be said, but I think the important thing is that the range of his net worth is nailed down. The second sentence removed might be changed to percents but I am happy with what we have.
{{cot}}
:::::::{{tqb|According to Forbes, Trump's wealth in 2024 was, very roughly, 62 percent stock in ], 20 percent real estate, and 18 percent golf clubs and resorts.<ref name=Forbes>{{cite news|title=Here's How Much Donald Trump Is Worth|url=https://www.forbes.com/sites/danalexander/article/the-definitive-networth-of-donaldtrump/|date=November 4, 2024|access-date=December 15, 2024|work=]|first=Dan|last=Alexander|orig-date=September 27, 2024}}</ref> (Truth Media's stock price is volatile.)<ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/2024/04/16/trump-truth-social-stock-price/73341300007/|title=Trump Media stock price fluctuation: What to know amid historic hush money criminal trial|last=Crowley|first=Kinsey|date=May 1, 2024|access-date=January 20, 2025|work=]}}</ref>
}}
{{cob}} {{cob}}
{{sources-talk}}


== Updating of Trump & Vance, upon assumption of offices ==
==Does the "oldest person" thing really belong in the lead?==
This may well have been been discussed before, and have rolled off into the archives. My query isn't about the niceties of being the oldest person ''to become a first-term president'', which is all I see above, but about whether it's appropriate to have it in the lead at all. Mentioning it further down (currently in the "Presidential campaign, 2016" section) is OK I guess, but in the ''lead''? As ] cogently said above, "Obama was the first black President (that's big), if Hillary won, she would've been the first female President (that's big), but the oldest person?" I'd remove it myself, but I'm kind of scrupulous about not editing the article, in order to remain able to admin it. ] &#124; ] 08:31, 11 November 2016 (UTC).


I realize this page is on enough editors' watchlists, to prevent or revert those who might update the page prematurely, before Noon EST on 20 January 2025. But, perhaps many of you may consider adding ] to your watchlists, to prevent the same thing. PS - I'm presuming that ] & ] are already on many watchlists. ] (]) 00:13, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
:I support it. Age seems relevant. I don't know how much the media have talked about his age, but it was a big issue in ]'s campaign and he would have been 72 at inauguration. Between 2009 McCain and 2017 Trump, I'd put my money on 2017 Trump as more likely to die or become disabled in office (McCain is still kickin' and smilin' at 80). That Trump sets a new record seems lead-worthy. &#8213;]&nbsp;] 08:39, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
:We can't have too many watchers, but see . &#8213;]&nbsp;] 00:50, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
::Can we work in "bigoted" in between "oldest" and "person"? ] ] 08:55, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
::you will put money on this? i will take this bet on Trump being just fine for maybe even 8yrs! how much? ] (]) 15:50, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
:::I didn't say I would put money on Trump dying or becoming disabled in office. I said that seems more likely than it did for McCain in his campaign, something that was a big issue in the media. Why, you ask? Because personality and worldview, etc, have been shown to be factors in longevity, and I think McCain's tend to favor longevity more than Trump's. That's obviously just my opinion, and I know nothing of the history of longevity in either man's family. But it was a silly aside, the bottom line is that the new record is more than a ] factoid. &#8213;]&nbsp;] 15:59, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
:The oldest seemed important for William Henry Harrison and Ronald Reagan and youngest elected for JFK. ] (]) 08:59, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
:::: {{reply to|Mandruss}} OK, but wouldn't McCain's/Trump's choice of running mate be a "''factor in longevity''" too? ;) --] (]) 04:29, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
:::::{{reply to|Dervorguilla}} I get it. I think. :) &#8213;]&nbsp;] 04:48, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
:::::: <small>{{reply to|Mandruss}} You did indeed. According to one opinion writer, Pence was "born to be Vice President"; according to most, Palin was not. I think she might have regarded herself as born to be the first female ''President'', though -- albeit not necessarily the first ''elected'' female president... --] (]) 23:20, 13 November 2016 (UTC)</small>
{{od}} I agree with ] on this, but would support a compromise: how about if we keep it in the lead for now, but not in the lead paragraph of the lead? Per ], "The first paragraph should define or identify the topic with a neutral point of view, but without being too specific. It should establish the context in which the topic is being considered by supplying the set of circumstances or facts that surround it. If appropriate, it should give the location and time. It should also establish the boundaries of the topic; for example, the lead for the article List of environmental issues succinctly states the limits of that list."] (]) 05:01, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
:{{ping|Anythingyouwant}} No objection to that edit, which you already made. There remains an organization issue, with para 3 referring to his nomination, then ending at "oldest to assume the presidency" with no mention of his election to the office. But that's a separate issue, and relatively minor. &#8213;]&nbsp;] 06:56, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
::], the 70 stuff has been put back into the opening paragraph by which lacked an edit summary. The editor who did that was ]. I don't see consensus for that edit.] (]) 19:56, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
:::{{ping|Anythingyouwant}} I already said I don't object to the move down. You want me to do something else? &#8213;]&nbsp;] 20:28, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
::::I just wanted to make you aware of it. I guess that after some more hours I'll revert back, if someone else doesn't do so first. It's very annoying that 1RR facilitates and incentivizes drive-by editing at this BLP by making it much harder to revert the drive-by edits. Obviously, there was no consensus for putting it back in the lead, but admins don't seem interested in enforcing the consensus requirement.] (]) 20:59, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
:::::We are in agreement. &#8213;]&nbsp;] 05:39, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
:::::{{ping|Anythingyouwant}} Different mood two days later, different response.<br />Part of an admin's job appears to be to find reasons not to use the powers only they possess to enforce Misplaced Pages behavior policies. We are required to jump through almost impossible bureaucratic hoops, requiring much time that should be spent working on articles, to even stand a chance of any action. And, when we do that, we are required to spend even more time defending ourselves against boomerang claims that are clearly spurious attempts at diversion from the discussion of their behavior. The result is a house of mirrors beyond any human admin's capacity to assess, which is the whole point of the bad-faith diversion. That's how the game is currently played, many bad-faith editors are very skilled at playing it, and admins watch silently and do nothing about it because there would be an outcry from other bad-faith editors if they did so. Been there, done that, several times, and several times too many. The last time, the admin wrote the close statement in Swahili. English Misplaced Pages is broken and has been since I've been around.<br />This is an off topic rant, but a rare one from me and I guess I've earned it. Any editor is free to collapse me. &#8213;]&nbsp;] 09:14, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
:] - I'd be OK either way. I do see others mention trivia items that would not seem to be suitable for Lead status so I guess it's acceptable, but where are guidelines or criteria on picking what to include ?? Trump would be oldest, and first billionaire, and first without prior government or military service, and first with foreign-born wife, and first divorced man, and first Twitter president, and .. ehh, I guss whatever enough people want to include will do but it still seems kind of fluff. ] (]) 06:57, 13 November 2016 (UTC)


== Is there a section on his crypto coin? ==
::I repeat that it is not a trivia item. Bad shit happens when presidents die or become disabled while in office, which is why advanced age is usually a campaign issue. Why do you think the Trump campaign was always talking about Clinton's health? If it were mere trivia, I would oppose it in the lead. &#8213;]&nbsp;] 07:08, 13 November 2016 (UTC)


Is there a section on his crypto coin? ] (]) 01:33, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
:::: ] - Unless otherwise clarified, that sure looks like personal opinion rather than a WP guideline or criteria regarding side-remarks in a BLP. Just sayin we've got a LOT of 'firsts' here, and the "someone said of course its important" approach looks infeasible. It sounds a lot like the just-seen , and does not give a basis of inclusion. And yeah, still think trivia fluff that do not meet ], but eh it seems a precedent of fluff exists. ] (]) 07:44, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
:No. &#8213;]&nbsp;] 03:48, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
:in my opinion its not of enough note to be mentioned as of now . ] (]) 15:02, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
:I'll add (really, "Strump"?) to the bullet list in ]. (Amazing Photoshop job on the website selling the coin, makes Trump at least 40 years younger and 50+ pounds lighter. Melania's coin is called $MELANIA. Smelania – maybe it's pronounced differently in Slowenian. I know — off-topic.) ]] 15:55, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
:I would be in favor of giving this more weight. Googling "trump crypto" gives many results including the recent executive order. The article only has the $TRUMP mention. ] (]) 23:29, 23 January 2025 (UTC)


== Objectivity and Accuracy ==
:::::There is no WP guideline that says advanced age is a relevant issue as to U.S. presidents. We don't have guidelines like that. We are allowed, no, encouraged, to apply reasoning and editorial judgment, which is what I've done in this thread. We can go down a ] path if you like, surveying reliable sources to see exactly how much they have talked about Trump's age or the new age record. And we can debate endlessly about just how much RS is enough to justify one sentence in the lead. I would prefer not to, which means I would defer to a simple democratic vote among editors who can make some kind of cogent argument one way or the other. I think I qualify as one of those. I don't feel this is RfC-worthy however. &#8213;]&nbsp;] 07:52, 13 November 2016 (UTC)


The piece in general lacks objectivity and is characterized by a strong, anti-Trump thread throughout in the form of numerous statements that are opinionated in nature but presented as fact or that are plainly inaccurate, in many cases because it seems facts have come to light since some grossly biased statement was written. Examples follow.
Firstly, "oldest person thing" is no way to speak about a senior citizen. Secondly, a "democratic election" has put this "thing" in the lead. Thirdly, talk pages are a place to discuss the improvement of articles, not countries.--] (]) 07:19, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
:You clearly did not read the header correctly. The word "thing" refers to the part of the text referring to Trump's age relative to other presidents. ]&nbsp;] 05:48, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
::I read the header entirely correctly. The fact is that you did not read my comment correctly.--] (]) 09:40, 16 November 2016 (UTC)


== Trump Photo 2 Rfc ==
<!-- ] 07:24, 21 December 2016 (UTC) -->{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil|1482305084}}
{{rfc|pol|bio|rfcid=D4E6ED9}}


Excerpted example of biased characterization from the piece:
<br><center>'''Should the infobox image be replaced with one of these photos?:'''</center>
“After a series of business bankruptcies in the 1990s, he launched several side ventures.”


Comments on the immediately above excerpt:
<gallery>
Statement is unbalanced and subjectively critical; Trump, like most entrepreneurs, undertake a collection of business ventures during his rise to success
File:Donald Trump speaking with supporters at a campaign rally at the Phoenix Convention Center.jpg|Image 1
File:Donald Trump by Gage Skidmore 10.jpg|Image 2
File:President Trump 2.jpg|Image 3
File:Donald Trump Arizona 2016.jpg|Image 4
File:Donald Trump at Aston, PA September 14th (Cropped) 2.jpg|Image 5
File:Donald Trump August 19, 2015 (cropped).jpg|Current
</gallery>


Excerpted example of biased and inaccurate characterization from the piece:
] (]) 20:16, 12 November 2016 (UTC)Dyl1G
“His immigration policy included a travel ban targeting Muslims and refugees and expanding the U.S.–Mexico border wall; he also briefly implemented a family separation policy. He rolled back more than 100 environmental policies and regulations, signed the Tax Cuts and Jobs Actof 2017, initiated a trade war with China in 2018, and withdrew the U.S. from international agreements on climate, trade, and the nuclear program of Iran. Trump met with North Korean leader Kim Jong Unwithout progress on denuclearization.”
(Additional photos added by ] (]) 03:19, 17 November 2016 (UTC)}


Comments on the immediately above excerpt:
That could be one possible although it's B&W. Unfortunately, most CC Donald Trump photos are not NPOV. If you think you found one suggest it. If there isn't any, I guess we can wait for his greatagain.gov site to post one. <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 18:42, 12 November 2016 (UTC)</small>
Statement is unbalanced and subjectively critical. It can be argued, and many do, that Trump’s tactics toward N. Korea and China reduced those Nations’ aggressive posture, only to see it strengthen again under the lay-down policies of the Biden administration. The immigration policy didn’t “target Muslims,” but rather targeted travelers from nations that have strong culturally-based animus toward the US as demonstrated toward recent and previous acts of terrorism toward America, strong public demonstrations by the populace inciting terrorism toward America, and research, intelligence, and survey information documenting a large number of active terrorists and people that support terrorism toward America. The family separation policy referenced is simply a by-product of detaining adult aliens that have illegally emigrate with minor family members among their group. The minor family members are not arrested along with their adult parents/guardians, but are placed in care while the adults are incarcerated. This is the same dynamic that occurs when US citizens are arrested while caring for minor dependents.
:How is the current image not NPOV? Anyway, I really don't think we should switch to a black and white picture. ]&nbsp;] 19:58, 12 November 2016 (UTC)


Excerpted example of biased and inaccurate characterization from the piece:
*'''Oppose''' any change to infobox image before the official White House portrait is released, as a cost/benefit fail (actually I Oppose this RfC). <s>Oppose this choice in particular, for various reasons including B&W.</s> OP's NPOV argument appears to be a misunderstanding of NPOV. &#8213;]&nbsp;] 20:00, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
“In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, he downplayed its severity, contradicted guidance from international public health bodies, and signed the CARES Act economic stimulus. He lost the 2020 presidential election but did not concede, falsely claiming widespread electoral fraud and attempting to overturn the results, including through his involvement in the January 6 Capitol attack. He was impeached in 2019 for abuse of power and obstruction of Congress, and in 2021for incitement of insurrection; the Senate acquitted him in both cases. After his first term, scholars and historians ranked Trump as one of the worst presidents in American history.”


*No, I am saying the black and white is a possibility but I can't find anything else. I am looking for suggestions while trying to the get this picture approved from author ] (]) 20:16, 12 November 2016 (UTC)Dyl1G
::{{ping|Dyl1G}} Ok, but that's a misuse of the RfC process. An RfC is for asking a specific question ("Do you have any suggestions?" is not a specific question) or making a specific proposal, and seeking a consensus on the question or proposal. If your intent is to solicit photo suggestions, you should remove the {{tl|Rfc}} template from this thread and assume that there is enough participation at this article to get a fair number of viable suggestions. &#8213;]&nbsp;] 20:24, 12 November 2016 (UTC)


Comments on the immediately above excerpt:

Statement is unbalanced and subjectively critical. Much of the “guidance from international public health bodies” has been demonstrated to be inaccurate and contrived through unethical parading undocumented assertions for things such as the efficacy of masks, the progenitor source of the COVID19 virus as a “wet market” rather than the Chinese laboratory in Wuhan that received funds from the United States’ virology research apparatus headed by Dr. Anthony Fauci, who has been demonstrated as knowingly fabricating and misstating numerous assertions about this “guidance.” The “scholars and historians” reference is not cited and certainly refers to a collection of marxist, intellectually dishonest sophists, much like the 51 national security officials who called the Hunter Biden laptop and the information contained therein a sophisticated Russia disinformation campaign in signed, publicly released statement. ] (]) 02:01, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
'''NOTE:''' I put the Rfc back because I found a photo which I think is good and will add more when found ] (]) 17:57, 13 November 2016 (UTC)Dyl1G
:{{ping|Dyl1G}} Fine. Please at least do it right. You code one Rfc template for each RfC, not two. And this is not what is meant by a Misplaced Pages proposal, so "prop" should not be coded. Finally, this is a biography, so "bio" should be coded to list this at Biographies. I fixed all this for you the first time around, this time it's your turn. &#8213;]&nbsp;] 21:00, 13 November 2016 (UTC) {{cot|{{small|1=] &#8213;]&nbsp;] 07:00, 20 January 2025 (UTC)}}}}
:Several studies have pointed to the political leanings of Misplaced Pages's editor base. For instance, research by Greenstein and Zhu analyzed political bias in Misplaced Pages articles and found an early tendency towards a liberal bias, which they suggested might be linked to the political orientations of the editors. These studies used methods like analyzing word choice in articles related to U.S. politics to infer political slant. There's evidence suggesting that conservative editors might face more sanctions or blocks compared to liberal editors. This was highlighted in analyses pointing towards institutional favoritism toward left-of-center viewpoints in Misplaced Pages's arbitration and enforcement processes. The demographic of Misplaced Pages editors (predominantly male, from developed countries, often with liberal views) can influence how topics are covered or which topics are deemed worthy of coverage. The richest man in the world, Elon Musk, and Misplaced Pages's own co-founder, Larry Sanger, view Misplaced Pages as politically biased. Misplaced Pages has policies aimed at neutrality (NPOV - Neutral Point of View), and there's a significant effort by some in the community to reduce bias through collaborative editing, which can mitigate individual editor biases over time. ] (]) 06:33, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

::The opening post is fine in my book (it could suggest specific improvements in addition to speaking more generally). Your comment is not directly related to improvement of this article, is too meta for this page, and qualifies as ] vio. I suggest ]. &#8213;]&nbsp;] 07:19, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
@Mandruss Fixed. ] (]) 21:22, 13 November 2016 (UTC)Dyl1G
:{{ping|Dyl1G}} You dropped the Politics listing. Fixed. &#8213;]&nbsp;] 06:25, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

*'''SUPPORT''' - Please let's replace the current photo of Trump that is in the infobox here, and on the United States 2016 President Elections page! Anything is better, as long as he is smiling and doesn't have a microphone obscuring him.--] (]) 22:46, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

* '''Oppose''' until an official presidential photo is released. Until then, the longstanding photo should remain, as it has undergone much discussion and survived all of them. <span style="color:#008080;">'''Chase'''</span>|<sup><small style="font-size:75%;">]</small></sup> 23:04, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

*'''Oppose'''. Compare the cover photos at '']'' and '']''. Also compare the official presidential portrait photos of ] and ]. A grin is appropriate (and true-to-life) for Obama, not Trump. --] (]) 01:07, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

*All I am saying is that the photo seems a bit biased in my opinion. That's all. ] (]) 01:42, 14 November 2016 (UTC)Dyl1G
*:That's because you (like many editors, so don't feel bad) don't really understand ], as I and others have said previously. One immediately above, at 01:07. &#8213;]&nbsp;] 06:32, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

*'''Strong oppose''' – First, per {{u|Mandruss}}, I oppose the very ''idea'' of changing the picture at this point. Second, the proposed image looks absolutely dreadful to me, just like probably the current one looks dreadful to the OP. And we won't ever settle an ] debate, so i advocate a ] close for this RfC. — ] <sup>]</sup> 09:27, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
*:Support said close (abort), as I said. &#8213;]&nbsp;] 09:40, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
{{cot|1=Extended off-topic. &#8213;]&nbsp;] 07:23, 19 November 2016 (UTC)}}
::::Mandruss, This RfC, even though handled poorly, is only a few days old and already you're ready to shut it down. What are you afraid of? -- ] (]) 03:08, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
::::: {{ping|Gwillhickers}} Assuming facts not in evidence. Who said I'm afraid of something? Did you read my !vote argument? Anyway, I don't have the power to shut down RfCs. I stated my view that we should do so, and, if that view gains consensus, the RfC will be shut down. That's how RfCs work, and in fact an RfC was aborted on this page just weeks ago because a consensus was reached to abort it. I welcome you to particpate in the process instead of making spurious and fallacious arguments to try to circumvent it. &#8213;]&nbsp;] 04:21, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
:::: {{ping|Dyl1G}} With all due respect, this RfC is not being handled very well. Given the present location I doubt this RfC is going to get much attention as it is. This entire talk page is beginning to resemble a wall of graffiti -- who notices any one item anymore. i.e.One voice in a middle of an arguing crowd. Thanx for the effort at least. I'll see what I can do to bring attention to the matter. I added the other photos to this gallery. -- ] (]) 03:08, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
:::::{{tq|With all due respect, this RfC is not being handled very well.}} Not being handled very well? Is it anybody's fault that 27 threads were started after they started this one? I'm sure Dyl1G appreciates the "all due respect", but your reasoning frankly sucks, and that's been an ongoing pattern throughout your disruption of this talk page on this issue. Let's note that you found a solution to that problem 22 minutes after you complained about it, but your complaint remains. &#8213;]&nbsp;] 14:05, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
:::::::Excuse me, but I extended respect and merely mentioned a general criticism that the RfC wasn't being noticed by many, explained that it was buried in a sea of talk, and did not fault anyone personally as it is obviously no one editor's fault. Once again this is not the place to vent petty peeves with repeated personal attacks. Anyway, it appears there will not be enough support for a comparable, pleasing and formal image for Trump's bio', as the Clinton bio' has received, yet you're still venting. Please try to calm yourself, try not to violate talk page rules again and confine your remarks to article improvement as the rest of us have done. Thanks for your patience and understanding. -- ] (]) 18:23, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
::::::::No, you didn't just say that it was buried, you said that the RfC was not being handled very well. Nobody felt it was unduly buried until you did, and you could have just solved the perceived problem without a comment about the RfC not being handled very well. No post here was necessary or useful. That's the difference between facilitating collaboration and trying to undermine it. I'm quite calm, by the way, and opposing talk page disruption is a widely accepted way to indirectly improve the article and is anything but a talk page violation. It is not personal attack. It would be personal attack if one said something like, "You are an incredibly obtuse person who should spend a lot less time talking and more time watching and learning about accepted Misplaced Pages decision-making process." The talk page violation is your persistent disruption. You and I are indeed involved in a days-long one-on-one conflict, and the difference between us is that I'm supporting process and using sound reasoning, and you have done neither. Don't expect me to give you the last word on this, as you have absolutely no leg to stand on. However, we can continue this on my user talk page if you like. &#8213;]&nbsp;] 18:58, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
::::Please don't lecture me on process when you just took it upon yourself to suppress supporting opinion across the page. And your recital here about what you didn't say, but said anyway, is sort of a cheap stunt and clearly a personal attack. -- ] (]) 19:52, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
:::::Behave like a belligerent newbie for days, and expect to be treated like one. We would have been at ] about 24 hours ago with a disruptive editing complaint, but I'm well aware of the ineffectiveness of that approach. &#8213;]&nbsp;] 20:06, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
::::::The only time ANI's are not effective is when peevish editors go there expecting to get a ruling about peckish issues that don't involve policy violations. When there is a clear policy violation they are effective. Problem? -- ] (]) 20:55, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
:::::::If only that were true. &#8213;]&nbsp;] 21:19, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
{{cob}} {{cob}}
:Thank you for commenting. ] our Manual of Style: {{tq|In Misplaced Pages, the lead section is an introduction to an article and a summary of its most important contents.}} You’re quoting portions of the lead and then state your opinion on them. You have a right to your opinion, but Misplaced Pages content is based on reliably sourced material. '''Please, read the body of the article and the reliable sources cited there'''. If you believe material and/or sources to be false or misrepresented, present the reliable sources that support your view. Please, also look at the sources Misplaced Pages considers to be reliable. You can find the list in ]. ]] 10:09, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
* '''Support''' (image 1) -- We need to treat both the Trump and Clinton biographies in a fair and balanced manner for the sake of the readers (remember them?) who come to Misplaced Pages to see a neutral presentation. Both biographies deserve a formal/smiling pose of their subjects. -- ] (]) 03:19, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
:{{Ping|Dale Albert}} you're at least partly right. ] (]) 11:43, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
* '''Oppose''' all of the above – there is nothing wrong with the current picture. Wait until the official White House portrait is release to change the picture. <span style="background:black; color:#FFFFFF; border:1px solid black">Corkythe</span><span style="background:#BB8D0A; color:#FFFFFF; border:1px solid black">]</span> (ping me) 03:42, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
:I agree with @]'s conclusions on this matter. While the statement "Misplaced Pages content is based on reliably sourced material" may be true in a technical sense, it fails to address the deeper issue of selective sourcing and framing within this article. Even if the claims are based on reliable sources, they appear to have been deliberately cherrypicked to cast Trump in a negative light. For instance, including in the lead the statement, "After his first term, scholars and historians ranked Trump as one of the worst presidents in American history," may be factually accurate, but it raises serious questions about relevance and balance. Is this truly the most critical information to feature in a summary of Trump? What about scholars and historians who hold opposing views or argue that he doesn’t rank among the worst presidents?
* '''Oppose''' all. The current image is unproblematic, and we already have consensus for a replacement when the official White House portrait soon becomes available. <span style="font-family: serif; letter-spacing: 0.1em">–&nbsp;]</span> (] ⋅ ]) 04:07, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
:Furthermore, this retrospective assessment feels increasingly irrelevant and outdated given that Trump has now returned to office. His presidency once again becomes active today, meaning any historical ranking from his prior term is incomplete and potentially misleading. Instead of presenting a balanced and current overview, the article seems to prioritize narratives that reinforce a one-sided perspective. This undermines Misplaced Pages's goal of neutrality and fairness, especially on such a polarizing subject. For a lead summary, relevance, balance, and up-to-date context are crucial, and this article falls short on all counts. ] (]) 14:22, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
* '''Strong oppose''' There's nothing wrong with the current photo, never has been. Wait until his official presidential portrait is available then we will use that. -- <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #0099FF, -4px -4px 15px #99FF00;">]</span> ● <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #FF9900, -4px -4px 15px #FF0099;">] ]</span> 05:36, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
::You're welcome to participate in this article's development like anyone else. Otherwise, I would be interested to know what remedy you suggest. If some editors here are unable to check their biases at the door, your comment is not going to make them find Jesus and repent, and that means you're in violation of ] as much as the editor collapsed above. We follow Misplaced Pages policy here; if that's not sufficient, the flaw is with the policy, not the editors. You can discuss policy at ]. &#8213;]&nbsp;] 15:32, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
* '''Oppose''': there have been too many changes and too many votes. Let's wait for the official portrait.--] (]) 07:01, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
:::Re your comment "you're in violation of ]" — Could you explain that using excerpts from ]? Thanks, ] (]) 15:53, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Support''' - I would prefer image 5 if the microphone wasn't in the way. IMO image 3 is our next best option because he's smiling. The current image should be replaced until his official portrait is available. It is POV to have an infobox image where he has a uneasy/troubled look on his face when there are so many other images to choose from. Shocking that on Hillary Clinton's page, her infobox image is of her smiling... ] (]) 13:47, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
::::Discussion not directly related to improvement of this article violates at least the spirit of NOTFORUM. This is a widely accepted principle. General blue-sky about bias cannot be ''directly'' related to improvement of the article&mdash;as I said, it can't have any effect on the article's content. The way to affect the article's content is to participate in the process, not to discuss bias. This also violates the spirit of consensus 61, by the way. &#8213;]&nbsp;] 16:22, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Strong support''' (1, 2 or 4) - to put it bluntly, I think the current image is a disgrace to wikipedia. Not the picture per se, but the fact that it is used in the infobox, or in any infobox at all. As far as NPOV is concerned, I just find absolutely sickening, even though I'm definitely not a fan of Donald Trump. ] (]) 15:33, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
:::It's incredibly obvious that there is no real attempt at neutrality, especially on this page. To act as if only a few editors have a teeny bias against Trump is disingenuous when studies have proven time and time again that Misplaced Pages has a major left-wing bias, at least in the United States. It's also disingenuous to act as if by citing sources like the New York Times that Misplaced Pages is being unbiased when the Times and most other "reliable" sources have demonstrated clear bias for years. ] (]) 16:04, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
* '''Oppose''': this and any more like RfCs that come up until there is an official photo. ] (]) 15:40, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
* '''Oppose''': Seems silly to change it after all this time and other RFCs, we should wait until the official white house portrait is unveiled. ] ] 20:37, 17 November 2016 (UTC) ::::I won't do it myself, but I would support closure of this thread if this kind of commenting continues. The very fact that it applies to far more than this article is a clear clue that it has no place on this page. &#8213;]&nbsp;] 16:42, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
* '''Oppose''': This is a debate about personal preferences, which will never be productive. The current image is perfectly fine until they release an official portrait. ] (]) 21:53, 17 November 2016 (UTC) :::::No offense, but that's a pretty disingenuous idea. It's objectively true that this article, like just about every article on politics, seriously fails to be neutral. Deleting a thread in the talk page just because you don't like it basically proves this point. ] (]) 17:20, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::If my argument was that I don't like it, you would have a point. &#8213;]&nbsp;] 17:33, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
* '''Oppose''' nothing wrong with current photo and wait until an official one is released. --] (]) 22:15, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
::::::And you just subjectively proved Mandruss's point. ]] 17:49, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' until official photo is released. - ''']''' <sup>(]) (]) (]) </sup> 23:29, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
::::Reliable sources: that's a discussion to be held at ]. ]] 17:08, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Comment''' Can we use a photo on the , for the content is licensed under a CC license? Just wondering since nobody brought this up yet. - ''']''' <sup>(]) (]) (]) </sup> 23:35, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
::::Again, please go the village pump if you want discuss the policies of Misplaced Pages, because this problem is bigger than just this one article. ] (]) 02:37, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' - Incomplete or ill considered here, the photo has been discussed since he election with general result of '''wait for the official photo'''. The proposal above gives no basis to reconsider that, a basis of how these photos were chosen or any rationale why they would be preferred or why a change is much needed. The existing photo is not problematic by ] items at ] or ], and is reasonable by ] and ]. And these have no other special context to prefer them - they're not iconic of the moment or acceptance speech, not even after the election. The existing photo actually seems somewhat more appropriate as the image he won with, but I'll suggest that status quo should apply -- because if we change this one on a whim, then what's to stop another coming up tomorrow and the next day and dueling whims ??? We'd have to toss anything out in a couple of months anyway when the official photo arrives so '''wait for the official photo'''. ] (]) 00:30, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
::So present the majority of reliable sources that contradict our "selective sourcing and framing", e.g. {{tq|scholars and historians who hold opposing views or argue that he doesn’t rank among the worst presidents}}. ]] 16:57, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
Added image 6&7 ] (]) 01:37, 18 November 2016 (UTC)Dyl1G
{{Quote box
*'''Oppose'''-This is getting ridiculous. I was once in favor of changing the photograph, but we have now had far too many time-wasting discussions on the issue. Just wait until we have the official photo. ] (]) 01:41, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
|quote = A statement that all or most scientists or scholars hold a certain view requires reliable sourcing that directly says that all or most scientists or scholars hold that view. Otherwise, individual opinions should be identified as those of particular, named sources. Editors should avoid original research especially with regard to making blanket statements based on ]. Stated simply, any statement in Misplaced Pages that academic consensus exists on a topic must be sourced rather than being based on the opinion or assessment of editors. ]s, especially those printed in academic review journals that survey the literature, can help clarify academic consensus.
*'''Comment''' This is not a photoshopping contest. --] (]) 02:21, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
|author = Misplaced Pages
*'''Support''' - I personally do not see this as a very flattering picture and think that a better one (particularly looking at the camera) should be used. — ] <sup>(] | ])</sup> 03:38, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
|source = ]
:*'''Additional Comment''' - In connection with my above support, I see "Wait for an official photo" as more of an excuse to do nothing than a choice based on the photo itself. The article is being viewed hundreds of thousands of times per day, if there is a better, recent photo of him, it should be changed/used ''immediately'' for all of the future viewers of the article to see including the majority who are not talk-page viewers or editors at all. — ] <sup>(] | ])</sup> 03:38, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
|width = 50%
*'''Oppose''' - wait for official WH photo. -- ] (]) 07:02, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
|align = right
*'''Support''' three-quarter portrait #1 for now, and look forward to official portrait as that seems to be unquestioned consensus. ] (]) 18:02, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
}}
*'''Comment''' Summoned by bot. The '''current photo''' is fine. Agree that an official portrait would probably suffice unless it is peculiar in some way. ] (]) 16:11, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
:::We don't need or have to do that ourselves. The sentence is badly referenced to begin with. See the quote to the right. ] (]) 17:29, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
:::The photo is out of context, and shows Trump with sort of a frown with his eyes shifted to the left. In terms of president's and notable people's biographies, the image is far from fine. Raises the question of why this bio isn't treated the same as the others, esp since there are formal images that show Trump smiling to chose from. -- ] (]) 03:29, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
::::Yes, you need and have to. This isn't an article about science. Where are we saying that all or most scientists or scholars hold a certain view? We're citing reputable C-SPAN and Siena College surveys of historians and scholars. ]] 17:41, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
:::: Why do you obsess over having him smile? Look at the ] or Trump's choice of a cover photo for ]. The presidency is not about being cheerful! — ] <sup>]</sup> 05:19, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
:I'm gonna soften my position slightly. I've long been aware that I have one position (we're okay) directed outward to people not actively working on this article (usually but not always non-editors), and a different one (we're not okay) directed inward. It's probably not a good thing to have both. I think "editorial judgment" is allowed to play too great a role in consensus&mdash;here and I assume at many, many other articles. That leaves articles vulnerable to the effects of uncontrolled editor biases. That said, ''this is not the place to discuss that problem, again because it's far larger than this article.'' This is not a proper use of any article talk page, and that's not a principle we invented. It should be discussed at ], and that's the sort of thing I avoid in my semi-retirement; I find it too stressful.{{pb}}If someone wishes to respond to this comment, they should do it at my user talk page. Hell, I'd be happy to host a whole big discussion about these meta issues, but participants should bear in mind that nothing will be changed on my UTP. For any chance of that, use VPP instead. &#8213;]&nbsp;] 22:57, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::"Obsess" is unfair. And it's not like that Q hasn't been answered before, in detail, in Talk archives. (And Trump's book had a specific focus/purpose. Not a BLP. Sheesh.) ] (]) 07:00, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
::You'll have a hard time convincing a lot of these editors to go there. It appears a lot of them simply think this issue applies to Trump's main article and other Trump-related articles and ''only'' those pages and not an issue that could apply to every WP article. ] (]) 02:39, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::Thanks IHTS. -- JFG, once again, it's about treating the Trump biography the same way other such bio's are treated. As mentioned, the Trump bio is viewed by the readers thousands of times a day, and as many have already expressed, they are going to wonder why Trump's bio/photo isn't par with the others, esp when they compare it to Clinton's, which many have done and will continue to do, esp on inauguration day. Don't expect you to acknowledge any of this at this point -- I only reiterate for newcomers to the talk page. -- ] (]) 09:41, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
:::That's fine. If editors continue to abuse this article talk page, I am confident that this thread will be closed. And it needn't be done by me, I have no doubt that a number of other frequenters of this page see eye-to-eye with me on this. &#8213;]&nbsp;] 02:43, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::::{{re|Gwillhickers}} I understand where you're coming from; I once advocated for a change of picture, or at least some retouching of this one. Ultimately, this choice is very subjective. All along the campaign, there have been many debates over Trump and Clinton's pictures, including a particular photographer pushing his portraits… Ultimately it's a matter of ] and for both candidates I guess the least-bad image outlasted the other options. I also believe that stability over time and consistency across articles are more important than style. I appreciate your effort to rectify bias; I just don't happen to believe that the stability of this particular picture is a result of anti-Trump bias (and God knows we've seen a lot of such bias). — ] <sup>]</sup> 02:40, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
*'''Support''' the current photo looks ridiculous with smoke coming out of his ear. Nor is the photo representative of a decent serious pose. To an unbiased viewer, it could easily be assumed that the photo is a back-handed slap, trying to coast under the radar and still maintain a narrative that Misplaced Pages is an unbiased source for knowledge, as opposed to a cog in what is viewed by half the country as a corrupt and biased media. ] (]) 00:11, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
*'''Strong Support'''{{snd}}The current image is definitely not representative of a neutral pose for which the main image of an article should be. Any of the above selections would be infinitely better than the current, which to me, seems to portray Donald Trump as not-so-good. ]<sup><span class="unicode" style="color:Indigo;text-shadow:0.1em 0.1em 0.1em LightSlateGray">]</span></sup> 06:06, 22 November 2016 (UTC)


== travel ban formulation on lead, v2 ==
==Current Trump picture violates policy==
{{cot|1=Superseded by active RfC. &#8213;]&nbsp;] 16:35, 17 November 2016 (UTC)}}
The present "long standing" picture of Trump is a clear violation of ] as the image shows Trump with a frown and eyes shifted to his left. There were other more favorable images used in the Trump biography before this one came along. Consensus can not override POLICY. The image is clearly "disparaging". Are Misplaced Pages administrators, etc, just going to sit there and let this continue? Currently we have ] for a better image, while there should be overwhelming agreement that Misplaced Pages not be used to express political POV's. Again, how many people have to weigh in before someone does something around here, and then, how much longer will the debate continue?? At this rate, with all the foot dragging and arguing, the current picture will still be in place when Trump is sworn in. (!) WP credibility is sinking fast in the eyes of at least half of Misplaced Pages's readership, as I know there are a lot of Clinton supporters that have not stooped to using Misplaced Pages to express their particular political peeves. Can we please treat the Trump biography like any other and include a favorable and formal pose? -- ] (]) 19:02, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
:Nice try, but the policy you pointed to says that a photo cannot be "misleading." The current photo is not "mislading" at all. If you were to randomly bump into Donald Trump, that's what he would look like. --] (]) 20:17, 13 November 2016 (UTC)


This has already been discussed on talk page, ], still to a formulation that excludes the word "refugee" from it. The word carries important meaning of the desired effect of Trump actions, it is well developed in the body and is more precise that just vaguely refering to some Muslims countries, since other Muslim countries that had partnership with the US were not included in the ban. It is a good formulation firstly made by @], if I remember correctly. Since BRD is in place it should be discussed on talk first if editors wants to keep it after a reversion. ] (]) 12:23, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
:Many editors disagree in good faith with your premises, including me. Your policy interpretation here is exactly that, ''your policy interpretation''; I see no such explicit prohibition against this image in Misplaced Pages policy. Your perception of the image is exactly that, ''your perception''; I see no frown. I do see a serious and sober expression. Unlike you, I recognize my perception as my perception, my interpretation as my interpretation. And I don't go around accusing fellow editors of bad faith or incompetence en masse.<br />Yes, I suspect Misplaced Pages administrators, etc, are just going to sit there and let this continue, because this is how the Misplaced Pages collaborative process is designed to work. If I'm not mistaken we have a hard-fought RfC consensus for the current image, and that consensus will not be overridden by a relatively few editors outside RfC with significant opposition. I believe there is still a thread on this page soliciting suggestions for good replacement photos. &#8213;]&nbsp;] 20:47, 13 November 2016 (UTC)


== New Short Description ==
As I do agree it's not the best photo choice it does not seem to violate the policy. If you are going to complain about it at least suggest a new one.... ] (]) 21:24, 13 November 2016 (UTC)Dyl1G


Because Trump just got inaugurated the 47th ] i think we should update his short description which still says that he is the ].
* {{ping|Proud User}}"Nice try"? The BOLP policy I refer to says ] It would have helped if you clicked on the link and read the item. Trump's expression is clearly disparaging, not at all the best picture to represent him with. The image looks like a media sniper shot, typically taken by photographers who lie in wait to capture the worst possible expression. They did it to Hillary also.


as a result we should change it from : President-elect and 45th president of the united states.
*{{ping|Mandruss}} We're not debating whether the image looks like Trump. I respect your concern for established consensus but it was almost entirely established before Trump was elected. Since then there are new and important things to be considered, esp since consensus is now marginal and clearly split for obvious reasons. Given this situation, all personal opinions should be set aside, and the biography be allowed to receive the same treatment as the others. This has not happened, even after repeated objections to the current photo. We now have two sides arguing, and it looks like there will never be any resolution until long after Trump is sworn in and an official government photo is made available. We can belabor about what Trump's expression is, i.e. frown, or sober and serious, and prolong resolution indefinitely if that is your intention. The fact remains, there are far better images available, yet we have a marginal consensus not to use them. Good faith or not, that is a fact. Personal opinion aside, Trump has not received the same formal and favorable image Clinton and other famous living people have received, all the while such photos are available. -- ] (]) 22:25, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
<br/>


to : 45 & 47th President of the United States.
*:{{tq|Since then there are new and important things to be considered}} That's a fair reason to seek a new consensus via a new RfC (I would oppose such an RfC at this point for the reason I have given in the existing RfC, but it would at least be a legitimate use of established process). Not a legitimate reason to argue for a new consensus in unstructured, open discussion which would be unlikely to involve more than 6 or 8 editors. RfC consensuses generally require RfCs to change, and that is especially true for RfCs that had such high participation and involved so much debate. We don't so easily throw out the result of that much editor time and energy. &#8213;]&nbsp;] 11:59, 14 November 2016 (UTC)


or use the alt version : President of the United States. ] (]) 18:00, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
: Hello ],
:Why not just remove President-elect ? ] (]) 18:02, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
::because it would still say that he is the 45th ] but that was in ] and now he is the 47th ] so thats why we should add 47th to it as well. ] (]) 18:06, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
:Where does it still say, "president-elect" in the short description, it had been removed around 12pm. ] (]) 18:03, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
::I think it should stay as "President of the United States (2017–2021, 2025–present)", as that is how it is written for the ] article. ] (]) 18:05, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
:::It also says "President of Russia (1999–2008, 2012–present)" on the article for ], another politician with multiple non consecutive terms. I agree with ]. - ] (]) 18:38, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
::::I agree but it isn't the same for ], as they don't number presidents the same way. ] (]) 18:41, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
::If you search Donald Trump on the ] browser it says that he is the ].<br/> ] (]) 18:09, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
:::Must just take some time to update. It definitely says "President of the United States (2017–2021, 2025–present)" in the source code. If you want, you can try ] the cache to see if it changes. ] (]) 18:17, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
::::i can't edit it because i'm not an ]. ] (]) 18:20, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::They mean the cache your end. ] (]) 18:22, 20 January 2025 (UTC)


== Superseding consensus #50, sentences 1 and 2 <span class="anchor" id="Updating consensus #50, lead sentence"></span> <span class="anchor" id="Superseding consensus #50, first paragraph"></span> ==
: I agree. It does seem odd and out of place for a U.S. Presidential politician to have an unflattering frowning photograph on a WP page. Compare this to ], ], ], and ]. All other U.S. Presidents have a smiling photo of them, with an American flag in the background. Even the ]'s photograph has an American flag in the background with her smiling. Gwillhickers, I encourage you to find a smiling photo of President-elect Trump, with a U.S. flag in the background, and replace this controversial image. ] (]) 01:46, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
{{small|Original heading: "Updating consensus #50, lead sentence" &#8213;]&nbsp;] 02:17, 21 January 2025 (UTC)}}


Current wording: {{tq2|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.}} I propose to update it to read {{tq2|The lead sentence is: Donald John Trump (born June 14, 1946) is an American politician, media personality, and businessman who serves as the 47th president of the United States.}}
:: Fine, so go !vote in the existing RfC. Participate in the process. This thread is out of process. And following your suggestion would be a clear violation of the ArbCom restrictions in effect at this article, making a consensus-free edit already known to be highly controversial. You have given exceedingly bad advice. &#8213;]&nbsp;] 06:43, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
Present tense makes clarifications such as "current" and "since 2025" redundant. ]] 18:12, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
::: ] : I agree that the current image is a disaster but you should be voting ]. We already have better, more flattering images of Trump, one of which even has a US flag in the background. ] (]) 09:09, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
:The "47th..." ] (]) 18:36, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
{{cob}}
::Oops. {{Smiley2|doh}} Replaced "serves as the 45th" with "serves as the 47th". ]] 19:45, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
:What GoodDay said.{{pb}}Instead of amending #50, I think we should supersede it with a new consensus covering the whole first paragraph. That's what #17 did before it was superseded by #50. Otherwise, it's a new separate consensus for the second sentence, or leaving the second sentence unprotected by consensus. &#8213;]&nbsp;] 19:35, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
:I'm in agreement with this proposal. Indeed, anything is better than "...who has served...". Also "current" & "since 2025" aren't needed. ] (]) 20:43, 20 January 2025 (UTC)


:It's getting worst. Somebody keeps trying to link "45th president" to ]. -- ] (]) 23:15, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
== RFC closure ==
::Don't fret. See ], second paragraph. &#8213;]&nbsp;] 23:24, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
:What about "Donald John Trump (born June 14, 1946) is an American politician, media personality, and businessman who is the ], serving since 2025 and previously from 2017 to 2021". ] (]) 23:20, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
::Gotta have "47th" & "45th" in there, to match with his predecessors. ] (]) 23:22, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
:::I don't really think that's necessary because, unlike his predecessors, he's numbered twice, which is an inconvenience when it comes to word play.
:::But if we're going that route then maybe something like "is the 47th ], serving since 2025 and previously as the 45th president from 2017 to 2021". ] (]) 23:26, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
:{{tq2|'''Donald John Trump''' (born June 14, 1946) is an American politician, media personality, and businessman who is the 47th ]. He served as the 45th president from 2017 to 2021.}}(I started to drop "the 45th" as unnecessary, but it does help clarify the nonconsecutive terms thing right up front. This is one of the few good uses for president-counting in my opinion.) We don't need words like "current" and "previous", and I think we can leave the start date to the infobox. &#8213;]&nbsp;] 23:38, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
::'''Support''' - this version. ] (]) 23:40, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
:Or (sorry):{{tq2|'''Donald John Trump''' (born June 14, 1946) is an American politician, media personality, and businessman who is the 47th ]. A member of the ], he served as the 45th president from 2017 to 2021.}}I can go either way, but sentence 2 currently says Republican Party. &#8213;]&nbsp;] 00:24, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
::@] surely to align with other politicians' articles, it should be: Donald John Trump (born June 14, 1946) is an American politician, media personality, and businessman who has served as the 47th president of the United States since 2025 and previously served as the 45th president from 2017–2021. ] (]) 00:31, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
:::Strongly disagree. Not all consistency is good consistency. Don't get caught in the consistency trap. Ask not whether something is consistent, but whether it is good. &#8213;]&nbsp;] 00:38, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
::::I think the point here is that its weird his first term is worded like it was a previous office. It was the same office, just nonconsecutive terms, kind of like how ]'s article is. ] (]) 00:55, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::If there is zero risk of misleading readers, it's not a significant problem. So explain to me what a reader might be misled to take from my text. &#8213;]&nbsp;] 01:14, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::I'll rollback my suggestion now that you mention that. There isn't really a risk that your text will be misleading. What I was just saying was that splitting the lead and making it so his first term isn't mentioned until the second sentence is odd because it was the same office he's holding now. Splitting the sentences makes it seem like his first term was some different office he held prior to the presidency.
::::::But I guess you're mostly right. We shouldn't idiot proof everything. ] (]) 02:14, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
::::@] I don't see any reason for it to be different though. The word 'previously' could be dropped I suppose. Why are we making Trump's article different from pretty much every single other politician and world leader who currently holds a certain post? ] (]) 07:33, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::Responded at your UTP. &#8213;]&nbsp;] 09:10, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
::A: '''Donald John Trump''' (born June 14, 1946) is an American politician, businessman, and media personality who has been serving as 47th and current ] since 2025. A member of the ], he previously served as the 45th president from 2017 to 2021
::B: '''Donald John Trump''' (born June 14, 1946) is an American politician, businessman, and media personality who serves as 47th and current ] since 2025. A member of the ], he previously served as the 45th president from 2017 to 2021.
::C: leave it as is
::Note: Saying since 2025 makes sense since that was when he became president. We can't necessarily say until 2029, not crystal ball here. Also, saying "serving as current 47th president" is improper due to the next successor after Trump being 48th president. ] (]) 01:30, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
:::I've lost count of the different proposals, and the discussion is just 8 hours old. Many more proposals are sure to come, since everybody has a better idea and nobody is capable of settling for anything less than their personal concept of perfection (]). Any suggestions for a methodology that might get us to a consensus sometime before July? &#8213;]&nbsp;] 02:07, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
:::Donald John Trump (born June 14, 1946) is an American politician, businessman, and media personality who is the 47th and current president of the United States. A member of the Republican Party, he previously served as the 45th president from 2017 to 2021 ] (]) 07:02, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
:As of this comment, out of seven has expressed support for a proposal that was not theirs. Yes, that includes me, I didn't say I'm any better. &#8213;]&nbsp;] 07:06, 21 January 2025 (UTC)


===Sentences 1 and 2 proposals===
Thanks to ] for closing the RFC . The RFC close says: "there's no consensus about whether the topic should appear in the lead." And, a template at the top of this talk page says, "Consensus required: All editors must obtain consensus on the talk page of this article before reinstating any edits that have been challenged (via reversion)." So it sounds to me like anyone can remove the material in question and it must then stay removed. Is that correct? I'm not going to remove it, and did not support removal during the RFC, but still it would be good to have some clarity here in case it is removed by someone else.] (]) 21:12, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
Proposals containing:
:I removed the "material" in question since there was no clear consensus for inclusion(in the lead that is). --] (]) 15:53, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
*'''is the 47th''': A, B, G
::It has been restored without consensus. Why do you think that's acceptable, ]? In the same edit, you also defied consensus ], right?] (]) 16:22, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
*'''serves as 47th''': E
:::No, it was *removed* without consensus. If an RfC is closed as "no consensus. Discuss again" then we retain the status quo. You know this as you've used this very argument in other instances to include your preferred text in articles.
*'''has been the 47th''': C, F
:::The "oldest person" was already there. I just moved it.] (]) 16:25, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
*'''has served as the 47th''': H, J
::::Per discretionary sanctions, "Consensus required: All editors must obtain consensus on the talk page of this article before reinstating any edits that have been challenged (via reversion)." Moreover, the material you moved up was deliberately moved down pursuant to the talk page discussion that I already linked to.] (]) 16:32, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
*'''has been serving as 47th''': D
:::::No. Please stop trying to ] discretionary sanctions (again). Consensus is required to reinstate EDITS. That means consensus is required to REMOVE the text.
*'''and current''': D, E, F, G
:::::Here is Sandstein's wording: ''" I therefore recommend that the discussion is repeated after some time to determine whether the issue is still considered to be of lead-worthy importance after the election."''
*'''since 2025''': C, D, E, F, H, J
:::::He closed the RfC on Nov 13, 20:54. At the time of the closure the article contained the text: . This means that consnesus is required to REMOVE the text and the editor who started edit warring about it (again) was doing so in contravention of discretionary sanctions.] (]) 16:37, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
*'''A member of the Republican Party''': B, C, D, E, F, G, J
:::::::We have been through all this before, and admins rejected that interpretation.] (]) 16:43, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
*'''served as the 45th''': A, B, C
::::::::Uh, no, that link does not show what you are trying to pretend it does. The text was in the article for awhile. The RfC said no consensus. Somebody went and removed it anyway, despite the RfC. End of story. Revisit the discussion when the lede gets bigger.] (]) 16:46, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
*'''previously served as the 45th''': D, E, F, G, H, J
::::::::In fact NeilN appears to be making exactly the same point I'm making when he points out: ''"I think the wording carefully specifies "reinstating any edits that have been challenged" instead of "reinstating any additions that have been challenged" for this very reason."''.] (]) 16:47, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
*'''from 2017 to 2021''': A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, J
:::::::::I have to admit, VM, that after reviewing the talk page discussion with Melanie and Neil, you appear to have a very good point regarding the sex material. But not the age material.] (]) 17:00, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
::::::::::With regard to the age material, is the crux of the debate about *where* it should be, or if it should be included at all? ] (]) 17:02, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
::::::::::::The . Both removal and placement were discussed, and there is zero consensus for it to be in the lead (where you put it).] (]) 17:11, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
:::::::::::::{{ping|Anythingyouwant}} {{ping|Volunteer Marek}} I've been watching this since the beginning, and it's not entirely clear to me what the "status quo" is. Both sides have good arguments in my opinion. The best path forward I think would be for you guys to find some sort of short-term compromise. The RfC closure says 1-2 short sentences if the material is included. The disputed material is effectively 3 sentences right now (1 long sentence with semicolon, 1 normal sentence). Why don't you two just work on trimming the material to a sentence, or even half a sentence? <span style="font-family:times; text-shadow: 0 0 .2em #7af">~] <small>(])</small></span> 23:48, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::I would be very glad to consider any shortened compromise language. But someone else ought to draft it because things that I do seem not to enjoy AGF these days.] (]) 23:54, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
<-- I'll Agf you to do it. I might disagree with what you propose but I'll, um, give you a chance.] (]) 00:33, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
:Okay, well, my sense is that what Trump said has gotten a lot more enduring publicity than the subsequent allegations against him, or his claims about a "smear campaign". (Incidentally, ] had some hilarious jokes about what Trump said in 2005, two days ago on SNL.) Anyway, how about the following? "On October 7, a ] surfaced in which Trump bragged about kissing and ] women or being able to do so without first seeking permission; he subsequently apologized for those <s>2005</s> comments."] (]) 01:49, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
::As much as I like ] it seems awkward in the middle to state in two ways that he bragged about kissing/groping, and do we really have to mention twice that the comments were from 2005? <span style="font-family:times; text-shadow: 0 0 .2em #7af">~] <small>(])</small></span> 02:54, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
:::I'm glad to strike out the latter "2005" and am doing so now. On the other thing, I think a "chiasmus" as "a rhetorical device in which two or more clauses are balanced against each other by the reversal of their structures in order to produce an artistic effect." I don't think the stuff after the word "or" (in my draft) reverses the stuff before the word "or" so I don't think I am guilty of chiasmus. Sources describe what Trump said in different ways, and I'm trying to briefly capture some of that diversity, instead of limiting ourselves to a single gospel, so to speak.] (]) 03:09, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
::::I'm fine with that.] (]) 03:49, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
:{{re|Volunteer Marek|Anythingyouwant|Awilley}} Here's my proposal for the shortest meaningful version (copied from RFC discussion when {{u|Dervorguilla}} calculated an optimal word count and {{u|JasperTech}} challenged us to fit the essential points in ]): {{tq|After lewd comments from 2005 emerged, 15 women accused Trump of unwanted sexual advances.}} Add one quote after "emerged" mentioning the Access Hollywood tape, and one quote after "advances" for the allegations. Or better, per ], just link to the relevant detailed articles. — ] <sup>]</sup> 08:48, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
::], I prefer leaving both the allegations and the claim of a smear campaign for later in the BLP. If any of the allegations is litigated then it may become more noteworthy so as to be leadworthy, but right now it's undue weight for the lead. Almost nobody can name any of the women making the allegations. The fact that he made the 2005 comments is undisputed and fully attributable to him, whereas the allegations are very much disputed. The media has quoted and described the 2005 comments much more than it has quoted or described the allegations. We should not mention the allegations in the lead without including Trump's denial, per ], which would give the allegations even more undue weight.] (]) 10:06, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
:::{{Re|Anythingyouwant}} If we mention only the lewd comments, the statement would feel incomplete and undue (imaginary mental dialog of John Q. Random Misplaced Pages reader: ''Oh, Trump did some dirty talk in 2005, so what? Ah, some women have actually complained about his sexual advances, now that makes sense. Wait, he denies the allegations, this story emerged in the last weeks of the presidential campaign and nobody sued him for sexual assault? Alright, case closed.'') We can't let the reader hanging at "dirty talk"; it's either all or nothing, obviously including Trump's denial. Here's my proposed update:
:::{{talkquote|After ] emerged, fifteen women ]. Trump denied the allegations and blamed the incident on an electoral ].}}
:::Consensus on that? — ] <sup>]</sup> 10:37, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
::::No. We just had a RfC on this. If you want this "topic" covered in the lede, put together a new RfC and seek consensus. We now have 4-5 editors commenting here on a closed RfC that had input from 30-40 people. --] (]) 14:16, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
:::::Sorry, you can't filibuster consensus. The original RfC was closed as "no consensus" which means we retain the status quo - the quote stays in. A couple more reasonable editors are trying to work out a compromise version. You're just trying to sabotage that effort and force your way through mindless edit warring.] (]) 14:48, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
:::::::@Volunteer Marek, ''you can't filibuster consensus'', that's the point, there was no consensus for including this so it stays out for now. Gain consensus for inclusion and add it. Talk about mindless. --] (]) 17:43, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
::::::::Look, even Anythingyouwant above admits that the consensus needs to be *for removal*, not for inclusion, since this was in the article for awhile. There was no consensus for removing it, so it stays. Gain consensus for removing and then then remove it. Talk about mindless. Also read the discussion on the issue by administrators already linked above .
::::::::] can you please comment on this? It looked like a few of us were trying to work out a compromise version, which was quickly sabotaged by Malerooster and a couple of others, who didn't even BOTHER participating in the discussion . See, this is what happens when you try to do it by book. Other, cynical BATTLEGROUND warriors show up, completely ignore the rules or try to ] them. Trying to reason with them is a non-starter as they're not interest in compromise. Reporting them is a huge time sink and mostly a waste of effort, especially with admins being understaffed. .] (]) 21:56, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
::::::::::@Volunteer Marek, stop accusing me of anything, especially sabotage just because you are clueless. The RfC was about inclusion of the "material" NOT removing it. There was no consensus for inclusion. Just because you don't like the outcome of the RfC doesn't mean you do some run around with a few other editors after 30-40 editors commented on this for over 4 weeks. --] (]) 23:04, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
:::::::::::Cut it out with stuff like calling editors "clueless". I like the outcome of the RfC. What I don't like is you misrepresenting and WP:GAMEing it to push your POV.] (]) 09:14, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
::::::::::::You are clueless, especially when you say ''to push your POV''. You are the one pushing your POV. What is my POV? You have no clue which is obvious. --] (]) 12:10, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
::::::::::::::Both of you, please cut it out with the "clueless," "mindless," "POV," and similar name calling. And don't say " he started it!" Just be grownups and stop it. ] (]) 18:47, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
::::::], you said it's important to mention "nobody sued him" but then your draft omits that. Also, your draft doesn't say who made the lewd comments, and omits something else very critical: Trump apologized. As I recall, the Access Hollywood story was huge news even before any women started making allegations, so I still don't think the allegations belong in the lead. The ] article is listed as a "good article" and here's the grand total of sex stuff in the lead: "In 1998, Clinton was impeached by the House of Representatives for perjury before a grand jury and obstruction of justice during a lawsuit against him, both related to a scandal involving White House (and later Department of Defense) employee Monica Lewinsky." Nothing about the allegations from all the other women (Jones, Willey, Broadhurst, Flowers, et cetera), either by name or not. And doesn't it tell you something that all those names are well known compared with the fact that almost no one can name the women who allege that Trump made unwelcome advances?] (]) 15:24, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
:::::::{{re|Anythingyouwant}} If we add more detail, that would defeat the purpose of summarizing. About the ] lead, I agree (I even made that very point in a prior discussion), but let's not compare them too much per ]. — ] <sup>]</sup> 18:56, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
::::::::], the lead currently says "On October 7, a 2005 audio recording surfaced in which Trump bragged about kissing and groping women and being able to do so without permission; he subsequently apologized for those comments." This seems okay to me for now. As more history unfolds, it seems likely that this will eventually get squeezed out of the lead.] (]) 19:00, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
:::::{{re|Malerooster}} For the record, I '''don't''' want this topic covered in the lead (check my !vote in the RfC); however I respect the potential interpretation of RfC closure as "no consensus to exclude" and I'm trying to build a consensus version of the minimal stuff to include. i wold be equally happy with interpreting the closure as "no consensus to include", but I'm not going to fight either way. And note that while we discuss, the contents are indeed excluded because the pre-RfC version was deemed excessive, hence we need to agree on a short one. — ] <sup>]</sup> 18:56, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
::::::{{re|JFG}} Hey, sorry, but it seems that the close was pretty clear, '''even bolded''', that there was ''no consensus about whether the topic should appear in the lead''. We don't NEED to agree on ''a short one'' just to include something UNLESS a NEW consensus forms to have this topic in the lede. It has been readded by Volunteer Marek, who accuses me of mindless edit warring. --] (]) 19:19, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
:::::::{{re|Malerooster}} Again, my opinion is to exclude this info from the lead but I have decided not to fight this particular battle. — ] <sup>]</sup> 06:22, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
::::::::Again, stop misrepresenting the closure of the RfC. If there was no consensus on the material it means it stays in until a new consensus is reached. That's what we're trying to do here Malerooster, and you're not contributing. In fact, you're busy making sure that compromise and consensus are impossible.] (]) 09:14, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
:::::::::It is you that is misrepresenting the closure to push your own POV. --] (]) 12:10, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
Should be removed, but biased editors will undo changes to put back in even though trump has already won and they can't influence anyone with their pathetic (and desperate) biased attempts anymore. seriously insane people, very harmful to encyclopedia. why not ban them? ] (]) 17:45, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
:], ], ]. You've already been given a DS warning I believe? ] (]) 19:45, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
:As has been discussed extensively in other sections, our ] policy says that when there's no consensus, we should go back to the last stable version. {{u|Volunteer Marek}}, it's hard not to take your position as other than ]. The content has been heavily edit-warred over since it was introduced, and then tagged while the dispute was raging on this talk page. To suggest that this content was stable is ridiculous, frankly. --] (]) 18:21, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
:::"Controversial" is not the same thing as "unstable". It was stable, remaining in the article for weeks. It was "controversial" but so what? Anything can be made controversial with enough complaining and soapboxing, as is being done here. Anything can be made controversial if editors choose to ignore policy and instead run around calling those that disagree with them "insane".] (]) 19:45, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
::::@Volunteer Marek, it was in the article for weeks because an active RfC was going on. --] (]) 21:00, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
::The RfC closure clearly states '''No consensus about whether the topic should appear in the lead''', i.e. no consensus to include. Out it goes. Just like the election, it's over. Time to accept and move on. ] (]) 18:24, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
:::The trick you're trying to pull is in those two little letters "i.e". No consensus here means "retain the status quo". Which in this case would mean '''"no consensus to exclude"'''.] (]) 19:34, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
::::Nope, this stuff is barely a month old. The status quo is ''without'' this stuff. Appeals to the "stable" version are nonsense (as they always are). ] (]) 21:31, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
::::@Volunteer Marek, then why did you ? Maybe because the RfC was about if the "material" should belong in the lead and there was NO consensus for that. It was NOT about removing the "material". I actually think it would have been more noteworthy if Trump had lost the election, but that's irrelevant. --] (]) 20:52, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
The closure clearly states that the topic should be revisited after some time, not that anything need to change immediately. Quite frankly, I find the idea that a serious issue such as this shouldn't matter anymore just because you won an election (or "won" isn't quite accurate in his case) to be ludicrous; if anything the sexual misconduct controversy is even more relevant. This material has been included in the lead for weeks and is the stable version. It is also clearly supported by a consensus when counting arguments that are actually based on policy and not WP:IDONTLIKEIT and WP:IVOTETRUMP. --] (]) 19:40, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
:@Tataral, of course its not the "stable" version. That would be the version before the "material" was added. --] (]) 21:05, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
::"Stable version" is just an ] fallacy to hide the obvious. When the arguments run out, it's time to wheel out the "stable version". There is nothing more desperate than appeals to imagined "stable versions". ] (]) 21:34, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
:::Whatever it is, it's part of the DS regime. So abide.] (]) 03:47, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
::::"Last stable version" is defined . :)] (]) 09:55, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
(unindent) The Access Hollywood tape may have had some relevance before the election, because it could have affected the outcome, but it clearly didn't, and has lost its relevance. Since there was no consensus to include even before the election, there is even less now. Length is irrelevant. There is no consensus to include, period. Claims of "consensus" are entirely misleading. ] (]) 19:09, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
:That's a good argument for exclusion indeed. — ] <sup>]</sup> 06:22, 16 November 2016 (UTC)


A:{{tq2|'''Donald John Trump''' (born June 14, 1946) is an American politician, media personality, and businessman who is the 47th ]. He served as the 45th president from 2017 to 2021.}}
== ] endorsement : 'Trump is really a centrist liberal' ==
B:{{tq2|'''Donald John Trump''' (born June 14, 1946) is an American politician, media personality, and businessman who is the 47th ]. A member of the ], he served as the 45th president from 2017 to 2021.}}
That sounds like a interesting characterization by one of the leading philosophers globally.
C:{{tq2|'''Donald John Trump''' (born June 14, 1946) is an American politician, businessman, and media personality who has been the 47th ] since 2025. A member of the ], he served as the 45th president from 2017 to 2021.}}
D:{{tq2|'''Donald John Trump''' (born June 14, 1946) is an American politician, businessman, and media personality who has been serving as 47th and current ] since 2025. A member of the ], he previously served as the 45th president from 2017 to 2021.}}
E:{{tq2|'''Donald John Trump''' (born June 14, 1946) is an American politician, businessman, and media personality who serves as 47th and current ] since 2025. A member of the ], he previously served as the 45th president from 2017 to 2021.}}
F:{{tq2|'''Donald John Trump''' (born June 14, 1946) is an American politician, businessman, and media personality who has been the 47th and current ] since 2025. A member of the ], he previously served as the 45th president from 2017 to 2021.}}
Where to mention it in the article? Polentarion ] 21:40, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
G:{{tq2|'''Donald John Trump''' (born June 14, 1946) is an American politician, businessman, and media personality who is the 47th and current ]. A member of the ], he previously served as the 45th president from 2017 to 2021.}}
: That is a good find, Polentarion. Žižek is not alone in making that assessment. There are GOP politicians in the US who concur with Žižek as well as people who are more centrist. I will look for some other sources and try to insert something about Žižek's views. Thank you!--] (]) 22:19, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
H:{{tq2|'''Donald John Trump''' (born June 14, 1946) is an American politician, businessman, and media personality who has served as the 47th ] since 2025, having previously served as the 45th president from 2017 to 2021.}}
:: Youre welcome. I added some other links, from Slate till ]. I like as well well the joke about both being interested in slowenian women with a 30 years age difference ;) I added a section in Žižek's article but I am more cautious about editing this honey pot. Polentarion ] 23:10, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
J:{{tq2|'''Donald John Trump''' (born June 14, 1946) is an American politician, media personality, and businessman who has served as the 47th ] since 2025. A member of the ], he previously served as the 45th president from 2017 to 2021.}}
::: Interesting theory but at this point I think it qualifies as an interesting ''fringe'' theory. None of those publications are regarded as mainstream, nor do they so regard themselves, as far as I know. --] (]) 00:30, 14 November 2016 (UTC)


===Sentences 1 and 2 survey===
:::: Sorry, but Die Zeit is a major weekly in Germany and very much mainstream, the British ] might lean to the left but is mainstream overthere as well. And Žižek himself is among the top 100 global intellectuals. Polentarion ] 22:26, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
*B then A. ] (]) 07:37, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
::::: {{reply to|Polentarion}} We're in the US, not Germany. Yes, ''Die Zeit'' is indeed "''very much mainstream over there''". But so is ''RT'' in Russia. That doesn't make them mainstream here. Also, your statement that "''Žižek himself is among the top 100 global intellectuals''" may be not be supported by quantitative global rankings (such as citation count). Thank you for trying to improve this article by citing Žižek. --] (]) 22:16, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
*B then A. &#8213;]&nbsp;] 08:00, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::: {{reply to|Dervorguilla}} The en WP is not about America. If we includes e.g. me, we are on the globe, not in the states. And Zizek has three professorships, on at New York University, one in the University of London and one in Lubljana. I started to edit on the Zizek-Trump story in Zizek's entry and have not yet found the section to do so in the Trump article. Any idea? Polentarion ] 22:36, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
*G. ] (]) 08:01, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::: {{reply to|Polentarion}} Thank you for providing this additional, very helpful information. ] does accordingly qualify as a "highly reputable" source, and you can cite him in passing. I would recommend adding a one-sentence paraphrase in the article body and a pertinent quotation of up to 49 words ''as a ref quote'' in the citation (not in the body). As for where to place it, you're on your own. --] (]) 22:52, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
*A or B. "Current" and "previously" are redundant since we're mentioning the dates. ]] 13:53, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::: {{reply to|Dervorguilla}} Youre very welcome. I will go along that line. Polentarion ] 23:04, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
*C followed by B. I replaced C with my own proposal (similar to F but without "and current" or "previously") because the one that was labeled as a MOS violation will clearly not win. –''']<sup> ] ]</sup>''' 21:09, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
*:I don't know if you noticed that the old C was one way-too-long sentence instead of two shorter ones. Plus the MOS vio. I was being ]y to include that, wanting to demonstrate the pitfalls of blind cross-article consistency to the proposer. You coulda left it and made yours H, saving some effort, but you're good. I'm too tired to check your work in the "Proposals containing" list. &#8213;]&nbsp;] 22:00, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
*B then A. -] (]) 21:45, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
*H (my own proposal) <u>then J</u> — "has served as" is more natural to be than "has been" or "is serving as"; words like "current" aren't needed because it's present tense and "since 2025" with no end date implies it, and one sentence total, without mentioning his party affiliation, while mentioning his tenure as the 45th directly after mentioning him as the 47th. ] (]) 22:49, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
*:Your proposal is a 39-word sentence, and your comment starting with "has" is a 56-word sentence. You seem to have a penchant for long sentences. What's inherently good about {{tq|one sentence total}}?{{pb}}"The best sentences are around 15-18 words long. Some sentences will be longer, but try keep your sentences to no more than 21-24 words at the most. This helps you keep your sentences grammatical because longer sentences need more conjunctions and more punctuation. Shorter sentences are easier for your reader as well." - {{pb}}Longest sentence in ABCDEFGJ (D sentence 1): 30 words. Average sentence in ABCDEFGJ: 21.4 words. You're 82% over that average. &#8213;]&nbsp;] 03:59, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
*::I didn't say there is anything inherently better about only one sentence. However, I felt that the lead sentence(s) would be more concise if the party affiliation was removed. When I did that, I realized that mentioning his previous role as the 45th president then felt unnatural in its own sentence. Therefore, I decided to fold it in to the previous sentence. For what it is worth, however, the new option J is equally preferable to me. (Because I don't feel strongly about whether his party affiliation is included in this part of the lead.) ] (]) 11:29, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
*:::Then I'd suggest changing your vote to J, since H has about a 1% chance of passing and you might as well not vote at all. &#8213;]&nbsp;] 11:45, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
*<s>H</s> '''J'''. Mostly per DecafPotato; the other wordings sound slightly awkward when I read them out loud (to me at least), and feel unnecessarily worded. "{{tq|has served as the 47th president since 2025}}" clearly communicates to readers that he is the current president. Note that I added H's wording to the article previously on ], which unfortunately got reverted. ] (]'''-''']) 23:25, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
*:{{tq|which unfortunately got reverted}} Hmmm, I wonder why. See my reply to the Potato. &#8213;]&nbsp;] 00:12, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
*::Two separate things. I replaced "{{tq|is currently serving as}}" with "{{tq|has served as}}". If combining the lede sentence with the second sentence (while removing "{{tq|A member of the Republican Party}}") is too controversial, I'd switch my !vote to support only the change I previously made. ] (]'''-''']) 01:41, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
*:::{{ping|Nythar}} Sure, I added J just for you. I don't think we've hit all possible permutations yet. &#8213;]&nbsp;] 02:10, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
*::::Thanks. ] (]'''-''']) 03:42, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
*J then B. ] (]) 03:15, 23 January 2025 (UTC)


== Infobox ==
It is true. Trump has supported one-for-all healthcare for America and his positions are very moderate on many issues. Same with French Le Pens... but media love to squeal far right far right far right. they are in trouble if there actually is a far right as they will have cried wolf. ] (]) 17:09, 14 November 2016 (UTC)


Concerning his being the 47th prez & previously the 45th prez. I'm assuming we're using the infobox of ], as how to handle this? ] (]) 18:39, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
: Sorry to say, but Mme le Pen tries to lead the far right party of her father into right wing populism. Zizek sees Trump as leading the GOP back to the center (economically and social policy wise away from Bible belters and Teabaggers) and camouflaging that shift with politically incorrect behaviour and quotes. Polentarion ] 22:26, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
:I and apparently got reverted seconds later. ]] 18:43, 20 January 2025 (UTC)


PS - I do 'kinda' understand though the potential false appearance of having 'incumbent' under 45th. That this would work better, after his second term ends. ] (]) 18:43, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
:: {{reply to|Polentarion}} Based on your comment, Žižek <s>needs</s> <u>may want</u> to study WP's "]" entry before making further observations about Trump. --] (]) 22:31, 15 November 2016 (UTC) 22:52, 15 November 2016 (UTC)


Grover Cleveland is long dead and buried and his two presidencies are very much in the distant past. We have a live and living sitting president who was also president in the more recent past. I fixed the infobox to separate the two terms:
::: I tend to not take Misplaced Pages articles for serious, I know who wrote them. However I like the idea about America's republicans being able to reinvent themselves. But "speak softly and carry a big stick" doesn't fit with the Donald, right? Polentarion ] 22:43, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
{{cot|Infobox A - separating the two terms}}

'''{{Infobox officeholder
: Zizek is a contrarian polemic. He's not a political scientist or historian of US politics. He also seems to be unfamiliar with Trump's actual stated policies on issues, framing him as pro-LGBT and not pro-life, despite Trump having vowed to overturn gay-marriage through the Supreme Court and overturn Roe v Wade. Zizek's uninformed input does not belong in this article. ] (]) 22:26, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
| image = TBA<!--DO NOT CHANGE THIS.[REDACTED] DOES NOT HAVE PERMISSION TO USE THE 2025 PORTRAIT. IT WAS TAKEN BY THE INAUGURAL COMMITTEE WHICH HOLDS THE COPYRIGHT FOR THE IMAGE. WHITEHOUSE.GOV HAS PERMISSION TO USE THE PORTRAIT;[REDACTED] DOES NOT. -->

| alt = Official White House presidential portrait.
::I'm surprised by the claim that those sources are not mainstream. That doesn't make any sense. But many people have commented on Trump. There has to be a special reason to cite any of them here.--] (]) 22:36, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
| caption = Official portrait, 2017

| order = 47th<!-- DO NOT ADD A LINK. Please discuss any proposal on the talk page first. Most recent discussion at ] had a weak consensus to keep the status-quo (no link). -->
::: First I disagree with the deletion , but I am not sure wether I am under sanctions if I revert once. The funny thing is that Zizek -. which is a professor in New York - would be the first scholalry source at all in section based on press clippings, and not any academic (political scientist or historian) has been quoted so far. ] does qualify both as a "highly reputable" and contrarian source, but he is being heard and noticed globally. I ask to reinstore the section, any improvement is welcome. Polentarion ] 22:58, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
| office = President of the United States

| vicepresident = ]
::::Zizek as (apparently) a Marxist-Leninist is not mainstream, and his opinion that Trump is a "centrist" is potentially distorted. Every man, every woman, every child, and every pet poodle has an opinion on Mr Trump, but we can't include everyone. I haven't seen any reason to include Zizek.--] (]) 12:10, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
| term_start = January 20, 2025

| term_end =
== Proposed War Crimes ==
| predecessor = ]

| successor =
Why isn't there any mention of Trump's ''much''-discussed proposal that the United States military target and kill the families of terrorists, an action that would be considered by most to be a war crime? Seems like such a significantly controversial part of his campaign, that it probably ought to be mentioned in the article's ''lead'', alongside his proposed ban on allowing Muslims to immigrate to the United States - but I can't find anything about this proposal ''anywhere'' in the article. --] (]) 23:23, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
| order2 = 45th President of the United States
: {{reply to|Jpcase}} I believe Mr. Trump has made more than one "''much-discussed''" "''significantly controversial''" proposal. --] (]) 00:17, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
| vicepresident2 = ]
: This definitely wouldn't be the article for it. Something like ] or the one for his presidential campaign might be more appropriate.] (]) 00:53, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
| term_start2 = January 20, 2017
::Agree. And even there subject to policy, and I don't know the details. &#8213;]&nbsp;] 07:52, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
| term_end2 = January 20, 2021
:::{{ping|Dervorguilla}} {{ping|Volunteer Marek}} {{ping|Mandruss}} I won't push this - but if Trump's proposed ban on Muslim immigration is notable enough to be mentioned in the ''lead'' here, then why wouldn't a proposal of his that the United States military commit a war crime be notable enough for mention ''anywhere'' in this article? Shouldn't there at least be a brief mention? --] (]) 15:36, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
| predecessor2 = ]
::::My guess is that that paragraph will be dramatically trimmed or eliminated now that the election is over. Many of us are still in post-election shock, so I'd give it a little time. &#8213;]&nbsp;] 15:43, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
| successor2 = Joe Biden
::::{{reply to|Jpcase}} Point taken. I withdraw my opposition. This is an (obvious) C-class article; its overall quality would not be harmed. --] (]) 02:55, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
}}'''

== Bring up the "President-elect" thing again ==

I know it's been addressed above, but I strongly suggest not listing Donald Trump as the president-elect when he ''objectively'' isn't. If reliable sources are calling him the president-elect, they're ''objectively'' wrong, and objectivity is important on Misplaced Pages. Donald Trump will not be the president-elect until 19 December, no matter what reliable—but still fallible—sources say. All major online dictionaries (, , ) define ''president-elect'' as "someone who has been elected president but has not officially started the position," and even Misplaced Pages's ] page describes the election as ending after electors cast their votes. Misplaced Pages is the only source (that I can find) that defines the ''president-elect'' as the "''apparent'' winner". I think this is especially important with the , that has over 4,000,000 signatures, urging the electoral college to vote Clinton for president (while I don't think it'd ever actually happen, it's still a possibility). ] (]) 05:23, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

:The movement to have the electors change their vote is a stunt and a farce. When Barack Obama was elected president, he became the president-elect. Just because it was Donald Trump who won this time around does not mean that we refuse the president-elect his rightful title. Trump was elected president on November 8, 2016. That is not a matter of dispute. ] (]) 05:53, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

:You're right, it's been addressed previously. Multiple times. Have you read all of it? Do you have a new argument, or a counter to the consensus argument? If not, why did you bring it up again? &#8213;]&nbsp;] 06:35, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

:{{u|YourAuntEggma}}, please consider reading ], which provides a helpful explanation of how our ] policy is applied in these types of situations. ---] (]) 07:07, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

::{{u|DrFleischman}}, thank you, this helps. I understand now. However, out of curiosity, why does Misplaced Pages prefer incorrect information given from a reliable source over objectively correct information? ] (]) 03:50, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
:::{{re|YourAuntEggma}} Probably because ] is elusive. {{p}} More seriously, it has been argued that WP relies excessively on journalistic sources, therefore reflecting a potential ] in the collective ]. However, for any objectively contested topic, sufficiently strong sources will be representing the ''contra'' position and will end up covered in WP with ] weight. Ultimately, with well-developed WP articles, the ] can learn about the many views about a subject, with appropriate balance about their levels of support in published commentary, and they can make their own opinion based on a fair representation of the issues. As knowledge evolves, so does coverage, which is why ] and ]. — ] <sup>]</sup> 05:26, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

::::{{ping|JFG}}} The clear preponderance of reliable sources say he is the president-elect. To my mind, that's the end of the discussion. Help me out here, what am I missing here? &#8213;]&nbsp;] 06:03, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
:::::{{re|Mandruss}} I agree that he is, and I pointed this out to many fellow editors over this tumultuous week. You're not missing anything, except perhaps {{diff||749627678||three decades of rappers' musings on Donald Trump}}. {{p}} — ] <sup>]</sup> 06:15, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
::::::Ok, just didn't see the benefit of discussing "WP philosophy" in this case. I'm simple-minded. &#8213;]&nbsp;] 06:18, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
:::::::Yeah, guess I was feeling educational towards my fellow editors this morning. — ] <sup>]</sup> 06:59, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

== New photo ==
{{cot|1=Superseded by active RfC. &#8213;]&nbsp;] 16:37, 17 November 2016 (UTC)}}
] has agreed, ] has agreed, ] has agreed, ] has agreed. So why are we STILL using a low-quality 2015 photo of Trump here???? Can we just finally agree here, for once and for all, to change the lead image to this:

] <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 16:03, 14 November 2016 (UTC)</small>

:Sigh. Summoning strength (or trying to), considering ]. &#8213;]&nbsp;] 16:22, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

::You need to get an official photo approved by the individual. Famous folks like Trump have readily available approved photos. It's not up to WP editors to stage a beauty pageant or photoshop retouching bee. That's why we end up with silly threads that say he looks like a chicken in this one and she looks Martian with the red blouse, etc etc. ]] 16:26, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

:::I remember derp face. &#8213;]&nbsp;] 16:32, 14 November 2016 (UTC)


::Let's wait on this. When President Trump is sworn in, he will have an official picture made for the Armed Forces chain of command. Let's wait and use that picture. IMO, all the pictures shown so far suck.] (]) 18:41, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
:::Let's not disparage his appearance. This one is very flattering, but it shouldn't be up to us. ]] 01:21, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

* wow that face, its exactly like my constipation face..we should use it , TheDonald just realising what he got into .lol ..--<span style="color:blue;font-weight:bold;font-size:medium;font-family: Monotype Corsiva;">]]</span> 01:34, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
{{cob}} {{cob}}
and then by {{u|Admiral Farmer}} with the edit summary "Since this is the same office, I combinded it into one square. much like the one on Grover Cleveland’s page".

{{cot|Infobox B in the style of Grover Cleveland}}
==New Post election consensus==
{{Infobox officeholder
{{cot|1=Superseded by active RfC. &#8213;]&nbsp;] 16:50, 17 November 2016 (UTC)}}
| image = TBA
Since the election a new consensus has emerged (] and ]). That there was actually a "consensus" to keep the unflattering picture of Trump over the more favorable/formal poses is troubling and negatively reflects on Misplaced Pages, the consensus process and the idea of neutrality. Since the election 11 users have expressed a desire to change the existing photo to a better picture, while 5 editors want to keep the existing image. Can we now make the change and treat the Trump article fairly? -- ] (]) 18:07, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
| alt = 2017 Official White House presidential portrait.
:Not another picture discussion. Any suggestion that editors here have reached consensus to purposely insist that the photo must be unflattering is a vio of ]. I hope that isn't what anyone is saying. ] (]) 18:14, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
| caption = Official portrait, 2025
:::"Another picture discussion"? I was referring to the existing one. The prior consensus was established before the election, as I've said several times now. I was ] and were well aware that the current picture is objectionable. Don't cry 'lack of good faith' when someone assumes they knew what they were doing. There is a new consensus. Can we get on with this without these diversion tactics? -- ] (]) 19:44, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
| order = 45th and 47th<!-- DO NOT ADD A LINK. Please discuss any proposal on the talk page first. Most recent discussion at ] had a weak consensus to keep the status-quo (no link). -->
::::There is no "new consensus" sufficient to override the existing hard-fought RfC consensus, as has been explained to you with great clarity. You did not respond to that explanation, and it would be pointless to try because there is no viable response to it. Nothing in the existing RfC consensus said, "This consensus will be void after the election", so you're inventing your own rules. &#8213;]&nbsp;] 19:51, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
| office = President of the United States

| vicepresident = ]
:There is an active RfC for the purpose of deciding (1) should the infobox image be changed before the official White House portrait is made available, and (2) if so, what should it be changed to. This has been explained to you above in a thread you created, you didn't like what you heard there, so you started another thread in the hopes of getting a different answer. You were out of process before, you remain out of process, and you are becoming tiresome. ] and ] apply here, and you are approaching ]. See the essay ]. &#8213;]&nbsp;] 19:37, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
| term_start = January 20, 2025
::] and I'm well aware of the discussion, which, btw, I linked to. Hello? Once again, the former consensus was established before the election and a new consensus has emerged. How long do you plan on ]? You should learn that consensus can change, and there is nothing lately that says it hasn't. Sorry. Please don't assume the roll of talk page cop with this apparent effort to ] new consensus that the above RfC has revealed. We have heard your opinion coming and going -- your name occurs more than ] on the existing talk page alone. Please let other editors establish the consensus so we can move on. -- ] (]) 19:58, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
| term_end =
:::Sorry, the "Wrong on all counts" link to ] makes no sense. AGF is not about being right or wrong. I don't doubt your good faith, I doubt your competence on this question.<br />I will now bow out of discussion of this dispute. I've said everything there is to say about this, and it's clear that it would be pointless to continue saying it. If any editor changes the infobox image without an RfC consensus to do so, and I have reason to believe they are aware of this dispute, the question will be resolved at ] with the possiibility of preventative sanction for disruptive editing. I would much prefer that an admin proactively stated here that my position is correct as to process, so we could get on with our work, but it has been seen above that admins are very reluctant to step in and stop disruption at this article. That leaves ANI as the only remaining option. &#8213;]&nbsp;] 20:17, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
| predecessor = ]
:::::Speaking for myself, I've no intention for changing anything without consensus. All that was asked is that the new consensus be recognized, as it is the latest and was established after the election. Acknowledging that the current picture is horrible and raises POV issues would be a sign of good faith, btw. -- ] (]) 20:26, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
| successor =
::::::{{tq|I've no intention for changing anything without consensus}} I said '''RfC''' consensus. Replacing the existing '''RfC''' consensus. {{tq|Acknowledging that the current picture is horrible and raises POV issues would be a sign of good faith}} No it would not. It would be a sign of agreeing with your viewpoint. I said I would bow out of discussion, but that was incorrect. I will bow of out of discussion when you cease addressing me directly with such flawed reasoning. &#8213;]&nbsp;] 20:31, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
| vicepresident1 = ]
::::::::::It was flawed reasoning that says the current picture is the best image for the article. We are not trying to decipher hieroglyphs here. Claiming that the existing image is all a matter of how you look at it is a POV cop-out. Esp when there are a fair number of better poses, with smiles, to chose from. Or are those images with smiling poses something that is equally abstract to you and all a matter of "viewpoint"? &nbsp;BS. -- ] (]) 20:45, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
| term_start1 = January 20, 2017
:::::::::::I am not in love with the current image. I am, however, in love with the reasoning in the essay ]. Have you read it? I have. I and others believe that cost exceeds benefit of debating what photo is shown in that infobox for the two or three months before the White House official portrait becomes available. That's a good faith non-spurious argument, I get that you and others disagree with it. You're entitled to disagree with it, but you are not entitled to say that it lacks legitimacy. The way to resolve that good faith disagreement is through an '''RfC''' that replaces the existing '''RfC''' consensus. The fact that the election is over does not change the fact that there is an enormous weight difference between the existing consensus and the one that you say should replace it, one that is far less formal and involves far fewer editors. I reiterate. Again. &#8213;]&nbsp;] 20:58, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
| term_end1 = January 20, 2021
::{{od}}
| predecessor1 = ]
Consensus is an entity unto itself and changes. We must go by the latest consensus, wherever it may be found, esp on the Talk page of the article in question. You can't ignore the existing consensus and say those who don't aren't following process. You say you don't love the existing image, yet you voted to keep it from the start. Yes we have no bananas? -- ] (]) 21:09, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
| successor1 = Joe Biden
:See my previous comment. I certainly can ignore your little consensus, for the reason I clearly articulated there. All consensuses are not created equal. They have varying weight, and a 1-pound consensus cannot replace a 50-pound consensus. Period. &#8213;]&nbsp;] 21:14, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
}}

On various Trump related pages there have been hundreds of Talk edits on the subject of his photos. As soon as a decision is made, yet another discussion begins. Let us be honest. He doesn’t photograph well. I’m not saying that as a measure of his character. I’m saying that it is patently obvious from all the discussions. All the photos show him as smirking, growling, yelling, orange, or with some other problem. The photo in a new discussion above has been previously quoted as making him look squinting and constipated. Blaming editors for bad faith because the photo is not compelling is out of line. A suggestion was made that we wait for an official presidential photo. I really don’t see how anyone can argue with that. ] (]) 23:05, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
:::* {{ping|mandruss}} Consensus can change, as any experienced editor will tell you. POV issues are nothing new and they will continue to surface every time a controversial subject presents itself. The "50 pound consensus" was established some time before Trump was elected and as such can easily be regarded as out dated. There are new and significant considerations to address now, including newer images of Trump. Were any formal/smiling images of Trump considered when this "50 pound" consensus was established? If so, I'll bow out now and wait for the formal presidential photo to be released. -- ] (]) 02:06, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
:::* {{ping|Objective3000}} This might be easier to accept if there were no formal poses with Trump smiling, however there are and have been. It can easily be argued that a formal pose with Trump smiling, in full display above, be used to replace the one that has been objected to by many editors. Apparently the formal/smiling images of Trump were not considered when the old consensus was established. If we don't come up to speed on this and wait months for a formal pose (esp when several formal poses are presently available) and much of America views the current photo on ''Inauguration Day'', it could cause a good segment of the readership to come to regard Misplaced Pages as no more credible than the ''Enquire'', just in case anyone's concerned. -- ] (]) 02:06, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
*Consensus has not changed. It would take a new RfC, and any attempt at a new RfC would probably get shouted down, because people are sick and tired of arguing the same issue over and over. (That's undoubtedly why more people aren't chiming in here. Their silence reflects "This matter has been settled, stop bringing it up.") The RfC went on for a long time; it involved many people; it doesn't change because somebody objects to it. As for your accusation that people deliberately chose an unflattering image: personally I thought, and still think, it was the best of the images on offer. Most of them showed him smirking, or with his eyes squinting closed. And yes, many of them were "formal smiling poses". This image shows him looking alert, interested, and curious, as if talking to someone. It's not ideal but it was better than what else was on offer. ] (]) 03:37, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

And in case you don't know, Gwillhickers, this is the '''admin input''' I was wishing for. I sincerely hope we can drop this, at long last. &#8213;]&nbsp;] 05:18, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
:::Okay, smiling formal poses were available, yet were not chosen. Gosh, my faith is restored. Yes, Trump looks serious -- he also and obviously looks angry -- not shouting or screaming, but clearly pissed-off. Anyway, the first RfC came before the election. Many people chimed in immediately thereafter with complaints about the existing image of Trump. What will you do when others continue to object, as they have and no doubt will continue to do? Shush them away and direct them not to talk because others have already discussed it? Also, Mandruss, with all due respect for administrators, while they have certain privileges, this doesn't make them more qualified to make subject/content decisions, and if I'm not mistaken, they can't stop someone from beginning a new conference or RfC simply because legitimate considerations have emerged, like the election. Much of America and the world will now be reading this biography, where they'll also look at Clinton's bio and see a pleasing pose. But when they compare it the Trump biography they will see the exact opposite with some people rationalizing that the picture is 'okay', which will tell them that Misplaced Pages is just another biased political rag. We need a new ''post election'' RfC. Making everyone wait months for a better picture is unfair. I move that a new post-election RfC be initiated. If no one seconds this motion, then I'll wipe the egg off my face and wait for the official picture to arrive, someday. -- ] (]) 16:01, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

::::One more comment pointing out your flawed reasoning and/or ignorance, and then I'm done with you. {{tq|which will tell them that Misplaced Pages is just another biased political rag.}} Yes, much of the public is <u>constantly</u> seeing bias at Misplaced Pages. That will always be true. They understand ] even less than the huge number of Misplaced Pages editors who misunderstand it (which includes you, apparently). So what? We edit Misplaced Pages according to Misplaced Pages policy, not to avoid external criticism. Best of luck with your plans for continued disruption. &#8213;]&nbsp;] 16:26, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

OK, Gwillhickers, you've made your motion for a new RFC. The appropriate action now would be to stop arguing and wait to see if you get any support for the idea. Fair enough? ] (]) 17:36, 15 November 2016 (UTC) P. S. Just to make it clear: I function at this article as just another editor. I do not take any admin actions here because I am ]. ] (]) 17:47, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

:{{ping|MelanieN alt|MelanieN}} One of us is missing something here. There is already an active RfC about infobox image, at ]. What "new RfC" are you referring to? &#8213;]&nbsp;] 17:58, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
::I didn't realize that one was still active. Apparently neither did Gwillhickers with their call here for a new RFC. ] (]) 18:05, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
:::Gwillhickers has been advised of the existing RfC multiple times throughout this multi-thread dispute. They were well aware of it. &#8213;]&nbsp;] 18:08, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

:As an admin, you are a relative expert on many things including Misplaced Pages process. I'm going to assume that you don't forget all that when you login as your alt. I did call it "admin input", not "admin ruling". I don't expect your comments to be binding, only informative. &#8213;]&nbsp;] 18:03, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
::You understand that; I just wanted to make sure Gwillhickers does. You called attention to my admin status. I didn't want them to think I was trying to give any kind of orders or throw my weight around. ] (]) 18:09, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
:::I think a reasonable editor with 55K edits, acting in good faith, would read your comments and reluctantly concede. I know I would in their place, I don't believe I know more about Misplaced Pages process than a widely respected admin. {{tq|Consensus has not changed. It would take a new RfC ...}} &#8213;]&nbsp;] 21:46, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
:::*{{ping|MelanieN}} I didn't try to make anything of you being an administrator, as Mandruss attempted to do. (No? why was it brought up?) No one is forced to participate in these discussions and I don't appreciate being harassed by the same lone editor (not you) who has resorted to personal attacks several times now. Many readers have expressed legitimate concerns, since the election, on the Talk page. Should we ignore them? RfC's are for editors. Very few, if any, readers ever participate there. The Talk page is where concerned ''readers'' air their concerns, and they should be counted in the consensus process when they take the time to chime in. Should we ignore them because of an outdated RfC that occurred before it was known that Trump was our next president? -- ] (]) 23:37, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
:::::{{re|Gwillhickers}} This article peaked at 6 million views a day, an exceptional surge for any article in Misplaced Pages's history. In that context, some readers don't like the picture and they should not be ignored. However we cannot guess how many readers would have complained about ''another'' picture, had it been changed to one of the suggestions. Each proposed picture was deemed unfathomable by enough people that none gathered enough support over the current one. Obviously ] applies, you are free to suggest a change and see if the community would support it now. Alas, this is ultimately an ] / ] debate, as was noted repeatedly in long-winded discussions about the most suitable portrait. The only event that might change the status quo is the issue of an official photograph by the Trump campaign (that didn't happen) or by the White House (that will happen soon enough). — ] <sup>]</sup> 05:09, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
::::::{{ping|JFG}} My whole point is that that discussion belongs in the active RfC, not in separate unstructured threads. But we can't do that because Gwillhickers refuses to go there and discuss it, instead insisting on taking the issue out of that process and starting one thread after another to demand that his mini-consensus replace the existing hard-fought RfC consensus. Please, let's observe process first, then discuss content. &#8213;]&nbsp;] 07:44, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
:::*{{Ping|Mandruss}} The readers should be our top priority. They are the ''only reason'' why we are here. When the ''readers'' compare the Clinton and Trump pages they're going to wonder what's going on around here. Brushing it off as "external criticism" is a slap in the face to the readership. There is no policy, proceedual or otherwise, that says consensus can't be reestablished when circumstances warrant it, as they have, on the Talk page. I will consider initiating a post election RfC. In the mean time all editors need to limit their discussions to ''article improvement'', (a Talk page policy I'm sure you're not ignorant about) and not get their feathers ruffled when someone doesn't accept their opinion as gospel. If something comes up on a Talk page someone doesn't like, no one is forcing them to participate, so kindly not carry on like you're emotionally disabled, 'disrupted', and are being dragged through this against your will. If concerns come up on the TALK page, then they naturally are addressed on the TALK page. Your efforts have only attempted to disrupt this legitimate process. -- ] (]) 23:37, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
:::* Re the claim: "Consensus has not changed. It would take a new RfC." Okay, can we see the policy that expresses this idea exactly? Is there a time limit? Two years from now will we still be required to use the RfC to establish consensus? If that's truly the case then I'll forget about trying to resolve the matter here. -- ] (]) 23:52, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

:::::We seem to be entering a new era of nastiness. We are all volunteers. Can we try to be polite? ] (]) 23:58, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

::::::Gwillhickers, I am totally baffled what your point is in this thread. You are demanding a new post-election RFC. There IS such an RFC currently active on this page. As you already know, and as Mandruss has reminded you. You already have what you are asking for. So why are you still asking for it ? ] (]) 05:12, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

::::: {{reply to|Gwillhickers}} My understanding is that the subject himself does not find the photograph objectionable. Moreover, it comports with the take-home message in his acceptance speech: He is actively '''listening''' to other peoples' voices. --] (]) 05:18, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

:::::Please note that there is a guideline advising against using bullets in a thread that was started without bullets, or vice versa. Switching the method makes formatting for good readability unnecessarily difficult.<br />{{tq|Two years from now will we still be required to use the RfC to establish consensus?}} - After we have an official photo for Trump, are we going to consider a different official photo while he's in office? Why on earth would we do that? Because the first official photo is a ] violation? As for after he leaves office, with the possible exception of Lyndon Johnson - ] - the bio of every former U.S. president after Franklin Roosevelt shows an official government photo in the infobox. Why would there be a need to revisit the photo then? For that matter, I wouldn't see a problem with a Donald Trump photo RfC every four years, and there is no way we would need anywhere near that much. &#8213;]&nbsp;] 11:11, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
:::::::{{ping|MelanieN}} The ] has been closed. There is a ], which is where the consensus I referred to is located, but this is not an RfC. RfC's are usually on their own page. Anyway, I said I would consider an RfC, per your statement that it would take another RfC to override the old one, but the idea of post election considerations seem to be routinely ignored by a couple of editors. -- ] (]) 21:54, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
:::::::{{ping|Dervorguilla}} The existing picture of Trump may have been taken from footage during a debate, and viewing it in that ''context'' is quite different than viewing the single image photo used in a WP article, esp when compared to the favorable pose of Clinton. Again, the existing photo is out of context, misleading and disparaging in that regard. Where are you getting the idea that Trump "does not find the photograph objectionable". I sort of doubt he'd approve of using this out of context image in his biography. Many people already find the image, uh, less than acceptable, esp when compared to other biographies showing formal/smiling poses, as the Clinton bio does. Not a fair and balanced presentation for the readers, who should be our primary concern. -- ] (]) 21:54, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

::::::::{{tq|The RfC above has been closed.}} That RfC above has been closed, but it had nothing to do with the infobox image and therefore nothing to do with this dispute. The applicable open RfC, which I identified and linked above at 17:58, 15 November 2016 for MelanieN since she was new to this dispute, is at ].<br />{{tq|RfC's are usually on their own page}} - Incorrect, per the first sentence at ]. &#8213;]&nbsp;] 22:15, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

::::::::Ultimately, while you have some support as to content, you remain all alone as to <u>process</u> regarding this issue. That's basically the test for the widely-accepted essay ]. If you remain a minority of 1 after a couple of days of very active discussion, you review ] and move on—even if you are absolutely certain that your debate opponents are wrong. That's the only practical way this business can work, and this is another thing that I feel you should already understand at your experience level. In this case, "move on" means go participate in the decision-making process already started in that RfC. If your preferred image is not on the table there, I don't see a problem with adding it yourself, especially with so few !votes already stated there. &#8213;]&nbsp;] 22:38, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
:{{od}}
===New Post election consensus (cont)===
{{ping|Mandruss}}, more so than anyone, by far, you're all over the map around here and need to stop reassuring yourself by speaking for other editors. As you're well aware, many editors/readers have expressed a desire to change the existing photo since the election and are not fixated on your narrow take of process, such that it was, before the election. i.e.Not carved in stone for all time. Since the 2nd RfC is stuck in the middle of this (very) long talk page, many, like myself who have arrived later and/or haven't sifted through the entire page, no doubt will overlook this RfC, which, btw, only has two similar photos to chose from, which even I find less than adequate. Once again your concern for the readership seems to have taken a back seat to your apparent blind allegiance for that pre-election RfC. -- ] (]) 03:03, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

::{{reply to|Gwillhickers}} "''Where are you getting the idea that Trump 'does not find the photograph objectionable'.''" A truly authoritative source for that information would most likely have communicated it only in confidence, but you can take my word for it. "''Many people already find the image ... less than acceptable ... when compared to other biographies showing formal/smiling poses, as the Clinton bio does.''" Yes, but Clinton's an acknowledged loser. ]'s an (historic) winner and he apparently would not have felt a need to smile for his Misplaced Pages photo. --] (]) 01:22, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
:::{{ping|Dervorguilla}} Be that it may, that's not going to cut it in an open date where editors are expected to at least make an attempt to support highly questionable claims such as you've made. -- ] (]) 03:03, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

::{{tq|stuck in the middle of this (very) long talk page}} Not a problem, we can move it to the bottom if that's an issue for you. {{tq|only has two similar photos to chose from, which even I find less than adequate.}} I just suggested you add your preferred image, and that's far from the first time you have failed to hear what I said. Are you intentionally doing this or just uninterested in real discussion and communication here? Anyway, as Melanie has indicated, this question of Misplaced Pages process is not a matter for debate and consensus, so it matters not how many other editors feel it should be circumvented. I don't care if you have somehow evaded standard process your entire Misplaced Pages career (you appeared to know little or nothing about RfCs, stating that they usually have their own page), that doesn't make that legitimate. Need I list the things you have gotten objectively wrong in these threads? I really don't think you're in a position to tell me I don't know what I'm talking about here. I reiterate, you are a minority of 1 as to process, and nothing you can say here will ever change that fact. &#8213;]&nbsp;] 03:23, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
{{cob}} {{cob}}
It's the same title but 45 is an office Trump held from 2017 to 2021, and 47 is an office he is holding now. Please, self-revert, or maybe someone else who agrees with my reasoning could revert. ]] 18:55, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
:In the split version, the office shouldn't be lower-cased. ] (]) 18:59, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
::Yes, it should be, per ]. 45th is a modifier. 47th is, too, but the capitalized "P" of "President of the United States" is baked into the template — it links to the Misplaced Pages article. We could change it to the grammatically correct lower-case p, I assume, but that would lead to a permanent back-and-forth. ]] 19:36, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
:::You're right, it should be lower-cased per JOBTITLE. But this is one place where I think cross-article consistency is a worthwhile thing, and nobody has found the energy to raise this at Village Pump. I find it easier to stomach if I tell myself that heading is in title case. &#8213;]&nbsp;] 20:33, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
:::For the time being, offices are upper-cased in infoboxes regardless of modifiers. ] (]) 20:36, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
::::I.e., title case. What I said. &#8213;]&nbsp;] 20:38, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
::::As far as I can tell, they're only upper-cased because they link to a Misplaced Pages article. But meh, I can live with an upper-case "P". Other than that, any thoughts about the merits? ]] 20:45, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::Merits? You mean splitting idea? ] (]) 20:54, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::No, we often lower-case the first letter of a link to an article. The first character is case-insensitive. See the first sentence of this article, for an example. &#8213;]&nbsp;] 21:00, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::{{tq|Other than that, any thoughts about the merits?}} Other than what I said in my first comment? &#8213;]&nbsp;] 21:03, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::Merits, two editors asking — the problem must be me. Too obtuse? Which do you prefer, Infobox A with one box for each term or Infobox B? And, PLEASE, disregard the portrait, it changes every two minutes. ]] 21:26, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::::I presume with 'version B', you meant to include the office? ] (]) 21:32, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::::Yes. I just fixed it — don't know what happened there, I just copied it from the main space. ]] 22:08, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::::Ok, so I see two differences between A and B:
:::::::*A has two heading lines. B has one heading line.
:::::::*For me, and I'm not universal, A's headings fit on one line. B's heading wraps. Big deal.
:::::::I don't think one is easier to read or understand than the other. So it's practically a toss-up, a flip of a coin. <del>If I have to !vote, I'll !vote for the one with one heading line (B).</del> &#8213;]&nbsp;] 22:31, 20 January 2025 (UTC) Edited 22:40, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::::It didn't take me long to change my mind. B says "45th and 47th", then shows 47th and 45th. Therefore A is a little easier to understand, <del>and I hereby change my !vote to A.</del> &#8213;]&nbsp;] 22:53, 20 January 2025 (UTC) Edited 04:22, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::::Honestly not really? 45 comes before 47, and the 2017-21 term of office clearly came before 2025-present. Rather self explanatory. We can add a note if need be to clarify. But splitting would really make this article inconsistent with all others as all other infoboxes of leaders with multiple terms still use one box. Example: ], ], ].
::::::::Now the latter two examples aren't counting two separate terms as we have here, but splitting the boxes instead of using a note to clarify would be more inconsistent with the format other articles use for similar situations. Unless there's an example I missed where they do split the boxes for an incumbent with a previous term ] (]) 01:48, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
:I agree that there should be two separate boxes. ] (]) 20:17, 20 January 2025 (UTC)


:::::::Best we stick with option '''B''', though I do understand why some might prefer 'A'. Thing is, an RFC would likely be the only chance for 'A' to be adopted & I doubt that would be much of a chance. ] (]) 23:01, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
== New York City, New York, U.S. ==
:'''Option B''' other incumbent world leaders who have served previous terms also use just one box. 45th POTUS is not a distinct office from 47th POTUS which would seem the case if it were two different boxes. Also this concern seems to be splitting hairs as most readers can probably understand 45th is for the 2017-21 term and 47 for 2025-present fairly easily. ] (]) 01:15, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
::*I posit that 90% could figure it out if they studied it for half a minute (assume they have never seen an officeholder's infobox before). Why make them study it for half a minute? And then there's the 8% who would take considerably longer, and the 2% who would never figure it out.
::*{{tq|other incumbent world leaders}} I don't care. Other stuff exists. 99% of readers will never notice such a "discrepancy", and it's highly unlikely to present an actual problem for the remaining 1%.
::*{{tq|45th POTUS is not a distinct office from 47th POTUS}} is your one decent point, and I'll think on it. It might even change my !vote (back). &#8213;]&nbsp;] 01:44, 21 January 2025 (UTC)


'''Question''' Is there agreement that after Trump's term ends the same format as Grover Cleveland's article should be used? Regardless of what you think it should be now with him as incumbent - ] (]) 03:26, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
I wonder why we would need this degree of specificity in the birthplace field. Are there a lot of other New York Cities in the world forcing us to disambiguate like this? So far as I am aware there are not, so New York City, U.S. would seem adequate. --] (]) 19:13, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
:Agree. I guess there are a few isolated tribes in Papua New Guinea who don't know that New York City is in the state of New York, but they don't have Internet access. Wait ... they don't speak English, either. We don't need superfluous data, especially in infoboxes. &#8213;]&nbsp;] 19:46, 14 November 2016 (UTC) :May we save that for January 2029? If I agreed now, that doesn't mean I'll feel the same way then. &#8213;]&nbsp;] 03:43, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
::Agree. Absolutely do not need that level of disambiguation. If the article itself doesn't need disambiguation (] in this case), the infobox doesn't either. ] ] 20:56, 14 November 2016 (UTC) '''Option B''' per discussion. Lesser of two weevils. &#8213;]&nbsp;] 04:22, 21 January 2025 (UTC)


The ] applies to presidents of the United States as there is no special template for them. The template specifies the parameters president, order, office, term start, term end, predecessor, and successor for the first office. It specifies the parameters president2, order2, office2, term start2, term end2, predecessor2, and successor2 for the second office (up to 16 offices). It does not provide parameters for combining two terms of office, i.e., the format used at ] is wrong. But Cleveland's two terms are both over, so who cares; I’m not going to start editing there. In Trump's case we should use the parameters as intended. The usage instructions of the template say that {{tq|The parameter |order= is used in conjunction with |office= to state that the officeholder is the nth holder of the office, for example "42nd President of the United States".}} The incumbent is the 47th President of the United States, not the 45th and 47th. ]] 10:03, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
What should be in the infobox and what should not? Which form?


{{ping|Mandruss}} {{ping|GoodDay}} {{ping|Bokmanrocks01}}: Option B does not comply with the template's usage instructions (and neither does ], for that matter). This is what I should have lead with if I had looked up the template yesterday. ]] 10:29, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
*New York City/New York
:{{ping|Space4Time3Continuum2x}} Does it specifically address nonconsecutive terms, or are you reading something into it? &#8213;]&nbsp;] 10:51, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
::No and no. The logic of the parameters (e.g., order, order2, order3 ... order16) seems self-explanatory to me, as does the infobox ({{{order}}},{{{term start}}}–{{{term end}}},{{{:president}}} ...; {{{order2}}},{{{term start2}}}–{{{term end2}}},{{{president2}}} ...). And intended to {{tq|aid users in the application of {{:Infobox officeholder}}}} has an example for someone who held the office of Ambassador of the United States twice (]). ]] 11:54, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
:::Different ambassadorships, different offices. Not equivalent. You've lost me with the rest. All I infer from that is that it's ''possible'' to do A (we knew that), but nothing to imply that we ''should'' do A. &#8213;]&nbsp;] 12:14, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
::::Same office (Ambassador of the United States), different country:
::::*| ambassador_from=United States | country=France
::::*| ambassador_from'''2'''=United States | country'''2'''=the United Kingdom
::::Same office (President of the United States), different status (incumbent and former):
::::*| order=47th | '''office'''= President of the United States | term_start=January 20, 2025 | term–end= -> gives '''47th ]''' + '''Incumbent''' + '''Assumed office''' + '''January 20, 2025'''
::::*| order'''2'''=45th President of the United States | term_start'''2'''=January 20, 2017 | term–end'''2'''=January 20, 2021 -> gives '''45th President of the United States''' + '''In office''' + '''January 20, 2017–January 20, 2021'''
::::Citing an ]: {{tq|The 47th and current president of the United States is Donald John Trump.}} Seems logical to me. Oh well, good thing I reconsidered going into teaching. ]] 13:39, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::Lol. &#8213;]&nbsp;] 13:40, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::Still seems like that is one way order ''can'' be used but not necessarily how it ''should'' be. Still haven't seen any other articles that separate different terms of one office into different sections in the infobox. Again, we can just add a note somewhere if we are concerned about the order combined into one section causing confusion ] (]) 15:57, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
:Whatcha mean? ] (]) 11:54, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
::See my response to Mandruss. I don't know how to explain myself any better. ]] 13:39, 21 January 2025 (UTC)


== Website ==
*Jamaica


Should whitehouse.gov now be added to the infobox? ] (]) 18:41, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
*Richmond Hill


:Definitely, especially considering that it is "Trump-themed" now ] (]) 19:20, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
*Queens


== Portrait ==
*]/New York etc. (the state)


The of Donald Trump is actually licensed under the CC BY 3.0 US license, see https://www.whitehouse.gov/copyright/ – {{tq|"Except where otherwise noted, third-party content on this site is licensed under a "}}. The same applies to the portrait of JD Vance. ] (]) 19:01, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
*United States/U.S./US etc.


] (]) 21:29, 14 November 2016 (UTC) :I agree we should change it to those soon ] (]) 19:10, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
:'''No'''. That is ]. The White House did not take the photograph. They do not own the copyright. It does not matter what someone other than the copyright holder says about the copyright status. Normally we would be able to trust the White House, but Trump did the same thing (stole an image) in 2017 when he took office. There is no reason to believe that the White House owns the copyright to this image, and thus they have no authority to release such copyright. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez &#124; ] &#124; ] 19:12, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
:::This is original research and violates ] policy. ] (]) 20:24, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
::The image is on Commons, and was ] after a deletion request. We shouldn't relitigate that here, but at Commons. -- ] (]) 19:22, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
:::It's already renominated and the administrator being discussed there. The administrator on commons violated their own policy by SUPERVOTING on the request and ignoring the laundering concerns. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez &#124; ] &#124; ] 19:26, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
:So, we need to confirm that it was taken by the U.S. Government. A transition official or an official working on behalf of the official transition would count. However, I just want to note you are incorrect in the way you have cited the White House's copyright policy. The White House, legally, cannot pull a picture from the public domain if it was produced by the White House. Congress would have to amend copyright law for them to be able to do so. So, again, I agree with the above. We just need to wait on ownership confirmation. ] (]) 19:19, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
::The WH needs to clearly label or footnote the images. doesn't help. How is anyone supposed to know which material is government-produced and which is third-party content. ]] 19:49, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
:* '''Comment''' Whether or not it is in the public domain, this is his inaugural photo, not his official portrait, which has not yet been taken.
:] (]) 20:20, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
*We cannot question reliable sources and the official White House website is a reliable source. If the White House website says the portrait is public domain then that's good enough for Misplaced Pages. ] (]) 20:22, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
*:We can and do ] before we use it. If there is '''any''' doubt, which there is here, then the image is to be presumed copyrighted until '''proven''' otherwise by an explicit release from the photographer. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez &#124; ] &#124; ] 20:25, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
*::You are misstating the Commons policy. The Commons policy is "significant doubt" not "'''any''' doubt" as you say. And there is not significant doubt in this case. ] (]) 20:31, 20 January 2025 (UTC)


:Can we wait until his '''Presidential''' portrait is released before changing the image? This is merely a portrait for the inauguration, same with ]'s. ] (]) (]) 20:46, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''New York City, U.S.''' and I consider the U.S. part a compromise. We don't need superfluous data, especially in infoboxes. Suggestion at ] notwithstanding; I call ]. &#8213;]&nbsp;] 21:33, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
::It is a better image than the old one. No reason to wait. -- ] (]) 20:50, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
:: ]'s argument is even more persuasive now, given the addition of 'Residence: ]'. The ] would prescribe 'Birth place: ], New York, U.S.', which has been (understandably) rejected, so we're left with the ] guideline ("exclude any unnecessary content"), which can be interpreted to prescribe ']'. --] (]) 03:54, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
:::If I were smart enough to untangle this mess, I'd volunteer to close discussions. An RfC to decide the value of a birthplace field? Moggles the bind. My suggestion to move this to a resolution: Just agree with me. :) &#8213;]&nbsp;] 09:38, 21 November 2016 (UTC) :::Better/worse is a matter of subjectivity which isn't the issue here. It is about selecting which picture is most appropriate for the article, and that to me is going to be his presidential portrait once it is released at some point this year. ] (]) (]) 21:30, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
::::When I said better I meant most appropriate for the article. There have been many discussions where editors stated that the old photo was a poor choice because it is so old. In those discussions, it seemed the consensus was that the problem was not that we have to use the official photo, but that there is not a better (more appropriate) photo that we can use on WP. I think the new photo is a better representation than the 2017 photo. -- ] (]) 21:53, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''New York City, New York, U.S.''' per the site of death of ] and many other articles with the same standard, just different cities. We should keep consistency in this case. ] (]) 21:57, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
**See the discussion just above. We don't need to clutter up the infobox of any article with information that is purely redundant. --] (]) 22:38, 14 November 2016 (UTC) :::::2017 is acceptably old, to me, at this stage in life. The new photo is atrociously biased. Old photo should favored. ] (]) 13:04, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
:The photo is used as the profile picture for the official POTUS twitter account, so it already is being used by the US government as his official photo for now for his second term ] (]) 04:36, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
::It doesn't matter. This photo violates ] in many points. "Lead images should be natural" "also be the type of image used for similar purposes in high-quality reference works" "Lead images should be of least shock value". The new image should be reverted ASAP. If nobody bothers to answer these concerns I will do it myself. ] (]) 13:16, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
:::The footnote for "natural" clarifies this just means we want the natural choice. I'm not sure why you think it would be unnatural or that high quality reference works wouldn't use the image this subject has chosen to represent themselves as their official photo. I don't think users will find it shocking that the official photo released by the subject will be what we lead with. -- ] (]) 13:23, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
::::"this subject has chosen to represent themselves" does not matter. The MOS is pretty clear about the need for an image similar to what's used in '''reference works''', NOT self promotional works. ] (]) 13:32, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::I don't agree that this image is any more self-promoting than any other politician's image. In any case, the MOS is a guideline. It cannot dictate to us over and above good reasons for inclusion (such as that the image is being referred to by the White House as Trump's official portrait). ] (]) 08:22, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::While I do agree that any white house portrait is self promoting, the issue specifically with this ne is that it clashes with other images used in reference work about the subject. The difference is just too big to ignore, the manual of style guideline is well thought in favoring broadly used kind of images over novelty self promotional material. ] (]) 17:49, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
=== Other copies and usage ===
: - Just FYI - ] - ].<span style="display:inline-flex;rotate:-15deg;color:darkblue">''']'''</span><span style="display:inline-flex;rotate:15deg;color:darkblue">]</span> 20:55, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
::Indeed with should wait, until the official WH portraits come out. ] (]) 20:59, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
:::] <span style="display:inline-flex;rotate:-15deg;color:darkblue">''']'''</span><span style="display:inline-flex;rotate:15deg;color:darkblue">]</span> 21:01, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
::::Image on many articles because of ]. <span style="display:inline-flex;rotate:-15deg;color:darkblue">''']'''</span><span style="display:inline-flex;rotate:15deg;color:darkblue">]</span> 21:04, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
Look likely that an RFC may be required, because the 'new' image looks terrible. The lighting, etc. ] (]) 22:08, 20 January 2025 (UTC)


:Poor Commons.... So much clean up to do - . <span style="display:inline-flex;rotate:-15deg;color:darkblue">''']'''</span><span style="display:inline-flex;rotate:15deg;color:darkblue">]</span> 23:45, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''], ], U.S.''' - just looks like long-form is the norm in ], and commonly hyperlinked Borough, sometimes hyperlinked State, unlinked U.S. (e.g. ] ], New York, U.S.; Christina Aguilera ], ], U.S.; and ] ], ], U.S.; ] ], New York City, U.S.) Cheers ] (]) 22:54, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
:I absolutelly agree with @]. This image should not be used. It doesn't have a standard neutral pose that is favored on Misplaced Pages. It is a purely promotional-emotional photograph. There is no reason to not use the more neutral photo from a few years ago. I urge editors to at least express themselves in this matter, since this is an extremely serious issue in my opinion. ] (]) 13:02, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''], ], U.S.''' - makes sense to me both as someone that lives in NYC and has lived elsewhere. ] (]) 23:11, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
::Expressing myself. I would support the 2017 official portrait over this Trump self-promotional hijack of Misplaced Pages. I wish us luck in seeking a consensus for that, between Trump-supporters and old-image-haters. Then, if anybody cares about other Trump articles, be prepared to fight the battle at each one individually. Then, be prepared for a continuous 4-year parade of drive-bys complaining about the infobox image. Consensus 1 would be amended to allow the exception; the 2017 is "''an'' official White House portrait", but it's no longer "''the'' official White House portrait" which is what #1 says. &#8213;]&nbsp;] 13:23, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''], ]''' - most informative while short and unambiguous. United States are implied. — ] <sup>]</sup> 00:31, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
:::Agree with @]. This is self promotional hijack. Official portrait is not what Misplaced Pages guidelines favor. I'll repeat what I said on another comemnt. This photo violates ] in many points. "Lead images should be natural" "also be the type of image used for similar purposes in high-quality reference works" "Lead images should be of least shock value". It should be reverted ASAP. ] (]) 13:18, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''New York City, U.S.''' Queen's is a borough of New York City which is far better known than the borough or the state. ] (]) 02:07, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
::::No, we have a consensus system in place and we can't declare a national emergency, call out the National Guard, and suspend normal process. "ASAP" will be less soon than we would prefer. But you can help things along by starting a new thread seeking consensus. &#8213;]&nbsp;] 13:31, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
<small><s>*'''], New York, U.S.''', per ] ('Place of birth: city, , country'); ] (borough, not a city); and , USPS: "8515 Wareham Pl, Jamaica NY 11432". OK with '''], New York, U.S.''' for brevity. (Note: Jamaica is formally a neighborhood in the "City of New York".) --] (]) 08:10, 15 November 2016 (UTC) 23:49, 15 November 2016 (UTC)</s></small>
:::::Looking at this with more attention, the firtst consensus item is so poorly presented, because it forces editors to favor a *future* picture without any agency. It should have never been allowed in the first place because it basically violates the most basic rules of the editing process on Misplaced Pages. An even bigger issue in my opinion. If you think that a new thread is needed I'll open it. ] (]) 13:45, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
::''Correction'': 85-15 Wareham Place (then Road) was his house. Trump was born in a hospital (). ] (]) 19:37, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
::::::Water under bridge, sorry you weren't around in 2016. A new thread is needed to provide a clear consensus to link in the list item. &#8213;]&nbsp;] 13:49, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
::: <small>{{reply to|Sagittarian Milky Way}} Cool! Can you add that information to the article body? (Something like '...was born in ]...') --] (]) 23:03, 15 November 2016 (UTC)</small>
:::::::]. ] (]) 13:56, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
**See the discussion just above. We don't need to clutter up the infobox of any article with information that is purely redundant. --] (]) 16:53, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
*'''Just not U.S.''' - utterly unnecessary to disambiguate that much. ] ] 19:58, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
::"It doesn't have a standard neutral pose that is favored on Misplaced Pages." Neutral trumps non-neutral, but official trumps neutral. Of course, freely licensed trumps everything else (and official stuff is usually copyrighted), but in this case, if the copyright status of the portrait has been settled... ] (]) 14:20, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
*<small><s>'''], New York, U.S.''', per ] ('Place of birth: city, , country'). Its formal name is "The City of New York", not "New York City". (Illustration: "Columbia University in the City of New York", not "...in New York City"). The short form for "City of New York" in legal citations (a close analogy) is "New York", not "New York City". This is the infobox for our next head of state; let's help educate our readers as to the formal nomenclature. And how can we forget the well-known film title: "'']''" (not "''New York City, New York''")? --] (]) 05:04, 16 November 2016 (UTC)</s>04:02, 21 November 2016 (UTC)</small>
*''']'''. Per ] guideline ("exclude any unnecessary content") and comment by Mandruss, above. --] (]) 04:02, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
*'''], ], U.S.'''. I was born in ] in the very early 1970's. My birth certificate does not distinguish which borough of the city I was born in. And it's an official document. This is a no-brainer. ] ] 07:14, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
*: A no-brainer if official names are the primary goal here. Does anybody find it strange that there is no community consensus on that after 15 years? I fail to see the cost/benefit argument for forcing us to debate this at every article. Just sayin', carry on. &#8213;]&nbsp;] 07:22, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
*::There's only one borough that overwhelmingly voted for Trump. ]. ] ] 07:27, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
*:::Hmmm. Not sure how that relates to my comment. &#8213;]&nbsp;] 07:29, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
*::I tend to get "obtuse'. New York, New York. That's my story and I'm sticking to it. ] ] 07:37, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
*::: :) &#8213;]&nbsp;] 07:55, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
*::The "obtuse" thing is obviously from Shawshank. The other is from ] when he did Weekend Update. ''"I'm Colin Quinn. That's my story and I'm sticking to it."'' ] ] 08:11, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
*:::Memes on memes? Is that a "supermeme" or something? :) &#8213;]&nbsp;] 08:13, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
*'''Comment''' Official names are not the primary goal here. Misplaced Pages is not a branch of the USPS but an online encclopedia. In general, and especially in infoboxes where space is at a premium, we keep things as brief as possible to unambiguously carry the meaning. If there were many different New York Cities in the world of similar status, I could see the point in disambiguating this to the one in New York State. As we live in a universe where this is not the case, we do not need to do this. It is indeed a no-brainer. --] (]) 11:58, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
::A wise comment indeed, but which short version do you advocate? New York City, U.S.A.? New York, U.S.? Queens, New York? (pointing to state) Queens, New York City? — ] <sup>]</sup> 21:02, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
:::Thanks! As I said at 19:13, 14 November 2016 in the section just above, I think "New York City, U.S." unambiguously and economically describes the location. (Incidentally, we ].) --] (]) 23:41, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
::::The thing is, "New York City" is listed neither on birth certificates ''nor'' mailing addresses. It's City/County/State. It's somewhat unusual to have a major city named after the state as well, like ]. ] is even split between two states. But then it gets even further complicated with the "borough" system. Manhattan is in the city of New York, the county of New York, and the state of New York. Queens is in the same city and state, but the county is Queens. It's more complicated than I first thought it was. ] ] 07:47, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
:::::I think the opposing view, which I support, is more like a COMMONNAME argument, and "New York City" is quite commonly recognized. As I said above, there is no guideline support for either view, and I think there should be. &#8213;]&nbsp;] 12:46, 17 November 2016 (UTC)


== Claim that Trump negotiated the Gaza ceasefire ==
*I think the consensus is clear that "New York, U.S." is the best way to adequately describe the subject's birthplace economically. Thanks to all who took part. --] (]) 17:16, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
:: {{reply to|John}} I'd actually changed my vote from '], New York' to ']', but I didn't put my amended comment at the bottom of the list, so I can see why you overlooked it. My error. I'm now changing it again, to '''], U.S.''' (which is how the infobox currently reads). --] (]) 00:04, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
::: {{re|John|Dervorguilla}} Several editors mentioned that "U.S." is superfluous. If we want to be minimalist, shouldn't we keep just ''']'''? — ] <sup>]</sup> 02:45, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
::::I indicated that I included U.S. only because I felt that might make it easier to reach a discernible consensus. Just generally speaking, give-and-take is a Good Thing in Misplaced Pages editing. The picture seems different at this point in the process, so I'm shifting my position toward no-U.S. &#8213;]&nbsp;] 05:45, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
:::: I'm happy either way ("New York City" or "New York City, U.S."). --] (]) 06:43, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
{{od}} As it is right now, it says "], U.S." Why are we shortcutting on the state? It looks weird, is highly irregular; and actually "dumbing it down" for no good reason. Just because a major city ends in "City" does not obviate the need to list what state it's in. It really should just be "New York, New York". City, state. Country is optional. ] ] 06:56, 22 November 2016 (UTC)


There have been several edits claiming that Trump negotiated the Israel-Hamas ceasefire the day before he entered office. Last I checked, Biden was president when the ceasefire was announced. I am at my one revert already and cannot keep up with the additions. ] (]) 19:26, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
== Request of editing this page ==
:"How the Biden and Trump teams worked together to get the Gaza ceasefire and hostages deal done" https://edition.cnn.com/2025/01/15/politics/biden-trump-gaza-ceasefire-deal/index.html --] (]) 19:28, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
::Yep, even bidens camp say it. ] (]) 19:29, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
:::And the wiki article doesnt even claim he negotiated it, just that he "helped" --] (]) 19:31, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
:Per @], CNN reported that they both played major roles. As did the New York Times. The question is whether or not it should be in the presidency section or the transition section. It is certainly notable enough for inclusion. ''']]''' 19:40, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
::I think you need to self-revert - the wording was challenged, there's discussion ongoing, violation of 24-hour BRD. Trump wasn't president when both sides agreed to the plan Biden first proposed in May. Envoy Witkoff clearly stated that the Biden team was in charge. Saying that Witkoff "helped" (assisted) seems appropriate to me. ]] 21:56, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
:::Witkoff also credited Trump with the ceasefire. He stated that whilst Biden's team were the "tip of the spear", "no one has pride of authorship". The wording in its current form seems most sensible, where no opinion on the matter is given. To satisfy due weight, we would also need to make it clear that Trump's incoming presidency expedited the process—which was at a long-standing stalemate—considerably. {{tq|Biden officials acknowledged the deadline of Trump’s entry into office was a motivating factor in finally finding success after months of failure}}, per CNN. It's also worth noting that this article is about Trump, not the Biden administration; it's like if I were to write in ]'s article, "Di Maria won the ] and scored in ], but ] scored more goals." It is not exactly challengeable to simply state that Trump and his administration helped, which is a fact verified by several reliable sources. ''']]''' 22:27, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
::{{ping|Mb2437}}, see preceding edit, I forgot to ping you. ]] 21:57, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
::And {{tq|enacted a day prior}} is unsourced. ]] 22:01, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
:::"The ceasefire is now due to take effect on Sunday, when the first hostages should be released — the day before Trump’s January 20 inauguration", per ''Financial Times''. ''']]''' 22:38, 20 January 2025 (UTC)


== Removal of "Trump's victory sparked numerous protests in major U.S. cities" in 2016 section ==
{{editprotected|ans=y}}
His successor for being a President-elect of the United States is not ]. Please remove that as soon as possible.--<span style="border-radius:99px;background:#9F9;padding:0 35px;" title="Reply" lang="en">]</span><sup><font color="green">]</font></sup> 07:15, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
:It will be changed to "Preceded by" Obama once he is inaugurated. As it is now, he is "Succeeding" Obama, meaning he is set to take his place. ] ] 07:20, 15 November 2016 (UTC)


], you have content on the page that has been here for years. I am at my 1RR on this. ] (]) 19:32, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
== References to President-elect Trump in hip hop. ==


:I think that the text should be kept. ] (]) 19:39, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
Aside from the lone ] song reference in the article, there are a tremendous number of references to President-elect Trump in hip hop music dating back to the 1980s.
::Seems it may have been reverted more than once. Cheers. ] (]) 20:00, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
:::Doing some digging and apparently Jack has removed this three times since January 18, , , , and had it reverted each time,, , . ] (]) 21:05, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
::::Mandruss , this is revert . ]] 14:56, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::You appear to have Mandruss on the brain. Look again. &#8213;]&nbsp;] 15:00, 21 January 2025 (UTC)


== Should Trump be added to the category of "American Zionists?" ==
This features references by ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], Ja-Bar, D/R Period, ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ] and ].


I don't think he's ever formally labelled himself as such, but he has been very pro-Israel during his political career. ] (]) 22:45, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
Nearly three decades of relevance in popular music seems more than worthy of inclusion. As it is locked, I can't do it myself, but if anyone with editing privileges feels so inclined, it would be a great improvement to the article. ] (]) 09:05, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
:{{Ping|NesserWiki}} absolutely '''NO''', supporting Israel militarily '''doesn't mean''' being Zionist. ] (]) 11:45, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
:Finally a suggestion which is not about Trump's portrait or some campaign controversy, how refreshing! Thanks for that {{u|Justanothereditor98027}}. If you could find some written source(s) besides the Youtube mashup, I'd be happy to draft a couple sentences for the Popular culture section. — ] <sup>]</sup> 09:35, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
:Seconding JacktheBrown's opinion. While Trump ''is'' pro-Israel, he is not necessarily a Zionist, unlike ] who very and is the main reason that category applies to Joe but not Donald. ] (]) 23:58, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
::Let's not forget the excellent by The Coup. ] (]) 09:57, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
::Call me an idiot but….how exactly is being pro-Israel different to being a Zionist? ] (]) 08:25, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
:::Being pro-Israel is a little broader and more about supporting Israel as a state by helping it uphold its rights via funding or other ways of helping; it does not have to be entirely ideologically driven, if at all. Zionism, meanwhile, is inherently specific and ideological, meaning they are wholly in favor of the establishment of a Jewish homeland in Palestine's area. Biden has openly supported and stated that he's for that specific idealogy, Trump simply thinks of Israel as another nation he can get in the good graces of by supporting, even if he overall is apathetic to Israel's zionist goals. ] (]) 05:34, 24 January 2025 (UTC)


== Mass deletions from article ==
::This is the main I could find. It doesn't mention nearly all of the songs linked in the YouTube video, but it should be sufficient for a start. Thanks ]. ] (]) 10:14, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
:::{{Done}}. {{diff||749627678||Enjoy!}} — ] <sup>]</sup> 11:07, 15 November 2016 (UTC)


I noticed that a very large amount of information was just from the article. Included in this deletion was the religion section. Religion played a particularly large role in the election of Donald Trump to the presidency and having a few sentences that describe his religious views is not undue. I hope this helps. With regards, ]<sup>]</sup> 02:15, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
There was also about Donald Trump featured on the in-game radio in Saints Row IV.
:That editor has been previously advised: If you edit en masse, don't complain if you are challenged by reversion en masse. That edit could've been split into five or six, making things considerably easier for their colleagues. I'm not going to challenge because I don't care about that content, but I would support anybody who saw fit to do so. &#8213;]&nbsp;] 02:27, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
::There are multiple reliable sources indicating that Rev. Normal Vince Peale had a significant influence on Donald Trump. Also, Trump switched from Presbyterian to nondenominational Christianity which is a type of evangelical Christianity. And Trump has won elections through courting the evangelical vote. So I am very firmly against taking out the religious section of the article given religion's influence on Donald Trump. ] (]) 02:35, 21 January 2025 (UTC)


:], regarding your edit summary , where did you obtain consensus for that edit? ] (]) 02:36, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
== Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 15 November 2016 ==
::Following Mandruss, the edits by Nikkimaria should have been made into five or six so it'd be easier to analyze. That being said, the religion sub-section does deserve inclusion in the article given the role of faith in Donald Trump's life, and also its role in American politics in general. A significant share of the American population wouldn't vote for an atheist president. ] (]) 15:03, 21 January 2025 (UTC)U to
:::User:Nikkimaria, thanks for your comment. I started this discussion on the talk page in order to determine whether the information should be kept or restored. Thus far, it looks like consensus has leaned towards the former. I did see that you also removed information about where Trump went to Sunday School, though I did not restore that yet. Would you be able to explain why you removed that short clause? I look forward to hearing from you. I hope this helps. With regards, ]<sup>]</sup> 19:16, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
::::Actually User:Nikkimaria, nevermind. It looks like ] restored the clause regarding Sunday School, which I thought was helpful to have in describing Donald Trump's upbringing. The source text, ''Historical Dictionary of the Donald Trump Administration'' (published by Rowman & Littlefield) included both his primary education at Kew-Forest School, as well as his religious education through Sunday School at First Presbyterian Church in the paragraphs describing his upbringing. I believe that we should do the same. I would love to hear your comments as well User:FMSky. Thanks, ]<sup>]</sup> 21:01, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::But you restored the content before starting this discussion.
:::::This article is overly detailed, and is only becoming more so with each passing day. Per ], the best approach to addressing that is keeping a high-level overview here, and deferring detail to subarticles. That means things like his Bible (]) and his Bible collection should be included elsewhere.
:::::By the same token FMSky's revert should be undone. ] (]) 00:30, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::The current consensus now supports the presence of the section in the article and I agree with User:FMSky's edit that reinstates the location of his Sunday School. As has been pointed out, religion plays an important role in the United States and a short section is helpful in this article. I just noticed that a large amount of information was just to the article. If detail is to be removed, it can start there or elsewhere but a few sentences on Donald Trump's basic demographic information and upbringing should be mentioned in this article. I might recommend trimming information about his views on exercise, sleep time or golfing interest, all of which has less bearing on the biography than the role that faith plays in his life (and in the election). The inauguration itself, which was held yesterday, was shrouded in religious imagery and wishing to remove it seems short-sighted. I am open to seeing what others might have to say. ]<sup>]</sup> 03:16, 22 January 2025 (UTC)


:::::::By all means propose removal of other extraneous details - that would be a great improvement. But in any event the Bibles should go. ] (]) 03:47, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
{{edit extended-protected|Donald Trump|answered=yes}}
::::::::Having a closer look, the "Religion" section is the shortest section under the "Personal life" heading. Is there any particular reason why you wish to trim this section rather than excising detail from the longer sections? Consensus has already been established to keep this section. With regard to the extraneous details elsewhere in the article, you are welcome to address that; my interest is specifically in the topic of religion as it relates to the topic. ]<sup>]</sup> 22:25, 22 January 2025 (UTC)


:::::::::I would agree that there are other sections that would benefit from trimming, but that should not prevent us from addressing this one.
the date listed 2006 as the last time the republicans held both congress and the presidency is wrong the correct date appears in the footnote


:::::::::In the interests of compromise and as per ], I have created a new subarticle: ]. That allows us to provide a brief Religion section comprising the specific content others have agreed with, and gives a home to the other details elsewhere. One caveat on the former: Sunday school was removed by another editor prior to my edit, so that piece in particular will warrant further discussion. ] (]) 01:46, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
] (]) 10:01, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
::::::::::The information regarding Donald Trump's confirmation belongs in the "Early life" section, not in the "Personal life" section. I will restore that as there was no consensus for it to be moved. ]<sup>]</sup> 19:43, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
:{{notdone}} Please provide a {{tq|complete and specific description}} of the change you want to make. Example: Change "The quick brown fox jumps over the lazy dogs" to "The quick brown fox jumps over the lazy cats", along with why. Then you can reactivate this request. — ] <sup>]</sup> 18:18, 15 November 2016 (UTC)


:I tried to clarify this... --] (]) 18:50, 15 November 2016 (UTC) :::::::::::If we're going to have a Religion section, that's the section in which the religion-related content belongs. ] (]) 00:05, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::::::::No, the confirmation information is not related to his personal life at present. It will be moved to the "early life" section shortly. 00:29, 24 January 2025 (UTC)


:::::::::::::Of course it's related to his personal life, as part of his religious history. Why do you believe otherwise? ] (]) 00:31, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
== ] ==
::::::::::::::Confirmation is a rite that is completed at a young age typically, which is why it is relevant to the "Early life" section. I hope this helps. With regards, ]<sup>]</sup> 03:24, 24 January 2025 (UTC)


:::::::::::::::Confirmation is a rite that is specific to religion, which is why it is most relevant to the "Religion" section. It also provides more relevant context to the other content there, versus being a disconnected factoid in the earlier section. ] (]) 03:34, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
Please see ] regarding ].--<span style="font-family:Segoe print; color:#CC4E5C; text-shadow:gray 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">] ]</span> 17:14, 15 November 2016 (UTC)


== Should we include Trump's mass pardon of January 6th convicts in the lead? ==
== Donald's hair and other physical appearances (again) ==
], another body politics trademark, is noteable as well]]
The last time this was discussed, it was made very clear that detailing sections for people's physical appearance, such as their hair, hands, breasts or ears, is a serious violation of BLP. Some people even got banned for making fun of Donald's appearance and one user even got their adminship removed. Yet again I see someone added another section for Donald's hair and even added a degrading picture of him where sweat drips from his face. Imagine if someone made a section of Obama's ears, lips or feet in his article with a picture to follow it up? Or likewise on Hillary's article, making fun of any of her body parts? I think we need to take body shaming very seriously, even if we don't like Trump and like to talk about his body. ] (]) 05:14, 16 November 2016 (UTC)


It does seem relevant, especially in relation to the January 6th capital attack. He said he would do it, and on his first day in office in his second term he did it. ] (]) 03:00, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
: So far this sort of section has been based on press clippings - similar as the whole portion on his political stance. That say, try a google scholar search on ''"Donald Trump", hair'' - you will be surprised to find about 4000 entries and a German thesis called ''We Shall Overcomb. An Analysis of Donald Trump Hair Memes'' (Verena Born, 2016). No kidding, the topic as such is noteable and warrants an separate article. That said, ] (not Body politic, but the role of politician's and rulers bodies) is an important topic as well for the Trump election and perception, but one should finally start to base such an entry or section on academic sourcing, less on Huffpost and Slate googelites. Polentarion ] 06:04, 16 November 2016 (UTC)


:It has been noted in the articles for his second presidency and the J6 attack ] (]) 03:33, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
::It's still not worthy for an encyclopedia that takes itself somewhat serious to include this in an article about a US President. If he never ran for president, I wouldn't mind as much. But this is just bad taste/indecorous. ] (]) 07:21, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
:As someone who is appalled by the pardons, I don't think so. The reference to "his involvement in the January 6 Capitol attack" seems sufficient for the lede. ] (]) 03:14, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
:It possibly could be mentioned after a semicolon for the sentence about January 6 along the lines of "upon reelection, he granted clemency to all rioters". ] (]) 01:42, 23 January 2025 (UTC)


== Remove top article wording ==
:::Someone created an article, "Donald Trump's hair". Last month, it was put up for and the result was that the content was merged here. There was no consensus for the material to be purged completely. I think it's too soon to debate the issue again.--] (]) 07:39, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
::::I agree that it should not be in the article, but, if we are allowed a moment of levity, it certainly would seem to be "just desserts."
http://www.americanhairloss.org/general/about_us.asp
http://www.theatlantic.com/entertainment/archive/2016/09/donald-trump-alicia-machado-hillary-clinton-presidential-debate-rosie-odonnell-fatness-weight-fat-shaming-amy-farrell/501827/ ] (]) 13:31, 16 November 2016 (UTC)


@] we should remove the felon part, while he is that’s not appropriate for the top line summary of a living person considering he is the current POTUS ] (]) 03:02, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::: "]" could be based on scholarly sources and is for sure noteable. Why confine gender and body studies to Dolezal, Merkel and Butler ;) ? Polentarion ] 18:35, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
:I reverted. &#8213;]&nbsp;] 03:05, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
::{{resolved}} ] (]) 03:20, 21 January 2025 (UTC)


== Infobox image - which official portrait? ==
=== Role of hair comb and photo on this talk page ===
As far as I can see, the longest discussions here have been about the photo, not about any detail in text. That said, physical appearance, including hair comb is much more important than any content. The hair style is part of that. The point is, one should start to use the real studies about such topics, not the Huffington posts. Body politics is clearly important for the Donald. Polentarion ] 06:57, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
: {{reply to|Polentarion}} Says right there in the lead graf: "He is '''''heir'''''..." --] (]) 00:31, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
: Used to say it, anyway. --] (]) 04:26, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
:: {{reply to|Dervorguilla}} The recent ] . We shall overcomb! End of the world as we know it. Polentarion ] 07:04, 18 November 2016 (UTC)


The current "consensus" at the top of this page links to the 2017 portrait, but the article uses the 2025 one. ] (]) 05:42, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
== Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 16 November 2016 ==
:I have as unnecessary and currently problematic. &#8213;]&nbsp;] 05:56, 21 January 2025 (UTC)


== No sources in intro? ==
{{edit extended-protected|Donald Trump|answered=yes}}


Hello, I’ve noticed that there are many potentially controversial claims in the intro section of the article, but there are no sources to back them up. We should find appropriate reliable sources to justify these claims, or remove them if no such sources can be found. ] (]) 07:16, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
:THey are cited in the body. ] (]) 09:35, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
:]: "The necessity for citations in a lead should be determined on a case-by-case basis by editorial consensus." We have yet to reach a consensus for a case in the lead that needs a cite. Cite numbers add clutter, we strongly favor readability in the lead over saving a reader the effort of finding the related body content, and we believe that readers wanting to read the source for something they read in the lead are fairly rare. ("We" means a majority of this article's regular editors.) All this said, there is nothing preventing someone like you from proposing a certain citation or two and seeing if the proposal flies. If you do that, please do it in a separate thread. &#8213;]&nbsp;] 09:47, 21 January 2025 (UTC)


== End birthright citizenship? ==
There is a mistake many times in here. I will edit it once.
] (]) 13:37, 16 November 2016 (UTC)


The main article says for children of illegal immigrants, which makes more sense. It seems pretty weird to just put 'end birthright citizenship' on this page, so could anyone add 'end birthright citizenship ' as is done on the main page? ] (]) 07:34, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
:{{not done}} Not clear what change is requested. - ] <sup>]</sup> 13:43, 16 November 2016 (UTC)


== Proposed: Use 2017 portrait for the infobox <span class="anchor" id="Challenge consensus item 1"></span> ==
== KKK celebration ==
{{small|Original heading: "Challenge consensus item 1" &#8213;]&nbsp;] 14:11, 21 January 2025 (UTC)}}


] item
I don't have it right in front of me, but I have seen news articles saying the ] plans a victory celebration. Right now it hasn't happened so I guess it's too early to put that anywhere, but it seems relevant since one of the reasons people opposed Trump was KKK support.— ]&nbsp;• ]&nbsp;• ]&nbsp;• 18:38, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
This poorly presented consensus item as led to Trump dictating the image used on the Misplaced Pages page. The 2025 White House portrait blatantly violates ].
::Which is of course silly. It's like opposing Clinton simply because many of her supporters are flag burners, street rabble and other sorts. There will always be fringe groups who favor any political figure. Bear in mind that we live in a media-oriented society, with many people who grew up in front of a TV set and still continue to watch hours of television, every day, sitting there in a passive state with their mouth hung open, staring at the bright light while all the garbage fills their mental background (psyche). And of course politicians and activists know the angrier you make people, the less you have to explain yourself and have a litany of trigger words to effect this. Crowd control 101. The sad part is, without TV many people wouldn't know what to do with themselves during the evening. No doubt the media ran with this idea of KKK support over and again, but we shouldn't mention it here, anymore than we should say that many flag burners supported Clinton in her bio'. -- ] (]) 21:59, 16 November 2016 (UTC)


- "Lead images should be natural (Natural means the obvious or usual type of image.)"
==Slovene==
- "also be the type of image used for similar purposes in high-quality reference works"
- "Lead images should be of least shock value"


This photo of Trump is extremely emotional and aggressive, even the lighting is heavily fabricated and does not reflect "natural" photos used in most articles. The shock value is undeniable to me. It should be reverted to the 2017 as soon as a consensus is reached. ] (]) 13:55, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
{{edit semi-protected|Donald Trump|answered=yes}}
*'''Support''' per proposer, but the consensus item is not the problem here. Without it, we would still need consensus to stabilize the choice of infobox image. &#8213;]&nbsp;] 14:00, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
please change ((Slovene)) to ((Slovenia|Slovene)) <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 18:46, 16 November 2016‎ (UTC)</small>
*:Which is fair, and part of the Misplaced Pages process. But imagine we get to a proposal that say "use the image used in the most viewed article of that year by the NYT on the subject". That would sound atrocious. Might as well make pages edited directly by an AI algorithm at that point. ] (]) 14:05, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
:]&nbsp;'''Done'''<!--template:done--> — ] (]) 18:54, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
*::I'm changing your heading to something that will attract more attention. Not everybody knows what #1 is, and the fact that this seeks to amend #1 is incidental. &#8213;]&nbsp;] 14:11, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
*:::seems ok. ] (]) 17:51, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''': Yes, the image ''is'' natural, the man is posing for the photo. Being an official image, it will surely be used by high-quality reference works. And "shock value" is for things like nudity or violence, not for a mere way to look at the camera. ] (]) 14:26, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Comment''' - reiterating my regarding the current image. Again, we are not bound by official images, and we often use them as a matter of convenience because US Government works are free, high quality, and unremarkable/routine with regard to pose, lighting, composition, etc.. I would argue that the latter point comes into question here. Do we have any more recent alternatives, given the first White House portrait is now 7 years old? ] (]) 15:35, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
** That's not exactly a good argument. If were bound to use official images, we wouldn't be having this discussion to begin with. We don't try to use official images because of being bound to do so, but because the official image is in most cases the most easily recognizable image of a topic. ] (]) 15:52, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Questions''' - I'm a bit confused here. All U.S. presidents' articles since FDR are using the last official portrait. Is this a Wiki-wide consensus if it's not in the rules? And, if so, why change it? ]] 15:37, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
*:There is no "wiki wide consensus" to enforce anything of the sort. The reason for the change are in my original post. ] (]) 17:53, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Support''' per proposal, revert to the status quo 2017 White House portrait. The 2024 version is very jarring and unnatural to the reader due to the lighting's attempt to replicate the notoriety of his mugshot. The 2017 is a better reflection of his entire life. ] (]) 16:08, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
*:'']'', the official image of his from this year is probably a more accurate summary of his most important moments in life. <span style="text-shadow: #E9967A 0em 0em 1em;">]]</span> 16:13, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Comment''', the result of this discussion should apply to the JD Vance lede image as well. ] (]) 16:09, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
*:Negative. Changes to ] are discussed at ]. Discussion there can refer to discussion here, but that isn't binding. &#8213;]&nbsp;] 16:15, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Support''' - restoring the 2017 image, until we get an updated standard looking image from the White House. ] (]) 16:17, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''': the MOS says that the image should be natural. This image is completely authentically Trump. It also says images should be neutral. ] explains why content expressive of a less-than-ideal outlook of a subject is allowed, because it is reality. It's a reality that this 2025 photograph expresses the harsh reality of Trump to the best of Daniel Torok's ability. <span style="text-shadow: #E9967A 0em 0em 1em;">]]</span> 16:20, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
*:"harsh reality"? This is a promotional photo released by Trump itself. ] (]) 17:55, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Oppose.''' What could be more natural than to use the image the subject has chosen as their official portrait? Does anyone really think it's shocking to find the subject's official portrait at the top of their page? The examples used in the MOS for shocking images are of the Holocaust and genitalia. -- ] (]) 17:04, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
*:The subject itself has no priority on Misplaced Pages decisions. Misplaced Pages gives priority to other sources. the manual of style regarding lead images explains this well enough. ] (]) 17:57, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Support''' changing back to 2017. New portrait is jarring and clearly politically charged with odd, unnatural lighting and an expression clearly imitating his mugshot. Not very inviting for a Misplaced Pages article. ] (]) 19:29, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''': I fail to see your point with "The shock value is undeniable to me". There is 0 shock value here. Its just a man staring at the camera. Calling it "extremely emotional and aggressive" is also a huge stretch. ] (]) 19:30, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
* '''Oppose''' reverting to 2017 image. ] (]) 21:23, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Support 2017 image'''. Misplaced Pages is not to be used as a propaganda venue for Trump. The new image, putting all copyright concerns (still unresolved) aside, is intended to be propaganda. That's not uncommon or limited to Trump - other presidents have used their inauguration materials to advertise themselves as "ready to get to work" or similar. His official image from 2017 is much more natural - note that natural does ''not'' mean "how this person always appears", but instead means "without any unnecessary emotion" and similar. The new image is not neutral - it is intended to invoke his mugshot from his booking in a civil criminal case, which itself was intended to be propaganda. Revisit if/when a new official portrait is issued, '''iff''' it is as neutral as his old one. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez &#124; ] &#124; ] 21:29, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
*:{{tq|Misplaced Pages is not to be used as a propaganda venue for Trump}}. I'm afraid that ] months ago. ] (]) 22:57, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
*:Thank you for describing this in detail. This is blatantly constructed advertisement material. It has no place on a[REDACTED] article, nor for Trump or any other political figure. ] (]) 17:59, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''': This is his official portrait, official portrait of the President of the United States. So why not, I am sure he is proud of this photo. ] (]) 22:06, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
*:It is not his official portrait as President. This was an image he had taken on his own accord before he was inaugurated. Official portraits are an entirely different thing, regardless of what Trump calls it. Regardless, Misplaced Pages does not care whether an image is "official" or not. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez &#124; ] &#124; ] 22:10, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
*::wait, this isn't even the official portrait? then it should not even be favoured by consensus item 1! ] (]) 18:02, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
*:::{{tq|it should not even be favoured by consensus item 1!}} Well it isn't. #1 doesn't currently even know about this new image. We don't care what #1 says or means ''now'', since we can amend it or supersede it with whatever we want. (I favor a superseding new item since those four discussions don't really have any bearing on our current situation.) &#8213;]&nbsp;] 05:03, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
*:I'm pretty sure Misplaced Pages does not care whether he's proud of it, either. &#8213;]&nbsp;] 22:19, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' Feelings for or against the subject do not matter. If the White House says today that this image is the official portrait, then it is the official portrait, as far as I'm concerned that is the end of the discussion for now. If in a few weeks they have Trump sit for a more traditional style and pose, then we'll switch to that one. The beauty and joy of being a non-paper encyclopedia. ] (]) 22:55, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
*:Misplaced Pages does not have to follow the White House choices for lead images. What is "end of discussion" for you is not an argument here. ] (]) 18:03, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
*::Um, yes, we do otherwise it strays into ]. And yes, it is the end. ] (]) 01:33, 23 January 2025 (UTC)


*'''Oppose''' - wishing to change the article image to one that is eight years old for what seems, from most supporters, to be admittedly political reasons, is a bizarre perversion of MOS policy.{{pb}}This policy has been determined by RfC in the past, and would most appropriately be challenged in the same manner.{{pb}}I'd also note that there have been half-a-dozen discussions on the use of this image here over the last week. I don't see it as great practice to just start a new discussion when you don't agree with an existing one.{{pb}}To those saying this portrait is not 'official', you are explicitly contradicted by the White House. Do you think there's some legal prescription for an official portrait? Like it only counts if the Secretary of Photography takes it with the Presidential Camera on Presidential Portrait Day? Ridiculous.{{pb}}I can guarantee that changing the image will open this talk page up to a torrent of objections from casual readers, as well as (justified) external criticism of Misplaced Pages's bias problem, which we just can't seem to resolve. ] (]) 22:51, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
== Name taken off buildings ==
*:{{tq|I'd also note that there have been half-a-dozen discussions on the use of this image here over the last week. I don't see it as great practice to just start a new discussion when you don't agree with an existing one.}} Well then feel free to blame me for that: &#8213;]&nbsp;] 23:06, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
*:Before opening an RFC a full discussion has to take place. This photo does not correspond to the photos usually used in reference material about the subject, this is a fully doctored image, if this is for you a "political reasons" to remove it then everything is political, even MOS. ] (]) 18:07, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
* '''Weak oppose.''' Both images essentially show the same thing, and both were authorized by Trump himself (he seems to be somewhat fond of looking "serious" and "tough" on pictures, as he has used similar photos on his social media accounts for many years, and that is how he chose to look even on his mugshot). In my view, both images have roughly the same validity to be on the infobox, but perhaps the most recent one should be used. ] (]) 02:46, 22 January 2025 (UTC)


:'''Oppose''' — 2017 was ''eight years ago'', and the current portrait is far more recent, of a higher resolution, and official. There are arguments to be made that the 2025 portrait it is more representative of Trump's brand and persona, but even if one disagrees with that, it's hard to argue that 2017 Trump is somehow more representative of the current man than 2025 Trump in any regard. And I don't think you can consider his official portrait, despite the darker lighting and lack of a smile, to be of sufficient "shock value" to remove it from the lead. Since it's his official portrait (disregarding its inaugural status because it's on the White House website and the official POTUS social media), it is undeniably natural, as well as the image readers will expect to see. That also makes it the type of image used for similar purposes in reference works (as an official portrait), but as a recent image such a claim is subject to some level of ] to all degrees, so I think it's not a particularly relevant point. ] (]) 23:23, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
It may not be this article, but I feel needs to go somewhere on Misplaced Pages.— ]&nbsp;• ]&nbsp;• ]&nbsp;• 19:10, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
::When deciding if an image is "used for similar purposes in reference works" you have to look at the present and past, surely not the future. If these kind of images is what reference works will use then, and only then, it will become an appropriate lead image. ] (]) 23:30, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
:::My point was that official portraits like this one are indeed "the type of image used for similar purposes in high-quality reference works," regardless of if this specific image has been used in such works. However, given that this specific image was published only about a week ago, no such "high-quality reference works" have yet been given the opportunity to use this specific image, and so arguing about the validity of this image against that guideline from either perspective is flawed until such works published after this image are created, and we will then be able to judge which image — 2025 or 2017 — that they choose to use to represent Donald Trump. ] (]) 01:29, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
:'''Support reverting to 2017 image''' - mostly due to the better lighting in the 2017 portrait. It is also a less politicized image. ] (]) 16:20, 23 January 2025 (UTC)


== Changing the section header for 2021-2025 to "Inter-presidency (2021-2025)" ==
:I'd apply ], as to this article or any other, and you haven't mentioned any other coverage. &#8213;]&nbsp;] 14:58, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
::Coverage has been heavy and the name has already been removed from one building. But, it does seem a bit trivial for a long article -- unless there is a trend. ] (]) 15:04, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
:::IMO irrelevant and UNDUE for this article. Maybe a mention at ]? --] (]) 19:08, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
::::I did it at ], where it would be pretty obvious.— ]&nbsp;• ]&nbsp;• ]&nbsp;• 23:18, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
::::It does have a brief mention at ]''' <sup>(]) (]) (]) </sup> 06:24, 22 November 2016 (UTC)


I think that this would be simpler than "first post-presidency" or "between presidential terms". ] (]) 15:32, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
==New RfC==


:'''Slightly Oppose''' only on the basis that the standard set by Gover Cleveland's page should be followed through on here. When his term ends, I think having it labeled "second post-presidency" would be better (I'm also not sure his second post-presidency will be very long nor very impactful, but that's just a matter of opinion and not too relevant). ] (]) 16:21, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
To any and all newcomers and others who may have missed it, many objections regarding the existing photo have surfaced since the election and a ] (conference) has been started above regarding the replacement of the existing photo. -- ] (]) 03:30, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
:'''Oppose''' as said above, follow Grover Cleveland page and use second post-presidency after this one. ] (]) 23:00, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
:'''Comment''' - I'd rather "Out of office (2021–2025)". - ] (]) 23:19, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
*:Egads no. That comes across like we're characterizing 2021 to 2025 as an interregnum, that Trump somehow rightfully ''deserved'' two terms but was interrupted. ] (]) 01:08, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
*::I’m not sure that follows. In studying Trump, it is simply a description of the sequence of events. It would obviously be out of place in a broader history of the US, or on an election page. ] (]) 01:38, 22 January 2025 (UTC)


:'''Oppose'''; I feel like labeling 2021-2025 as the "inter-presidency" implies that it was a planned break rather than an unsuccessful reelection, and that he was entitled to have another administration. I think for neutrality's sake we keep it as "between presidencies", as was done with Grover Cleveland. ] (]) 03:25, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
== Signature change ==
::With all due respect, I don't see how inter-presidency implies such. To me at least, it's just the time between Trump's two non-consecutive presidencies. ] (]) 15:01, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
:'''Oppose'''. As Tantomile said, it sounds as if it was one presidency with an intermission. The current heading "Between presidencies" is the best option, short and to the point. ]] 15:19, 22 January 2025 (UTC)


== “Inaugural” vs “official” portrait ==
Hello. I recently updated Trump's signature to ] do to the signature listed at and the .Should the current one be used that is outdated or the newer, updated one? Thanks, <span style="background:black; color:#FFFFFF; border:1px solid black">Corkythe</span><span style="background:#BB8D0A; color:#FFFFFF; border:1px solid black">]</span> (ping me) 14:44, 17 November 2016 (UTC)


I think the infobox picture should say “inaugural” rather than “official” portrait. AFAIK—correct me if I’m wrong—nobody in the administration has confirmed if the inaugural portrait will also be the official one (as happened in Obama’s first term). Biden and Harris also had inaugural portraits that did not become the officials. ] (]) 16:40, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
:Existing and proposed, in that order:
] ] &#8213;]&nbsp;] 15:20, 17 November 2016 (UTC)


:'''Support''' ] (]) 16:49, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Support''' - I'm open to reading opposing arguments, but I don't see any reason not to use the most recent. I like the ] effect of the proposed signature, as Trump is nothing if not earth-shaking. &#8213;]&nbsp;] 15:56, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
:It's on . I believe that's the definition of "official". &#8213;]&nbsp;] 16:50, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' – The previous image is more readable and less "in-your-face" bold (notwithstanding the signer's boldness). Full disclosure: I reverted the OP's use of the new file in various places earlier today. — ] <sup>]</sup> 17:52, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
*:A guy's signature is his signature, readable or not. And it appears that the one currently used is his former signature, at least as far as any evidence presented so far. Your reverts are routine BRD and are not a problem. &#8213;]&nbsp;] 18:02, 17 November 2016 (UTC) :There was an attempt to change the caption to "Official inaugural portrait, 2025" per the Description on , but that was reverted. &#8213;]&nbsp;] 16:54, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
:Agree. <s>According to </s> According to the , it's the "Official Inaugural Portrait of Donald Trump" from the "Official 2025 Inauguration Invite". But good luck trying to add that. I did, and 's what happened. ]] 16:55, 21 January 2025 (UTC) ]] 10:35, 23 January 2025 (UTC) Sorry, should have struck and replaced the piped link. ]] 10:35, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
:::Looks to me that there is no "old" and "new" signature, just two separate executions of it by Trump's hand, the former one being clearer, hence preferred. — ] <sup>]</sup> 04:18, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
::::I see a distinct difference beyond the difference in pen/width of lines. My dad's signature was a work of art that was almost identical every time for some 50 years; mine seems to change from day to day depending on my mood and mental state. No doubt some signatures are stable in the shorter term but do evolve over time. We have no idea which group Mr. Trump is in, so we have no way to really make decisions like this without a larger sample size with known dates for each. I still prefer the new one, but in the end I think this is a strong candidate for editor overthink so I'm easy. &#8213;]&nbsp;] 05:36, 18 November 2016 (UTC) ::{{tq|According to Wikimedia}} - Could be wrong, but I don't think MediaGuy768 equates to Wikimedia. &#8213;]&nbsp;] 23:34, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
:::{{Oldsmiley|teeth}} ]] 14:11, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' That is unreadable, and I'm pretty sure he doesn't sign with a felt tip marker. ] ] | ] 18:09, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
:Exactly, I feel like the evidence is not clear enough yet to call the portrait his official one. (] ] ]) 18:16, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
::A signature does ''not'' need to be readable for someone to use it. Have you ever seen a doctor's signature or even ]'s? You can't read them a majority of the time. Bobby's isn't readable, but yet we still use it... <span style="background:black; color:#FFFFFF; border:1px solid black">Corkythe</span><span style="background:#BB8D0A; color:#FFFFFF; border:1px solid black">]</span> (ping me) 19:42, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
:It is the official portrait until the White House states that it isn't. Trying to qualify it as "not really official" or "just the inaugural portrait" seem to be based on feelings and not facts. ] (]) 22:50, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' The old signature is much more clear. ] (]) 20:38, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
::"Seem to be based" — was there a statement declaring the image to be the official portrait? It doesn't have a caption where it's sitting next to a few lies about landslide victories and extremist policies of the radical left. We couldn't keep the official Fulton County Jail "portrait" because of WP policies, so now we have an official, even if somewhat airbrushed, imitation, so yay. ]] 14:34, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' first one better. ---] (]) 22:51, 17 November 2016 (UTC) ~
:::There doesn't need to be an explicit statement. The White House releasing a portrait in this manner makes it de facto "official." This is a dumb hill to fight over. ] (]) 01:31, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' for accessibility. The old sig clearly indicates that the subject signs his name "''Donald J Trump''", not "''Donald Trump''". Readers can use this information to determine that any document signed "''Donald Trump''" must be treated as forged. But the new sig can't be transliterated at all (try it). --] (]) 23:07, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' If the second one is in fact his current signature, then we should find one that isn't so '''bold'''. <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 02:59, 18 November 2016 (UTC)</small>
*'''Oppose''' nobody can read that. - ''']''' <sup>(]) (]) (]) </sup> 03:36, 20 November 2016 (UTC)


:The describes it as his official portrait, explicitly, rather than his inaugural one. The BBC probably would not make this claim and make it the basis of an article if they hadn't rigorously verified it. The wording in the article also shows that they believe it to be "official", contrasting it with the October 2017 portrait: "{{tq|The portraits were released by the Trump transition team just days before Trump and Vance's inauguration on 20 January. The official portraits of Trump and his former Vice-President Mike Pence were not released until nine months after they were both sworn in.}}" ] (]) 22:53, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
==Can we at last change the infobox image ?==
::Sounds sufficient per WP. Thanks for linking this. ] (]) 02:38, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
{{cot|1=Superseded by ]. Please take any content discussion to that RfC. There is nothing to discuss as to process. &#8213;]&nbsp;] 19:52, 17 November 2016 (UTC)}}
:::This is not the official portrait clicked or shot by the White House. It is just the portrait clicked by Trump's campaign team and Inaugural committee. The new portrait might be taken soon and released through the website and social media platforms of the President of the United States and the White House. In another news from BBC page, it shows that it is the portrait of President-elect and not of the President. Please see it - https://www.bbc.com/culture/article/20250120-donald-trumps-official-portrait-the-17th-century-painting-that-unlocks-this-mysterious-image . So I don't think to keep the new portrait right now. I propose to keep the old portrait of 2017 until a new portrait is issued. ] (]) 15:36, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
::::Strangely the BBC seem to have written several articles on this image. it is also explicitly compared to other official portraits, such as ] of Bush the Younger. ] (]) 15:47, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::Another article from ] also shows that this is the portrait issued by Trump-Vance inaugural committee and not by the White House. Please look into it - https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2025/jan/16/donald-trump-jd-vance-official-portrait . Change it in old format. ] (]) 17:17, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::You can argue that this portrait is not used by the White House, though . ] (]) 01:31, 23 January 2025 (UTC)


== Local policies and guidelines, e.g. Consensus item #61 ==
Per the discussion in ], as proposed by ], ] ''et al''. IMHO, we should definitely ''not'' wait for Trump's official portrait. The current image makes[REDACTED] look ridiculous, and you don't have to like Trump to think that. Even Hitler's infobox picture looks better ! ] (]) 15:22, 17 November 2016 (UTC)


I noticed there was a discussion regarding Consensus item #61. Misplaced Pages has policies and guidelines regarding editor behavior. If editors here think these should be more restrictive, for example suppressing some discussions that don't violate them, it seems that those editors should take their case to the policy or guideline talk page instead of making their own local policies and guidelines. Such a restrictive local policy or guideline might be considered contrary to the guideline ], "Disruptive editing is a pattern of editing that disrupts progress toward improving an article or building the encyclopedia." Criticism of an article is part of the process of making progress towards improving it. One can take it or leave it. It seems improper to restrict criticism that doesn't violate Misplaced Pages policies or guidelines. If it is thought that such criticism should be suppressed, then one should try to incorporate that into the appropriate Misplaced Pages policy or guideline. On the other hand, if such discussions do violate a Misplaced Pages policy or guideline, then stating so in the consensus item would legitimize it. I would appreciate your thoughts. Regards, ] (]) 19:42, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
:There is an active RfC to decide those questions, at ]. Please participate. &#8213;]&nbsp;] 15:27, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
:Consensus 61 was a solution to the ongoing problem of bias complaints from readers who knew nothing about Misplaced Pages content policy. Problems effectively addressed by #61 included:
::Duh. I hadn't seen that. ] (]) 15:36, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
:*The very significant amount of editor time consumed, time that editors could have spent improving the article.
::::You're not the only one, as it is buried in the middle of a sea of talk, with a TOC a mile long. No one editor's fault. I agree, the Trump biography has not received the same treatment as Clinton's which reflects unfavorably on Misplaced Pages and the idea of unbiased writing. I mentioned that many readers, (our top priority hopefully) will compare the current Trump image with that of Clinton's and make the same obvious deduction you and many others have made. No one can argue that Trump is not smiling, as is Clinton -- nor can they argue that the image is not formal in appearance, as is Clinton's. All bio's should receive the same considerations, esp when controversial subjects are involved, yet we will have to wait months before that happens, even with adequate images available. Hopefully the ] will weigh in soon so we can present an article in a truly neutral manner.-- ] (]) 18:46, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
:*Inconsistent, always incomplete, often disrespectful, sometimes just plain incorrect responses attempting to explain policy, now replaced by ].
:::::Just to note the reason Clinton's image is the way it is: that is her official portrait as Secretary of State. Most biographies of office holders use an official portrait like that. Trump has never held office so we don't have that option. Presumably that will be rectified soon. --] (]) 19:12, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
:As for PAGs and our authority to do this:
:::::::Which doesn't change the fact that the two biographies have not been treated in a fair and balanced manner. Clinton's image is pleasing and formal in appearance -- Trump's is not, even with several such images available. -- ] (]) 19:23, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
:*Why has no admin ever commented about that? Why has this issue never gone to ]?
:::::::Just noticed that the sections (not RfC's} filled with support for a new photo have been tucked away in numerous collapsible boxes by one editor who took it upon himself to do so -- the same one whose name appears all over the page more than any other, by a huge margin. Very revealing. It appears we have POV and ownership issues at work here. The current RfC only "supersedes" the old RfC, it is not a license to suppress opposing opinions. -- ] (]) 19:23, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
:*There is no Misplaced Pages policy prohibiting #61. Therefore it was within our discretion to do it. We used that discretion. It's called innovation.
:::::::The same editor just tried to do the same thing with this current discussion. Will someone please talk sense to this individual? He is apparently too angry to listen to me anymore. Discussion about the Trump image is not confined to the current RfC. -- ] (]) 19:37, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
:::::::::{{tq|Discussion about the Trump image is not confined to the current RfC.}} Strongly disagree. Anything "decided" outside the RfC with respect to the infobox image could not override the RfC result, so would be a pointless waste of editor time. &#8213;]&nbsp;] 19:52, 17 November 2016 (UTC) :AFAIK, most editors agree it has achieved its goals; at least I've heard positive feedback from a number of editors and negative feedback from none except you. I propose we not turn back the clock to that more primitive day. The consensus 61 discussion is at ] for your review. &#8213;]&nbsp;] 20:05, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
:{{tq|Misplaced Pages has policies and guidelines regarding editor behavior.}} Are you suggesting that ] should anticipate the problem we were facing and explicitly authorize immediate closure of bias complaints from readers who don't understand Misplaced Pages content policy, provided they are provided explanation on a separate page? I don't think that's a reasonable expectation. Regardless, if necessary I have no problem invoking ] in this case: "If a ] prevents you from improving or maintaining ], '''ignore it'''." &#8213;]&nbsp;] 20:36, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::::Does the 1RR apply to this talk page? -- ] (]) 19:41, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
:I suspect you still believe, after all these years, that general discussion about bias at this article is a legitimate use of this page. It still is not; it still violates at least the spirit of ]. I believe I recall that you have been asked multiple times in the past to go to Village Pump to ask whether your belief is correct, and you have yet to do so. Refusal to do that is practically an admission that you know you're wrong. If you went to VP, they would tell you you're wrong, that would be on the record in the VP archive, and you would have to cease bringing this up periodically. You need to go get a community answer or stop flogging that horse carcass. &#8213;]&nbsp;] 21:23, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::Speaking as an uninvolved editor, please keep the image discussions in one place, in this case ]. I have seen plenty of people agreeing that the current image is not ideal, but none agreeing on a new one. In order to agree on a new image these people are going to have to agree to one image in one place. -- ] <sup>]</sup> 19:43, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
:::::::::::{{ping|zzuuzz}} Please review the sections involved. Most of these sections have been tucked away in green collapsible boxes so they are easier to find now. Many editors have expressed a desire for a new image, including the editor that initiated this section. The new RfC is where we will determine any new consensus. There is no process (or any) policy however that says every discussion about the image must occur there. -- ] (]) 20:40, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
::::::::::::The more the discussion is diluted the longer it will take. -- ] <sup>]</sup> 20:50, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
::::::::::::::Well, I had a similar concern, that people on both sides of the POV fence would line up and vote accordingly, resulting in a long debate, which indeed has occurred. This is why I hoped that policy would prevail (not that anyone has out-right violated policy) and both bio's would simply get a pleasing and formal picture. -- ] (]) 21:48, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::The constant violation of ] on this page has become quite tiresome. My opinion, and that of many here, is that the alternative images of Trump are all poor. The ones in the new group are squinty and make him look constipated. The claim that we are purposely trying to keep un unflattering image due to political beliefs is outrageous and without any merit. ] (]) 21:56, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
{{od}} Superseded by active RfC. Please take any content discussion to that RfC. There is nothing to discuss as to process. &#8213;]&nbsp;] 19:52, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
::{{ping|Mandruss}}, please read what is written. This is a current discussion about something other than consensus or process. No one said this discussion will override anything. No policy has been violated. If so, please give us a ''quote'' to the exact policy -- not a general link/referral to some page, but the exact policy, please. Thanx. -- ] (]) 20:40, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
:::{{ping|Gwillhickers }} Ok, I read what was written. I see you comparing smiling Hillary to serious Donald, as if that "inconsistency" is precluded by Misplaced Pages neutrality policy. It is not. I think I see you saying that the issue is too urgent to wait for an RfC resolution, so we must resolve it more quickly outside the RfC. I strongly dispute that. You seem to have trouble with the concept of subjectivity, trouble accepting that there are good faith differences in perception of the existing image. This was elaborated at length during the last push to change the image. You appear to believe that your view of the image is self-evident, and you in fact suggested the other day that failing to agree with your view was evidence of bad faith. It is not, and I would call that the ultimate bulletproof debate argument, "Agree with me or you are acting in bad faith".<br />If there is something I'm missing in this thread that makes my collapse inappropriate, please point it out to me. &#8213;]&nbsp;] 20:54, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
::::All 'perceptions' aside, Clinton's image gives us a smiling and formal pose, Trump's does not. Re: Urgency, I wouldn't say that, but the fact remains, several months will pass where will see a glaring difference in the bio' images. and wonder about Misplaced Pages's credibility, as has been expressed by several editors. Okay, let's try to bury the hatchet and let the ] run its course. At least most are willing to use the official photo when it becomes available. Trying to count the blessings here. Cheers. -- ] (]) 22:00, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
:::::{{ping|Gwillhickers}} {{tq|Clinton's image gives us a smiling and formal pose, Trump's does not}} Again, and for about the 4th time, Misplaced Pages policy does not require that kind of "consistency". Can you see why you are seen as "not hearing" what is said? If you hear what is said, you either dispute it with evidence, or you accept it and change your position accordingly. You did neither, simply repeating the same thing you said before my comment. The concept is the subject of the essay ]. And you failed to hear my comment yesterday or the day before that we edit according to policy, not according to what readers will believe about our credibility or neutrality. At the risk of glibness, Misplaced Pages is not engaged in a popularity contest. We are a non-profit encyclopedia, not a newspaper with the need to consider profitabililty. Again, you neither countered my statement (I don't think you even responded to it, actually) nor accepted it and altered your position. Again, IDHT. This pattern is what is so frustrating with you and other editors who behave in that manner. It is simply impossible to communicate with you in a constructive way and affter several days one wonders why they are wasting their time. &#8213;]&nbsp;] 23:26, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
::::Oh my goodness, you're still fuming. Given your rather frantic participation, suppression of opposing opinions, disregard for fair treatment and neutrality, even when numerous editors point out the obvious difference in the photos, disregard for policy regarding ownership, Talk, repeated personal attacks, etc, not to mention your habit of speaking for others, your recital about what Misplaced Pages is and isn't has become something of a blur. IDHT? Look who's talking. I heard very well, and when it comes to policy about "process" you never took the ball past your own ten yard line. Once again, the RfC is about establishing consensus. ''Discussion'' about the neutrality of images however can occur where it may, and there is no policy about "process" that says editors can't express such opinions while an RfC is occurring. Is there? Your attempts to suppress these discussions, which no one is forcing you to participate in, obviously says more than you care to admit. As I said, we'll let the RfC run it's course. Now have your "last word" and repeat yourself for the nice folks out there. -- ] (]) 02:14, 18 November 2016 (UTC)


:One has to wonder how many times over the years this user has posted something of this nature, and how many times has it led to a course change. As some point, the complaining itself becomes tendentious. ] (]) 22:47, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::Would someone please stop these constant personal attacks? ] (]) 02:26, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
::::::My understanding and experience is that no admin will act without a complaint at ], ], possibly somewhere in the Arbcom infrastructure where ArbCom restrictions are in place, I'm not very familiar with that area. Discretionary sanctions are available at this article but I've yet to see them exercised for talk-page-only misbehavior. So, sadly, I believe the answer to your question is "probably not". &#8213;]&nbsp;] 02:52, 18 November 2016 (UTC) ::~8 and 0. &#8213;]&nbsp;] 00:05, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
:::I don't think anyone can argue that the article isn't at least a little bit slanted. Is there some way we can address that here, rather than in a grand Wiki-wide project? I see it as one of the most fundamental issues with this article, which is consistently one of the highest-traffic on the site. One suggestion could be that we agree not to blanket-ban deprecated right-leaning sources. ] (]) 03:37, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::::I was willing to bury the hatchet, and let the RfC run it's course, and look at the reply. Again, I'm willing to let the RfC run it's course. Evidently this was not good enough for Mandruss, who initiated and has made repeated personal attacks. I'm done with this thread. Mandruss? -- ] (]) 03:04, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
::::::::Thank you for letting the RfC run its course. Thanks again for being done with this thread. If you want to have a general discussion about infobox images and neutrality, the venue is ], not this page. In theory, at least, some editors who are especially familiar with ] watch that page and offer comments. While that does not always happen, it at least gets the discussion off this talk page. &#8213;]&nbsp;] 03:12, 18 November 2016 (UTC) ::::{{ping|Riposte97}} How about a new subpage of this page for that purpose? Then advertise it here a la a normal discussion notice (just a heading and a wikilink), with the possibility of pinning if you don't get enough participation in 6 days. &#8213;]&nbsp;] 03:45, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
::::And I've already offered my UTP for that purpose, but I don't know how its 172 watchers would feel about that. &#8213;]&nbsp;] 06:04, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
{{cob}}
::::{{tq|I don't think anyone can argue that the article isn't at least a little bit slanted}} which just brings us back to the oft-quoted "Reality has a well-known liberal bias." The Misplaced Pages follows the sources, if you don't like that then go take that up with reality. ] (]) 14:26, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::I wouldn't go that far. &#8213;]&nbsp;] 14:29, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
::::Was thinking exactly the same thing earlier today, but it sets a terrible precedent and could do more damage to the encyclopaedia as these were deprecated for good reasons. It’d be good to balance the narratives from the two sides though, just not use them for facts. It’s worth exploring ] (]) 20:07, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::I perhaps should have been more precise, and referred to sources labelled 'biased'. I have noticed that in the past at this page, some right-leaning sources are dismissed out of hand as being biased (based sometimes on rather flimsy reasoning at RSN). They are routinely removed. However, the article is riven with left-leaning sources that are arguably equally biased. A good example is provided by Rollinginhisgrave ]. That is definitely something we can address with sufficient attention.
:::::<br>
:::::], thanks for the suggestion. I don't mind it. To be clear, is it to workshop alternative wording at a subpage, or discuss structural interventions? ] (]) 21:50, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::It's to keep general article bias discussions off this page (such as the recent comments in this very thread). Otherwise, whatever people think is useful. &#8213;]&nbsp;] 21:59, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::{{tq|with the possibility of pinning if you don't get enough participation in 6 days.}} On second thought, the notice would need to be pinned, period. Otherwise people would be linking to the subpage in other threads anyway. It wouldn't make sense to limit awareness of the subpage to people who saw the notice in the first 6 days. &#8213;]&nbsp;] 22:17, 22 January 2025 (UTC)


== Second nonconsecutive presidency/Grover Cleveland in the lead ==
== First sentence order of titles ==


was for the umpteenth time. Thoughts? ]] 18:04, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
In the first sentence, it makes sense to change to order of titles and speak first on the fact that he is the president elect. This outshdow all other information, and the main reason people enter this page.
:And, since it's a bold edit that was challenged more than once, could someone please remove it unless and until there's a consensus to add it? I've used up my 3RR for the day. ]] 18:06, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
I would suggest something along that line:
::{{done}} &ndash;&nbsp;]&nbsp;(]) 18:18, 22 January 2025 (UTC)


:Support continuing to omit from the lead. ] (]) 01:54, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
Donald John Trump (/ˈdɒnəld dʒɒn trʌmp/; born June 14, 1946) is an American politician, the President-elect of the United States, an American businessman, reality television personality and real estate mogul. <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 22:41, 17 November 2016 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->


== Continuing discussion on bankruptcy ==
* '''Disagree''' we can cross that bridge when we get to it, not a moment too soon. --] (]) 22:50, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
** He already won the race, and is the president elect. What do you mean "... when we get to it ..."? This is exactly where we're at. ] (]) 22:54, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
*** As a biography of a living person, most of his life has been as a business man and celebrity. People may come here cuz of recent events but it would be NPOV in my mind to classify this man first and foremost as a politician. --] (]) 22:58, 17 November 2016 (UTC) ~~
****What Bod said. He may one day be better known as a president. That day is not today... ] (]) 23:36, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
*****At this current time point, even if Mr. Trump suffers an heart attack tomorrow, and never make to the white house, he will for generations to come be remembered as the president elect, years after he is forgotten as the owner of Trump towers. As much as he deserves an article as a business man and reality TV he is not extraordinary due to that. He has become extraordinary by winning the race to the white house. Let me ask it this way - If you were to write this page from scratch, what would be the most important thing you could say about Mr. Trump? ] (]) 01:38, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
******You're being blinded by current events, my man. All in due time. All in due time... He is still a wannabe politician to many. He has never even held office and you are ready to call him an "American politician" --] (]) 01:44, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
******]'s observation is correct -- in part. Most mainstream sources say that Trump is not truly a "''wannabe politician''" -- at least, he didn't wannabe elected as much Clinton or Cruz did. (And judging from his , when Trump sleeps, he dreams of building golf courses, not campaigning.) --] (]) 04:12, 18 November 2016 (UTC)


Responding to in the now closed thread above ]
== Producer or personality? ==


:Clearly simply noting the number of bankruptcies is misleading as it is a small portion of his failed businesses. And the casino industry was not having difficulties when his three casino businesses went under. ] (]) 22:02, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
Trump is a television producer:
::{{u|Objective3000}} The quoted text from the PolitiFact article contradicts this: "While six in 25 years is a lot, five were tied to a struggling gaming industry." Attaching reliable sources substantiating your comments here would be helpful. ] (]) 01:46, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
:::You can start here: . That's a partial list. Yes that is WP and WP is not a source, although they are linked to articles with sources. It would take a large effort to find RS for all the failures. But if you are saying five is misleading and biased against Trump; that's a Sisyphean hill to climb. ] (]) 02:06, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
::::Oh I understand your point better. "if you are saying five is misleading and biased against Trump": I am simply saying that the opinion of a consensus of experts on this matter is DUE per the emphasis placed by PolitiFact and the demonstrated fact that this is not a minority view. Whether it should be included that stating Trump's bankruptcies misleads on his business failures is a separate point, if you would like to discuss such inclusion, opening another thread for that would be the best course to avoid further confusion. ] (]) 02:15, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::I'm saying five is misleading and biased '''FOR '''Trump. I know the majority view is the claims made by Trump. He has always maintained that he has never been bankrupt. Meaning personal bankruptcy. Point is, a business can fail without ever filing for bankruptcy, personal or corporate. What matters is the total number of failures, if you don't want to be misleading and biased. Look, doesn't matter to me and I'm not looking for a change as nobody cares at this point. Just responding to the claim that five is somehow biased '''against '''Trump as well as contradicting a bunch of other WP articles. ] (]) 02:28, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::"What matters is the total number of failures, if you don't want to be misleading and biased": in your opinion. I'm not interested in a discussion detached from sourcing, although I'm supportive of including this point if you demonstrate it reflects the weight placed by reliable sources. ] (]) 02:44, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::::I am responding to the original post in this thread, by you, stating that the number of bankruptcies is misleading and is biased against him. The list of business failures is DUE to the point we have 18 separate articles on them with ample RS. This is not surprising as being a businessman is what he is known for and is in the first sentence of the article. I don't see how the article is biased '''against '''him on this subject. ] (]) 12:09, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::::I have maintained that simply stating the number of bankruptcies without noting a consensus of expert opinion on what this means is excluding DUE content. This does not preclude that the material you are presenting is DUE, although I did click through some pages to see the sources and wasn't convinced. One page I clicked on for instance, ], was the production company Trump produced ''The Apprentice'' media through. When Trump was fired from ''The Celebrity Apprentice'' while running for president, the business was dissolved. That's not bankruptcy. To summarize this as "business failure" is editorializing. ] (]) 14:10, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::::::I hate to raise whataboutism, and other stuff, but is this what we commonly do when dealing with bankrupts? ] (]) 14:16, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::::{{u|Slatersteven}} Hm? Could you expand? ] (]) 14:41, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::::::::Is this what we normally do in articles where we mention bankruptcies? or is this giving Trumpy special treatment? ] (]) 14:43, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::::::Maybe it would be best to establish whether you agree/disagree that the source establishes DUE weight for the information's inclusion before we address this point, although I'm not ignoring it. ] (]) 15:15, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::::::::::How are his bankruptcies not due as he is a noted business person? ] (]) 15:25, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::Yes, a discussion of his bankruptcies is certainly DUE, the question is on which was fact-checking a comment on an unusually high number of Trump businesses going bankrupt. The article says that emphasizing the large number of Trump business bankruptcies without giving context is misleading: {{tq|Experts told us during the primary season Trump alone didn’t cause the bankruptcies. While six in 25 years is a lot, five were tied to a struggling gaming industry. Trump was acting, they said, as any investor would.}} The question is whether including this context is DUE under ]. ] (]) 15:33, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::::No, mention of them is, again we go back to, why treat him any differently form any other bankrupt, this fails ] and ] as we are giving him special status. ] (]) 15:36, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::::::::::::::It is like how when we mention that the economy grew under Trump, we contextualize it by opening with "Trump took office at the height of the longest economic expansion in American history". Similarly, we contextualize bankruptcies if such contextualization receives emphasis in reliable sources, per ], as they do here. ] (]) 15:47, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
{{u|Rollinginhisgrave}}, how much do you know about Trump's business record in the late 80s/early 90s? E.g., that he owed the banks $900 million and only averted personal bankruptcy because the banks figured they'd get more money selling off his property if they kept him on as figurehead? They so he could keep up his millionaire lifestyle while schmoozing prospective buyers. And, as O3000 pointed out, the casino industry wasn't in trouble at the time, before the advent of the internet with online gambling and sports betting. I bet the people coming here complaining of bias know and believe only what they've heard from Trump, his allies, and right-wing media. ]] 15:15, 23 January 2025 (UTC)


:That material being DUE doesn't preclude this material also being DUE. O3000 has said the casino industry wasn't struggling, which I am interested in getting a source for considering it conflicts with "Experts told us during the primary season Trump alone didn’t cause the bankruptcies. While six in 25 years is a lot, five were tied to a struggling gaming industry." ] (]) 15:21, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
::: "Donald J. Trump is the co-owner and Executive Producer of the 'Miss Universe Pageant'..."
::: "Mr. Trump is producing additional network and cable television programming via his Los Angeles based production company..."


::There's more information about the individual bankruptcies leading to his close scrape with personal insolvency in ] and ]. ]] 15:32, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
He's also a television '''and radio''' personality:
::The experts were asked in 2016. They may have been thinking about , after the arrival of the internet competition. Trump bought the Plaza Hotel entirely with bank loans, couldn't make the payments; built a casino next door to his other casino, becoming his own competition; gave credit to patrons to gamble with the casino's money — all less than savvy business decisions. This has been documented going all the way back to Wayne Barrett's 1992 book Trump: The Deals and the Downfall. I'm also pretty sure that I've read sources about casinos being moneymakers for everyone except Trump; I'll start looking for them. 's a source about the Atlantic City boom in the 80s and 90s and the bust not just from internet gambling but also from Native American casinos on tribal lands. ]] 16:07, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
:::Thanks for these, I'll have a read in a bit and come back to you. ] (]) 16:09, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
:::I had a read of this, although I think you attached the wrong URL for the second source, which I imagine is more relevant. I hope you can attach it. ] (]) 05:51, 24 January 2025 (UTC)


No reasonable reason has been given as to why we need to treat Trumpy as a special case as such all we need to do is mention the bankruptcies, if readers want to know how bankruptcies work, they can read the article about it. So my last comment is a firm, no. ] (]) 15:38, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
::: "His radio program with Clear Channel Radio ... was a wonderful success."


:Could you say why you think this is about explaining how bankruptcies work, rather than contextualising the economic context of these bankruptcies? ] (]) 15:41, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
He's not, in that context, a "] personality". Sources: ; . --] (]) 00:35, 18 November 2016 (UTC)


=== Are these cited sources opinions? ===
:I'd say he is both. He was the subject of a reality TV show, which makes him a reality TV personality. ]&nbsp;] 02:00, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
{{u|Space4Time3Continuum2x}} The two sources I flagged there for opinion were:
* verifying "His campaign was initially not taken seriously by political analysts"
**Described at ] as "Most editors consider The New Republic biased or opinionated. Opinions in the magazine should be attributed." The article was an opinion piece by a non-subject matter expert, in a source flagged for bias and unattributed. Hence I tagged it as insufficient for verifying the claim.
* verifying " frequently made claims of media bias."
**Analysis by ], whose analysis has received a ]. It is unattributed, and on a ] hosted by the Washington Post, without apparent editorial control. You may assess this as sufficiently reliable, but I think an argument can be made for it being insufficiently reliable so as to warrant being tagged, and the source being replaced with one without such concerns.


The opinion at hand: cescribed in non-opinion reporting by a third party, in a reliable source with substantially less bias concerns (and ] should mean the article should be biased against Trump), multiple subject-matter experts are surveyed, and a consensus is reported, that simply presenting the number of bankruptcies misleads readers about Trump's incompetency. ] (]) 18:11, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
:: {{reply to|MordeKyle}} Correct, he's both. Next question: Which lead sentence conflicts with ]-
:I have a headache and Jim Beam, signing off for today. I'll get to this tomorrow. ]] 18:25, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
:::: A. Donald John Trump is an American businessman, television producer, radio and ] personality, real estate mogul and ].
::No worries, enjoy your evening, I hope you feel better with rest. ] (]) 18:29, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
:::: B. Donald John Trump is an American businessman, television producer, and ].
:::Apologies, I have gotten ] and ] mixed. The only difference I can see this making is that ] does not flag any concerns of bias for PolitiFact that it does for Politico. ] (]) 01:46, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
:: Hint: Which version '''introduces''' the subject, and which tries to describe five or six notable things about him? --] (]) 02:49, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
The articles you flagged are not opinion pieces.
:::{{replyto|Dervorguilla}} right, I don't disagree with you, but I think he is more commonly notable for being a reality tv personality than a producer. I for one, had no idea he produced anything, yet as a person who really doesn't know anything about this guy, I do know he was on reality tv shows. I think if you are only able to make one mention of his tv work, then the reality tv personality is better to use. I also think that maybe using the term, "Television Personality" is more accurate that reality tv personality, because he was on a lot of non reality shows like Oprah and such in the past as well. ]&nbsp;] 03:06, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
*The New Republic article by ], a reputable journalist, is the source for this sentence: {{tq|His campaign was initially not taken seriously by political analysts, but he quickly rose to the top of opinion polls.}} She cites other journalists and polls, and the piece is an article, not an opinion. ] says that {{tq|There is consensus that The New Republic is generally reliable.}}
:::Also, just to add, being a TV producer is really just a business venture of an American Businessman right? ]&nbsp;] 03:07, 18 November 2016 (UTC){{reply to|}
*The Fix, Washington Post. May have been something different when Cilizza was writing it but it's currently a section where Aaron Blake (the third source you flagged in that section) and Philip Bump write in-depth analyses.
:::: {{reply to|MordeKyle}} No. A isn't an owner or proprietor; he's labor. ''''''. --] (]) 03:48, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
** is about he links to. It's not an opinion.
** is one of two sources for this: {{tq|He said he disdained ] and frequently made claims of ].}} They have a clip of Trump deriding political correctness numerous times (doesn't play on the Wayback Machine). (US News is the source for media bias.) ]] 18:05, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
:::Thanks for this writeup. I'll leave a note here of my thoughts and hand it over to you, untagging sources if you still disagree with my readings. The New Republic does not distinguish opinion vs reporting. In the most charitable reading of the article, it is not "an article, not an opinion" but a mix of the two, seen clearly for example in "Somewhere inside the egomaniac who stamps his name on buildings all over the world is a man who doesn't want to be seen." This is straightforward opining, not reporting. It is unclear in the piece whether some claims, such as his campaign not being taken seriously by political analysts are opinion or reporting, even if the author provides some evidence for their claims, as almost all opinion piece writers do. In light of such ambiguity, at minimum attribution is required, and the source is insufficient for the claim to be put in wikivoice.
:::Your notes on Blake and Bump are compelling; The Fix seems to have moved to another site to host analysis in the Washington Post, rather than functioning as a NEWSBLOG where opinions are published. I strongly disagree however with your characterization of the Cilizza piece: that he is commenting on a scientific study does not make it all of a sudden reportage rather than opinion. Reading the piece, it's very obvious it is opinion piece blogpost published on the study. It is not a reliable source for accurately, objectively describing the contents of the study into wikivoice, just as I would not cite other blogs such as ] or ] to summarise the conclusions of studies. ] (]) 00:15, 24 January 2025 (UTC)


== "Heir to the Trump fortune" == == Format of Second presidency early actions ==


]
This was recently added to the lead. Per the article body, "After his father died in 1999, Trump and his siblings received equal portions of his father's estate valued at $250–300 million." So when he got his share, it was a small portion of his total wealth.] (]) 01:37, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
: how I edited this just now.] (]) 01:43, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
:: {{reply to|Anythingyouwant}} Suggestion: Remove 'formerly run by his father, which is now...', per ] (avoid lengthy paragraphs and over-specific descriptions). Also, the business was named "Elizabeth Trump & Son" when Fred was running it. Some readers could erroneously understand the text to mean that at some point in time, Fred ran a business called "The Trump Organization". --] (]) 02:21, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
:::Okay, that sounds reasonable. The next paragraph <u>of the lead</u> gets more specific: "'''''he took control of his father Fred Trump's real estate and construction firm'''''".] (]) 02:29, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
: Well, that's 60-75 million $. Worthy of the lede? Maybe not. But I think what it did is let it be known that Donald was not the builder of the family fortune. It should be written in the lede that his father and grandfather built up the family fortune and Donald continued in the same business as his father. --] (]) 02:39, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
:: {{reply to|Bodhi Peace}} ''Forbes'' "gave each member of The Forbes 400 a score on a scale from '''1''' to '''10''' — a 1 indicating the fortune was completely inherited, while a 10 was for a Horatio Alger-esque journey... '''5''': Inherited small or medium-size business and made it into a ten-digit fortune: ''Donald Trump''". ("".)
:: Had his score been 1, 2, 3, or even 4, the information would clearly be leadworthy. --] (]) 03:22, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
It's the entire base upon which his current fortune stands. Sure it has been expanded, but the fact remains we don't know how much it is now—and the inheritance was very substantial. Some sources even say it makes up most of Trump's fortune once you correct for inflation and the increase in NYSE valuation, and that had he only invested in the stock market he would have been richer than he is now. Regardless it belongs in the lede as something central to Donald Trump, especially considering his controversial comments about "small loans". I just can't see how this is problematic? As for that score it seems difficult to get a proper source for that when his fortune is so difficult to pin down, and to base editorial decisions on it seems bordering on ]. ] (]) 11:40, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
:Relevant sources:
*http://fortune.com/2015/08/20/donald-trump-index-funds/
*http://time.com/money/4005271/donald-trump-index-funds-wealth/
*http://www.vox.com/2015/9/2/9248963/donald-trump-index-fund
*https://www.nationaljournal.com/s/54699/1-easy-way-donald-trump-could-have-been-even-richer-doing-nothing ('''original source''')
*more…


Does anyone else think a 171-word sentence is a bit excessive? I'd favor a bulleted list in this case, which I think would be better than sentence-splitting. Let us ignore specific content details here; this is about format.
This "material" probably isn't lede worthy. Also, it is now mentioned twice in the lede that he took over his dad's company, that should probably be addressed or corrected or not. --] (]) 12:54, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
:I have combined the two lede paragraphs about his career into a single paragraph. It does not mention inheritance or "family fortune," just says that he took over the family business and expanded it. I trust this meets with people's approval, but if not let's discuss it. --] (]) 16:59, 18 November 2016 (UTC)


{{tq2|
== Feminine speaking style ==
Upon taking office, Trump:
*signed a ] that ] and ]<ref>{{Cite web |date=2025-01-20 |title=Trump signs executive order directing US withdrawal from the Paris climate agreement — again |url=https://apnews.com/article/trump-paris-agreement-climate-change-788907bb89fe307a964be757313cdfb0 |access-date=2025-01-21 |website=AP News |language=en}}</ref>
*] of any genders outside male and female<ref>{{cite news |title=Trump rolls back trans and gender-identity rights and takes aim at DEI |url=https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/jan/20/trump-executive-order-gender-sex |access-date=21 January 2025 |work=The Guardian}}</ref>
*froze new regulations
*froze hiring of non-military federal workers
*founded the ]
*barred federal involvement in criminal investigations of political adversaries
*prevented federal censorship of free speech
*reversed the withdrawal of Cuba's designation as a ]
*reversed sanctions on Israeli settlers
*issued a mass pardon of approximately 1,500 ]<ref>{{cite web |title=Trump commutes sentences of Jan. 6 extremist group leaders; Tarrio gets pardon |url=https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/5097034-trump-commutes-jan-6-sentences/ |website=thehill.com |publisher=The Hill |access-date=21 January 2025}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |date=2025-01-21 |title=Trump pardons roughly 1,500 criminal defendants charged in the Jan. 6 Capitol attack |url=https://www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/rcna187735 |access-date=2025-01-21 |work=NBC News |language=en}}</ref>
*designated Mexican drug cartels as foreign terrorist organizations
*attempted to end ] for new children of undocumented immigrants
*renamed ] back to Mount McKinley<ref name=Renames>{{Cite news |last=] |date=January 20, 2025 |title=Restoring Names That Honor American Greatness |url=https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/01/restoring-names-that-honor-american-greatness |access-date=January 20, 2025 |work=] |via=]}}</ref>
*renamed the ] to the Gulf of America<ref name=Renames/>
*granted ] a 75-day pause before it would be banned<ref>{{cite web |title=Trump signs slew of executive actions after being sworn in |url=https://www.cnn.com/politics/live-news/trump-inauguration-01-2025/index.html?t=1737420903107 |work=CNN |access-date=21 January 2025}}</ref>
*declared a national emergency on the southern border that would trigger the deployment of armed forces<ref>{{cite web |title=Trump signs the first executive orders of his new administration |url=https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/trump-prepares-slew-day-1-orders-immigration-gender-rcna187164 |work=NBC News |access-date=21 January 2025}}</ref>
*granted ] a full and unconditional pardon<ref>{{Cite web |last=Doherty |first=Brian |date=2025-01-22 |title=President Donald Trump pardons Silk Road founder Ross Ulbricht |url=https://reason.com/2025/01/21/president-donald-trump-pardons-silk-road-founder-ross-ulbricht/ |access-date=2025-01-22 |website=Reason.com |language=en-US}}</ref>
}}&#8213;]&nbsp;] 21:39, 22 January 2025 (UTC)


:I think a bulleted list would look very bad, but everything certainly doesn't need to be one sentence. How about this:
I found interesting. Trump's ] purportedly uses vocabulary correlated more closely with female speakers than with male ones, and this might explain some of the emotional resonance in his speeches. There's a critical response . I haven't been able to find an academic reference so far, but the same author did something similar about Hillary Clinton (, search for Jennifer Jones) in 2015. It includes a mention of the text analysis program and corpus used in the study. I'll leave it to others to decide whether to put any of this in the article. ] (]) 09:49, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
::Upon taking office, Trump a ] that froze new regulations, froze hiring of non-military federal workers, barred federal involvement in criminal investigations of political adversaries, prevented federal censorship of free speech, ] of any genders outside male and female, and founded the ]. In foreign policy, he reversed the withdrawal of Cuba's designation as a ], designated Mexican drug cartels as foreign terrorist organizations, reversed sanctions on Israeli settlers, and ] and ]. He also issued a mass pardon of approximately 1,500 ], granted ] a full and unconditional pardon. Relating to immigration, he declared a national emergency on the southern border that would trigger the deployment of armed forces and attempted to end ] for new children of undocumented immigrants. Furthermore, he granted ] a 75-day pause before it would be banned, and ordered the ] to be renamed to the Gulf of America, and ordered the name of ] to be reverted to Mount McKinley.
:Is that better? ] (]) 22:42, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
::{{tq|I think a bulleted list would look very bad}} Change that last word to "good", and we're in full agreement. Far more readable. As I said, better than sentence-splitting. &#8213;]&nbsp;] 23:10, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
:::A list is more easily understood. You've made the case, and MOS backs you up (despite ] mostly trying to talk editors out of this).
:::{{tqb|Prefer prose where a passage is understood easily as regular text that appears in its ordinary form...}}
:::{{tqb|Articles are intended to consist primarily of prose, though they may contain some lists.}}
:::-] (]) 00:13, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
::::As time goes on the whole mention of individual orders will get folded into more relevant sections. The deployment of armed forces and designation of cartels as terrorist organizations will likely be briefly mentioned in a section on immigration; Ross Ulbricht and the J6 pardons will be mentioned in the second term's equivalent of the "pardons and commutations" section of the first presidency; sanctions on Israeli settlers will get folded into the section on Israel. We should look at what was written in the "early actions" section of the first presidency to get a better idea of how to structure this one. I believe I read a source that said the amount of executive orders he issued was "unparalleled" in modern American history, so a statement like that will probably cover most of the entire sentence-paragraph that is there right now. We don't want the page to become the entire ] page. ] (]) 01:47, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
::::I don't see how an article made entirely of prose getting a 16-page bulleted list of one-sentence items in the middle of its content (for something that, for his first presidency, was written just fine in prose) wouldn't be jarring to the reader. Splitting it into multiple paragraphs, cutting out lower-notability items for better ], or moving actions into their relevant sub-sections (which, as BootsED said, will likely happen naturally over time anyways), would all be preferable alternatives to a list of any kind. ] (]) 01:51, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::{{tq|(for something that, for his first presidency, was written just fine in prose)}} - First presidency: 79 words and 7 or 8 items, depending on whether you count Ivanka and Jared as one item or two. Second presidency: 171 words and 17 items&mdash;''so far''. Hardly equivalent, so it could easily be {{tq|written just fine in prose}} for first presidency while not being {{tq|written just fine in prose}} for second presidency. That said, if we felt it important for them to be consistent, there would be nothing preventing us from using bulleted list for first presidency as well.{{pb}}I suspect it's not a matter of being less selective this time, but more that he's more active out of the gate this time.{{pb}}The bulleted list makes it far easier to parse the items: one line per item. That's the purpose of lists. You could say we've done the parsing for them.{{pb}}Hey, I recognize you now. You're the editor who thought it would be optimal to make the article's first paragraph one '''39-word sentence'''&mdash;demonstrating very little understanding of good writing. A dead professional writer would spin in his grave.{{pb}}{{User:IdLoveOne/Userboxes/ListsAreGOOD}}


:None of this will go into the article. ] ] 09:53, 18 November 2016 (UTC) &#8213;]&nbsp;] 11:04, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
{{clear}}


=== Content of Second presidency early actions ===
:Thanks, that ''is'' quite interesting. FWIW, voice artist ] has made dozens of videos highlighting Trump's highly camp style of delivery. --] <sup>]</sup> 09:59, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
::::::Trump signing stuff — at least this time around we weren't subjected to pictures of the cabinet surrounding the Resolute desk, proudly beaming at Baby proudly wielding the Sharpie. How about we just write "signed of Executive Orders" on his first day or first days and whatever else he did? For instance, he took time out of his busy signing schedule to order the Pentagon to remove Gen. Milley's portrait from the Pentagon gallery displaying the portraits of all former Chairmen of the Joint Chiefs of Staff (kidding! — no response required); waiting for him to order the Air Force to paint the Air Force Ones in the Trump colors which his 2020 loss prevented. Let's see what they actually do about any of them. ]] 17:07, 23 January 2025 (UTC)]] 17:01, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::Sorry that my proposal to add nine words to a 30-word sentence so that the whole paragraph felt more natural to me offended you so greatly that you needed to bring it up in an entirely separate discussion. {{small|(''Wow, 39 words again? How awful...'')}} I have already moved the information about Israeli settler sanctions to the "Israel" section. As more sections open up, we can continue to do the same. I suspect there is already enough information for an "immigration" section, as well as a "pardons and commutations" section. Then we just need to trim what is left a little bit. Barring "federal involvement in criminal investigations of political adversaries" and preventing "federal censorship of free speech" are glorified press releases with zero effect on actual policy. They can be removed. That means we are left with only this:
:::::::{{tq|Upon taking office, Trump signed a ]. He ]<nowiki/>and ], ] of ], froze new regulations and hiring of non-military federal workers, founded the ], and delayed the ] by 75 days. He also reversed the proposed withdrawal of Cuba's designation as a ] and designated Mexican drug cartels as foreign terrorist organizations. He also renamed ] back to "Mount McKinley" and the ] to the "Gulf of America."}}
::::::I do not see how the above it as all long enough to warrant the insertion of a bulleted list that breaks up prose. And yes, I do believe in cross-term consistency — though it is not my main argument here. But even in that case, I think it is clear that making a list out of the first term's actions is woefully unwarranted due to its short length. ] (]) 20:45, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
* '''Support''' a list for rapid-fire actions designed to flood the news cycle—notice the press took the bait. Rationale above. -] (]) 13:23, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
::P.S. To explain my comment. NBC absurdly broke in yesterday with a breaking news bulletin announcing an action taken . (They rolled over important local coverage of our dysfunctional state legislature.) -] (]) 14:46, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
::: so the media and people won't be talking about groceries and gas not having gotten cheaper and that Republicans in Congress are to pay for Trump's next massive tax cut for the rich. ]] 18:17, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
::::{{u|DecafPotato}}, that won't do. You skipped over half the first two days (you missed, e.g., birthright citizenship, DEI layoffs, emergency at the southern border). Also, minimized prose dodges Trump's strategy (aimed at a made-for-TV splash). -] (]) 23:38, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::Birthright citizenship, emergency at the southern border, etc., is what I was referring to when I said {{tq|I suspect there is already enough information for an "immigration" section}} that would contain that information separate from the "Early actions" section. And I'm not sure what you mean when you say {{tq|minimized prose dodges Trump's strategy}} — would you mind elaborating on that? ] (]) 00:04, 24 January 2025 (UTC)


:Agree most of the above should be mentioned, whitewashes his actions with a couple deemed "notable" by controversy, and categorises the rest as merely a "shock and awe campaign", which in itself fails ]—a running theme throughout this article. His initial executive actions should be presented neutrally, as they were before. The list was already trimmed to the more notable ones. ''']]''' 00:49, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
:Found the paper about the Clinton study mentioned above: {{doi|10.1017/S1537592716001092}} () ] (]) 10:03, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
:::I the section to simply state that Trump issued a large number of EO's and mentioned the two ones that got the most media attention: the January 6 pardons and the attempt to nullify part of the Constitution by revoking birthright citizenship. The other EO's should be mentioned where appropriate in other sections on immigration, trade, and ecetera. He is issuing roughly a dozen EO's a day, so we can't simply list them all. Please don't accuse me of whitewashing and AGF. The sources I provided were not op-eds, so WP:NEWSOPED does not apply here. ] (]) 00:53, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
::::It was not a list of them all, it was a trimmed version to what was widely covered by the media. One source opining that it was a "shock and awe campaign" does not satisfy NEWSOPED, which does not exclusively apply to opinion editorials: {{tq|editorial commentary, analysis '''and''' opinion pieces}}. Users seem to consistently disregard this throughout this article, often claiming that if a ] gives an opinion, it can be stated as encyclopaedic fact.
::::I agree that the January 6 pardons and birthright citizenship challenges should be expanded upon to satisfy due weight, but that does not excuse covering up the rest of his significant EOs. ''']]''' 01:01, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::Surely, DecafPotato. Trump executed a belligerent effort on inauguration day, partly on a staged set. Your minimal paragraph minimizes that effort. Sorry, Boots, so does reducing it to "a series" of orders. -] (]) 01:07, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::::Once some more time has passed, I'd like to state how many orders Trump passed in order to quantify the large amount. He's still passing them every day like candy, so I think calling them "a series" or "a large series" or something of that nature is warranted. The description of it as a "shock and awe" campaign, I believe, aids that description of a large, sudden, and "belligerent effort" as you say. Again, many of these EO's will be put in more appropriate sections as time goes on. I don't want this page to become a massive list and have endless arguments over what is and isn't important to mention in the long run. ] (]) 01:19, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::It is not one source, both sources say so. Notice I say ''described as'' a shock and awe campaign.
:::::*: "{{tq|President Donald Trump's first day back on the job began with what has been dubbed a shock and awe campaign, a burst of dozens of executive orders meant to jump-start his political and economic strategies.}}"
:::::*: "{{tq|"It's kind of an executive-order shock-and-awe campaign," said Matthew Dallek, a political historian at George Washington University. "The shock and awe is to send a message to his critics and most importantly to his voters, his supporters, that he’s back, and that he is going to try to deliver on his campaign promises, and he’s going to do it aggressively."}}"
:::::*The : "{{tq|President Trump promised shock and awe when he was elected, and his Inauguration Day at times felt like an effort to overwhelm his critics, his opponents and a media trying to keep up.}}"
:::::*Fox : {{tq|In his inauguration address, the new president vowed that things across the country would "change starting today, and it will change very quickly." And moments later, White House deputy chief of staff Taylor Budowich took to social media to tease, "Now, comes SHOCK AND AWE." They weren't kidding.}}
:::::*The Associated : "{{tq|Democrats struggle to pick their message against Trump’s shock-and-awe campaign}}"
:::::* "{{tq|President Donald Trump's transition team and outside allies have been signaling for weeks that they were planning to "flood the zone" in the first 100 days of the new administration. Former senior adviser and activist Steve Bannon had pushed this idea during Trump's first term, telling author and journalist Michael Lewis that "the Democrats don’t matter. The real opposition is the media. And the way to deal with them is to flood the zone with s**t.” He called it "shock and awe," which was described by historian Douglas Brinkley as "bizarre, rapid-fire presidential policy making."}}"
:::::*: {{tq|Trump’s “shock and awe” approach to executive orders, explained}}
:::::So yes, there are many sources that are not exclusively op-eds that call it a shock and awe campaign. I don't want to list each and every one. ] (]) 01:14, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::It is still not appropriate to replace the entire list with such a description. The list can be concluded with "His first-day orders were widely described as a shock-and-awe campaign", or similar. Again, the list before is not whole; it was already trimmed to the notable pieces of legislature. ''']]''' 01:17, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::::But why even bother with listing every executive order? That's what the link to ] is for. This page is about Donald Trump in general. We don't want massive lists of intricate detail in what is a biography. Per ], the extensive detail and list there currently should (and already is) be on appropriate child articles relating to his second presidency. The important thing to summarize is that there were a lot, and they were issued quickly in a shock and awe campaign. ] (]) 01:23, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::::Again, it was already a summary of the most notable pieces of legislature... not a list of {{tq|every executive order}}. There was no intricate detail, only a concise list of 14 presented neutrally:
:::::::::Upon taking office, Trump signed a ] that ] and ], ] of ], froze new regulations, froze hiring of non-military federal workers, founded the ] (DOGE), barred federal involvement in criminal investigations of political adversaries, further prevented federal censorship of free speech, reversed the proposed withdrawal of Cuba's designation as a ], issued a mass pardon of approximately 1,500 ], designated Mexican drug cartels as foreign terrorist organizations, attempted to end ] for new children of undocumented immigrants, renamed ] back to "Mount McKinley" and the ] to the "Gulf of America", delayed the ] by 75 days, and declared a national emergency on the southern border that triggered the deployment of armed forces. On January 21, Trump granted ] a full and unconditional pardon.
::::::::I'd say 153 words summarising his entire span of initial actions is fairly well done. ''']]''' 01:28, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::Those were all executive orders. None of them were pieces of legislation.
:::::::::And that was just his first day. If we want to summarize all his EO's, why not also include his massive list of second and third day EO's as well? What makes his actions about renaming a mountain just as worthy of a mention as attempting to nullify part of the Constitution? This page is already massive. ] (]) 01:55, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Comment''' - Would ] apply? ] (]) 01:21, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
*:I would say so. ] (]) 01:26, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
*::I would, too. Thanks, GoodDay. -] (]) 12:43, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
{{sources-talk}}


== Duplicate section headings ==
<s>:Oppose. Per ], if you need a policy argument.</s> &#8213;]&nbsp;] 10:52, 18 November 2016 (UTC) {{Small|(Stricken after introduction of more RS and per Dervorguilla below. I don't like it, I don't think it has any place in a self-respecting encyclopedia, but I no longer have a policy argument against it. I can't support it as Dervorguilla has, but I will abstain and withdraw.) &#8213;]&nbsp;] 06:40, 19 November 2016 (UTC)}}


] says section headings need to be unique. Just for starters, section links in the page history and contribs should be reliable. There is currently no way to link to "Foreign policy" under "Second presidency"; try this and see: ].{{pb}}I already "disambiguated" "Early actions", but the following remain and this list is sure to grow. Foreign policy, Trade, Middle East, Israel. &#8213;]&nbsp;] 20:25, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
::Is there really a need to continue this thread? I mean, there's no chance this is getting in, for more than one reason. The proposer <small>(Yes, I know who you are)</small> should know better than to bring this crap here. Waste of time. ] ] 11:25, 18 November 2016 (UTC)


:::Yeah, I'll collapse it per ], which is obviously subject to challenge. &#8213;]&nbsp;] 11:55, 18 November 2016 (UTC) It's either "First presidency foreign policy" and "Second presidency foreign policy", or "Foreign policy 1" and "Foreign policy 2". Et cetera. I see no other alternative. &#8213;]&nbsp;] 20:30, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
:The software automatically appends "_2" to the link, which is not visible as the heading appears in the article. So to get to the Foreign policy section in the second presidency, one can use ] without renaming the heading. Did you check history and contribs to see if it goes to the right place? Regards, ] (]) 22:24, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
::I did not know that; Fun Facts to Know and Tell. Unfortunately, the page history doesn't know that trick. Very likely same for contribs. And then there's the other 99% of editors who don't know the trick (it took me 11.5 years to learn about it), so will be unable to make use of it on talk pages or in articles. Not viable in my opinion. And then there's that pesky ] thing. &#8213;]&nbsp;] 23:21, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
:The section heading appended to the edit summary is the name of the section '''as it appears on the page'''. In other words, if this was the second section named "Duplicate section headings" on this talk page, my edit summary would link to the '''other''' one, even though I clicked edit next to this one. Whether that's enough to change the headers to be unique or not... I don't know. Part of me says that we shouldn't have to have unique subsection headings just for internal use (edit summaries). The other part of me thinks that it's beneficial, especially given this page is so long that it can take minutes to load edits/edit previews for some users if they don't edit the section itself... -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez &#124; ] &#124; ] 03:26, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
::{{tq|Part of me says that we shouldn't have to have unique subsection headings just for internal use (edit summaries).}} That's very debatable, but at a minimum it must be possible to link to second presidency sections in articles. &#8213;]&nbsp;] 03:42, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
:::As Bob stated above, it technically is possible to do so, but it's not ''easy'' and it's not really ''intuitive'' unless you already know how to do that. Hence why I'm not opposed to just making the headings unique. I'm just not sure it's ''policy mandated'' to do so. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez &#124; ] &#124; ] 03:45, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
::::I don't claim it's policy mandated, just that it's necessary. Policy doesn't anticipate nonconsecutive terms. &#8213;]&nbsp;] 03:47, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::Ah, yep, I agree with you there that it is ''ideal''. I'm just not sure it's really necessary. It's possible to link to the sections from other pages (or this page) via the method Bob identified. It's also possible to use {{tl|anchor}} to create anchors without changing the headings to be unique, which would allow easier linking to them from other pages. So I'm not sure unique section headings is ''necessary'' or even the best way. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez &#124; ] &#124; ] 03:55, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::Fair enough, that's the purpose of this discussion. Sometimes an issue doesn't get enough attention until one changes the article. So I did. &#8213;]&nbsp;] 03:58, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::::Yeah, if they can be unique without it being awkward, I definitely support that. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez &#124; ] &#124; ] 04:00, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::::Lol. I don't think that's possible; see below. &#8213;]&nbsp;] 04:02, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
::{{tq|Part of me says that we shouldn't have to have unique subsection headings just for internal use (edit summaries)}} BTW, it's not edit summaries that are the issue. It's the clickable section links in the page history and contribs pages. Surely you knew they were clickable, so maybe you misspoke. &#8213;]&nbsp;] 09:44, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
::::I understand it's going to end up looking pretty ridiculous with so much "First presidency" and "Second presidency" repetition in section headings. It's just better than any alternative. &#8213;]&nbsp;] 03:54, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
::::Technically, we could reduce that problem by qualifying only the second presidency sections that duplicate first presidency sections; i.e., leaving the first presidency sections alone. So we'd have ] and ]. Not sure that's a good idea, either. &#8213;]&nbsp;] 04:25, 24 January 2025 (UTC)


==Residences listings==
:::It's far from "crap", Doc. Trump's idiolect is fascinating, albeit hard to summarise in a few sentences, there's almost enough material out there for a standalone article. Besides Jennifer Jones' study:
::: by Jennifer Sclafani (Prof. of Linguistics at Georgetown) which was picked up by dozens of news outlets
::: by Elliot Schumacher and Maxine Eskenazi of ], and many others
::: in Atlas Obscura with contribs from Dr. Viviana Cortes (Prof. of Applied Linguistics at Georgia State), Paul Baker (Prof. of Linguistics at Lancaster) and others
::: with contribs from Matt Motyl (Prof. Political Psychology at Illinois), Dr Jennifer Mercieca (Prof of lots of stuff inc. Presidential Rhetoric) and others
::: by ] (UC Berkeley Prof. of Linguistics)
::: ]
::: in WIRED by
:::etc, etc, etc... --] <sup>]</sup> 12:34, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
::::I agree the information is interesting, maybe even fascinating, but I don't see any place for it in the article. --] (]) 17:00, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
:::::Agree, with Doc, et al. I'm not into gender denial, but 'opinions' about Trump's speaking manner are highly subjective, even those of 'linguists' who perhaps can't think outside of their particular academic box, and don't belong in an objective biography. There is little to nothing about Trump's speech that jumps out and says he speaks like a women, but that's my opinion. -- ] (]) 17:39, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
::::::I'm not convinced the thing should be in the article either (maybe it should be in some other article) but I don't think Misplaced Pages articles are supposed to be "objective". They're supposed to be neutral, which is different. A neutral article summarizes sourced viewpoints about the subject, including subjective viewpoints, according to due weight (which is itself somewhat subjective). ](]) 18:10, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
:::: '''Add''' per ]. {{reply to|Hillbillyholiday}} I'm going to presume that you've checked those articles' discussion sections and that they don't cite many reputable sources that contradict this claim. For now, at least, you can treat it as a '''majority''' view. Relevant and important data. Many thanks! --] (]) 03:40, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
:::::I stand by my assertion. Whether it's truly "crap" crap or not, it has no place in this article. And this discussion thread is a waste of time. But please! Continue! ] ] 07:34, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
:::: {{reply to|Hillbillyholiday}} Lunsford teaches that "a writer who attempts to persuade by asserting or assuming that a particular position is the only one conceivably acceptable within a community is trying to enforce dogmatism... People who speak or write dogmatically imply that there are no arguments to be made: the truth is self-evident to those who know better".
:::: Nonetheless, ] requires that you add no more than (let's say) two sentences; and ] requires that you ultimately accept a ''compromise'' of, most likely, one. --] (]) 10:12, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
::::: I'm not sure I even recommended introducing any of this material into the article, just said it was ]. --] <sup>]</sup> 13:50, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
::::::In that case your comment was a (minor) ] violation, not being about improvement of the article, and it was seen by at least one editor (me) as support for the content. You might have explicitly identified it as an admitted FORUM digression. Just sayin', no huge harm done. At this point, then, I don't see enough consensus for inclusion of anything. I see the OP strongly in favor, Doc strongly opposed, Gwillhickers opposed, Melanie somewhat opposed, and Dervorguilla somewhat tepidly supporting a little bit of content. Regardless of the WP:DUE argument, that is not a consensus to include. &#8213;]&nbsp;] 17:41, 19 November 2016 (UTC)


Per the documentation for {{tl|Infobox officeholder}}, the {{para|residence}} parameter should be limited to "residences that come with the office", ie only the White House. Propose re-removing the rest. ] (]) 01:56, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::Self-correct. The OP is NOT strongly in favor, per {{tq|I'll leave it to others to decide whether to put any of this in the article.}} - At this point, then, we have virtually nothing here. &#8213;]&nbsp;] 17:53, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
:I have no problem with BOLD edits to conform with guidelines (template docs are the equivalent of guidelines in my book). If you get challenged by reversion, then you can come here for consensus if you think it's important enough to do so. &#8213;]&nbsp;] 04:18, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::::You can tally me as more than "somewhat" opposed. IMO we should not include it. It isn't enough for information to be referenced; it also has to have received enough significant coverage to be worthy of inclusion. And for a BLP I think we should avoid all long-distance evaluations of a person by some professional who has never met them. (We could fill up the whole article with would-be psychoanalysis of Trump.) BTW did you read the article in question? It lists key indicators of "feminine speech" as using short words and talking about yourself a lot. I don't know what kind of "research" that is based on, but many people would find it very offensive. <small> (I guess I should say: "I am a girl and this is not the way I talk so I don't want it in my Wiki." Almost managed to keep it to words of one syllable, but "Misplaced Pages" defeated me.)</small> --] (]) 19:32, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
:{{tq|re-removing}} I guess I missed that word the first time around. So I take it you have removed it before and somebody put it back, so you're coming here for consensus to make your edit stick. I hereby support removal per the template doc. &#8213;]&nbsp;] 10:57, 23 January 2025 (UTC)


== Trump portrait caption ==
::::::::LOL. The article actually said that? And somebody brings that here and presents it as RS? This is becoming comical. Hell I find that offensive and I'm not exactly a white-knight feminist. Are we ready to pull the plug on this discussion? I tried to do that yesterday with Doc's support, and that was reverted. &#8213;]&nbsp;] 19:45, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
:::::::::"Don't close it down yet. I want folks to see what I said." <small>(There, nailed it!) </small> --] (]) 20:00, 19 November 2016 (UTC)


Per the date of which the portrait was first published, it's probably not the official portrait, Usually, it takes 3-8 months for a portrait of a president to be finalized after its inaguration, so should it be 'inagural' or simply official? ](] • ]) 06:50, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::::::Good work, that is an "average grade level" of 1.0 according to . Sounds about right. See Spot run. &#8213;]&nbsp;] 20:11, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
:Trump breaks norms. There is no reason to assume there will be another portrait. There's also no reason to assume there won't. And it looks like he decides what's "official". The issue of the image is very much up in the air at this point; until it's resolved, I suggest we not fret about the caption. Hell, I wouldn't object if somebody removed it for now (but I'm just one guy and I don't run the place, unfortunately). &#8213;]&nbsp;] 08:17, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::::::: Hemingway wrote like that too, ]! I try to, too. That's the way most of us speak; we should write like we speak. :) OK to close now. --] (]) 21:10, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
::::::::::::Your 10:12 comment scores grade level 15.5. Ok, much of that was a Lunsford quote. Your 03:40 comment scores grade level 9.7. &#8213;]&nbsp;] 21:32, 19 November 2016 (UTC) :Anyway, I'm a bit confused by your comment. If you think {{tq|it's probably not the official portrait,}} why would it make sense for it to say {{tq|simply official}}? &#8213;]&nbsp;] 07:36, 23 January 2025 (UTC)


== 2nd president to serve nonconsecutive terms ==
== Shouldn't president elect be the first thing about Donald Trump in the[REDACTED] article? ==
{{anchor|PresidentElect}}
At this point of time, he is the president elect. Other qualities of him such as American businessman, reality television personality, real estate mogul are secondary <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 11:13, 18 November 2016 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:I think this makes some sense. I did not change the lede sentence, but I positioned the information about his election and pending assumption of office as the second paragraph of the lede, leaving his business activities as the third paragraph. --] (]) 17:59, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
I agree. "President-elect" should come first. It -- pardon the pun -- trumps everything else. Maybe it can be worded as follows? "Donald John Trump is the president-elect of the United States. He is a businessman, real estate mogul, and former reality television personality." ] (]) 05:47, 19 November 2016 (UTC)


There's been some back and forth over whether to include this in the lead. Are we going to mention his impressive feat of only being the 2nd pres to serve nonconsecutive terms in 250 years since this country was founded or are we going to ignore it because we all hate him? --] (]) 09:40, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
The opening sentence almost writes itself, if you look at the four model openings given in ],
:Impressive feat that he couldn't complete two terms without getting voted out? {{tq|are we going to ignore it because we all hate him?}} See ]. &#8213;]&nbsp;] 09:44, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
:: François Maurice Adrien Marie Mitterrand ... was a French statesman, who served as ] from 1981 until 1995.
::I dont get the first part, what do you mean by getting voted out? --] (]) 09:47, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
:: Cleopatra VII Philopator ... was a ] of ].
:::Didn't you hear? He lost the 2020 election. It was in all the papers! &#8213;]&nbsp;] 09:48, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
:: Cesar Estrada Chavez ... was an American labor leader and civil rights activist who ... co-founded the ], which later became the ].
::::?? Yeah obviously. But thats even more impressive that he got back in, thats not exactly common --] (]) 09:49, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
:: Francesco Petrarca ... was an Italian scholar, ], and ], who is credited with having given the ] its name and inventing the concept of the ].
:::::So they cancel each other in terms of impressiveness, making it a wash. An interesting factoid worthy of inclusion in the body. &#8213;]&nbsp;] 09:53, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
the opening sentence in the article most directly comparable to Trump's,
::::::But its considered the most important fact about Grover Cleveland and the only thing everyone ever talks about when it comes to him --] (]) 09:54, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
:: Michael Richard Pence ... is an American politician and the ].
:::::::As Trump would tell you, being #2 is nothing to crow about. &#8213;]&nbsp;] 09:56, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
and Trump's own biography pages,
::::::::This might actually be true lmao --] (]) 09:57, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
:: Donald J. Trump … is the archetypal businessman...
:::::::::Oh it's definitely true he's not satisfied with anything less than #1. I don't know how he sleeps at night being only the 1,438th wealthiest person in the world. My comment was mostly in jest. More seriously, as has been said before on this page, the second of anything is far less noteworthy than the first. &#8213;]&nbsp;] 10:01, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
:: Donald J. Trump is ... continually setting the standards of excellence for real estate, sports and entertainment... The Trump signature is synonymous with the most prestigious addresses in the world.
{{od}}According to ], which is a ], {{tpq|Cleveland has been praised more recently for honesty, integrity, adherence to his morals, defying party boundaries, and effective leadership}}. Wouldn't it be wonderful if reliable sources said the same about Trump? ] (]) 10:03, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
You're probably going to end up with something like,
:: '''Donald John Trump''' ... is an American businessman and the 36th ].
The second sentence is where you have to get a bit creative. One idea: As the ''chairman and president'' of '']'', he built a ''global'' brand in luxury ''real estate'' and mass ''entertainment'' (or the like). --] (]) 08:39, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
:The current lead reads "Donald John Trump is an American businessman and politician who is the President-elect of the United States." How does "politician" add any useful information to that sentence? Since Trump's the president-''elect'', that makes it clear that he's involved with America's electoral system -- hence, a politician. If he'd held prior elective office, it would make more sense to put politician in the lead. As it stands now, it's like calling Jamie Dimon "a banker and the CEO of JPMorgan Chase." ''Banker'' is implied by the JPMorgan affiliation. ] (]) 01:30, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
::{{Done}} – Removed "politician" and unsightly "is … who is" construction. — ] <sup>]</sup> 17:03, 20 November 2016 (UTC)


:{{u|Cullen328}} if reliable sources say that about Cleveland, they're not in the article. The claim is unsourced, by an editor who has been flagged many times (e.g. ) for adding unsourced/false information. 10:14, 23 January 2025 (UTC) ] (]) 10:14, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
== My changes to the lede ==
:Rolling don't miss much. ;) &#8213;]&nbsp;] 10:21, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

{{cot|self-hat comment on Cleveland}}
I made some organizational changes to the lede, although I didn't add or delete anything. The information about his election as president was formerly scattered among three paragraphs; I combined it into a single paragraph and put it right after the lede sentence. The information about his birth, education and career was scattered between two paragraphs; I combined them into one. Comments/suggestions/corrections are welcome. --] (]) 17:02, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
:Check out ] of Cleveland's article. Date-raped (allegedly) a woman. She had his baby. He had the baby placed in an orphanage and paid for his stay. He had the mother admitted to an insane asylum which released her five days later, finding her not insane. He then supported her financially. And the paragraph in the featured article ends on this odd note: {{tq|Although lacking irrefutable evidence that Cleveland was the father, the child became a campaign issue for the Republican Party in Cleveland's first presidential campaign, where they smeared him by claiming that he was "immoral" and for allegedly acting cruelly by not raising the child himself.}} Considering Cleveland was a Democrat, I kind of figure that the Republican Party made the child a campaign issue for the other party, and I assume "smear" and "allegedly" acting cruelly for dumping the kid in an orphanage is due to someone's notion of NPOV. Featured article ... ]] 11:14, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
:BTW to avoid the recurrent arguments about whether he was really "elected" on November 8 or won't be until the Electoral College meets, I said he was "selected" in the general election to become the next president. Does that sound OK? --] (]) 17:04, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
{{cob}}

::No, it sounds like a strange construct to me. I'd leave it at something like "he won the general election on November 8th..." (personally, I'd also include "without winning the popular vote" or "despite not winning a majority of votes" but YMMV). Rest of the changes are good. ]<sup>]</sup> 17:33, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
:::Thank you, I like that wording better and have changed it. There has been controversy on talk pages about whether to mention the popular vote in the lede; it is already present in the body of the article. I think I will clarify the "won" sentence to say something like "by getting more electoral college votes than Clinton". I'm not so sure about mentioning the popular vote in the lede since it might confuse people who are not familiar with our unusual process for electing presidents - or might require more explanation than is appropriate for the lede. --] (]) 17:47, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
::::I'd just say "elected" and leave the EV/PV thing to lower in the article. EV may be a historical artifact but it's what campaigns work to win (thus the intense effort in swing states). There's been increased argument since the election to get rid of the EC (including a constitutional amendment bill introduced by Barbara Boxer iirc) and that should also be mentioned. But it's all relatively technical and doesn't belong in the lede. ] (]) 18:21, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

== real estate mogul in the first sentence is redundant ==

Real estate mogul is a subset of businessman. Real estate mogul implies businessman. Businessman does not imply real estate mogul. Real estate mogul should not be in the lead.

] (]) 21:02, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
:Instead of making another section on this, please add your opinion to one of the above sections that are covering this exact same subject. Thanks. ]&nbsp;] 21:24, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

== Must pay 1 million dollar penalty in fraud case ==

Trump must pay a 1 million dollar penalty "for violating New York education law for running an unlicensed university" in the Trump "University" fraud case. This is definitely lead material (when it's covered appropriately in the body). --] (]) 22:10, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

:Nope, definitely not lede material, the lede is meant to be a brief summary of the article, not a laundry list of negatives. Your ] that it is lede material is not an argument. ] (]) 22:15, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
::A president(-elect) fined for fraud is clearly lead material. Just compare ] where trivial controversies (by comparison) are included in the lead. Or ] where a trivial controversy over her emails ''which resulted in no charges'' (not a 1-million penalty for fraud) is included in the lead. --] (]) 22:18, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
:::Again the ]. Actually the Lewinsky scandal was pretty major (it lead to Clinton being impeached), as was the email scandal (it sank Clinton's presidency). Come to think of it, none of HC's other scandals are mentioned in the lede (benghazi, cattle futures, whitewater). The fact that you consider the e-mail scandal "trivial" is also quite revealing. Not even remotely comparable. ] (]) 22:22, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

::::The fact that you consider a 1 million dollar fraud judgement against the US president elect '''not''' worthy of inclusion in the lead is ''also'' quite revealing. Of course it should be there. ]<sup>]</sup> 22:38, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
:::::This is not really lede material and definitely not on the scale of the other "scandals" mentioned. Should it be noted in the article? Maybe. If there is an article on this university, it should definitely be included there. Honestly, this seems quite trivial. ]&nbsp;] 23:10, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
:::::Probably a sentence in Trump University section. But should really be in the ] article. Not the lead of this one. ] (]) 23:22, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
:::::I agree with PackMecEng. Brief mention in the Trump U section of this article (not in lede), more detailed treatment in the dedicated Trump U article, maybe in lede there. The settlement (a voluntary agreement) should not be described as a judgment (a decision imposed by a court). Of course when someone makes a big settlement payout they normally expect they would lose at an actual trial, but in this case, who knows. ] (]) 00:01, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
:That link in the original post doesn't say anything about a fraud judgment. It says settlement, a voluntary agreement to throw some money at a case in order to make it go away. Trump might just think he'll be too busy with the president thing to deal with defending the lawsuit, so he decided to write a check instead. It would be reasonable to include some sourced analysis about the case's merits in a section about the case, but the likely outcome is not something we can infer for ourselves in the article. Fwiw, I read somewhere that the value of Trump's business empire went up by ~$14 billion as a result of the election. ''That'' might be worth mentioning if there's a good source (I don't remember where I saw it). ] (]) 23:48, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
::::::Also, picking out the $1 million and trying to get this in the lede appears to be cherry picking. First, the article discusses $25 million for settling the cases in New York and California. Then it says Trump agreed to pay "'''up to a $1 million penalty'''." This means he could end up paying anything from $1 to $1 million. Also, there might be different forms the penalty could take equivalent to a dollar amount. I agree, not in the lede here and the facts need to be sorted out. The initial proposed content is oversimplified. ] (]) 07:34, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

::He "settled" for $25million (something he said he'd never do as recently as 3/1/16 (or 1/3/16, I'm unsure what date format was used)), not €1 million. ]<sup>]</sup> 08:47, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
:::This was not a "judgment", it was a settlement, and one of the terms of the settlement agreement is that Trump does not admit to any wrongdoing. The breakdown of the $25 million is described at ]. In this article the settlement deserves, and has, a sentence in the "Trump University" section; it does not belong in the lede. --] (]) 17:09, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
:::The $25million was a settlement with his victims in the fraud case. The 1 million however was a ''penalty'' for violating the law. --] (]) 01:18, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
::::That article doesn't say that Trump must pay a $1M penalty, it says he agreed to pay it. Those are not the same thing. ] (]) 05:20, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
:::::I removed this "material" from the lede per the non-consensus above. --] (]) 17:00, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

== Should Trump's Chairmanship of The Trump Organization be listed on his infocard the way "President-elect of the United States" is? ==

] (]) 00:44, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

I also want to add that since Trump's position in the Trump Organization is listed under "previous service" in the list of US presidents article, I think it would be appropriate to add it in the infocard as well. An example would be "President of the Screen Actors Guild" in Ronald Reagan's infocard, despite it not exactly being an elected government office. The same idea could be applied here as well to make the infocard more informative. - ] (]) 02:46, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
:I agree with you. This should be added to the infobox. ] (]) 03:03, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
:According to ], it seems that his leadership of the Trump Organization began in 1971. ] (]) 03:06, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
:I did some further research to verify the date. (1971) I've added it now. Great suggestion! Just a reminder that you could have added it yourself also. ;-) ] (]) 03:15, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
::Yes, I actually added it myself yesterday, but it was removed and I was told to come here to discuss whether or not adding that would be appropriate. I think it is, so I'm hoping I can get more people to agree on it so that this addition sticks. - ] (]) 04:32, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
:Do you think we should also list Fred Trump as Donald's predecessor? The company was renamed when Donald took over in 1971. ] (]) 03:27, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

{{reply to|Bokmanrocks01|Edge3}} '''Warning''': "'''Donald Trump''' is calling Template:Infobox officeholder with more than one value for the "term_end" parameter." --] (]) 03:59, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
:Fixed. Thanks! ] (]) 04:02, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

{{reply to|Bokmanrocks01|Edge3}} (1) Take the material to your user pages. (2) Read ]. (3) Edit the material accordingly. (4) Bring it here for discussion. Thank you. --] (]) 04:07, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
:Sorry, but perhaps I misunderstood your prior comment. Is there still a technical error with the way the template has been coded? ] (]) 04:14, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

:: {{reply to|Bokmanrocks01|Edge3}} "''The same idea could be applied here as well to make the infocard more informative.''" True in general. If you add data to a system -- any data -- the total information in the system increases. Question: Does its entropy ''S'' increase or decrease?
:: Answer: The data you're adding here cause the system's disorganization to increase even faster. So its entropy increases.
:: You can cause ''S'' to decrease if you (1) remove that random information and (2) add only information that fit within the ] template. In particular, don't expand the term "office" to include any ''nongovernmental'' position. --] (]) 05:20, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
:::Well then I'm curious as to why some presidents of non-governmental organizations use the officeholder template. Some examples being the articles of President Thomas Bach of the IOC and Judith Rodin of the Rockefeller Foundation, both NGOs. Private universities also use that template, such as Woodrow Wilson as President of Princeton University, as well as Dwight D. Eisenhower as President of Columbia University. I'm not really experienced in editing Misplaced Pages, so is there some rule or standard that I'm not aware off? - ] (]) 06:44, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
:::: {{reply to|Bokmanrocks01}} The first rule would be to not start off your Misplaced Pages career by radically changing the Donald Trump infobox based on a selection of non-analogous articles rather than on the relevant template instructions. Beyond that I can't help you. --] (]) 07:18, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
:::::{{reply to|Dervorguilla}} For the record, both ] and I have several years of editing experience at Misplaced Pages, so we are hardly starting off our WP careers. I also don't think we should feel constrained by the artificial limitations of the officeholder infobox template... Donald Trump will be the first US President without prior government or military experience, so even our WP templates and guidelines wouldn't provide clear guidance on what to do. If he is notable for his leadership over the Trump Organization then we should reflect that in his article. ] (]) 00:12, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
:::::: <small>{{reply to|Edge3}} "''] and I have several years of editing experience at Misplaced Pages, so we are hardly starting off our WP careers.''" ] has made just in his career. Also, it doesn't appear that he's found out how to ] yet. --] (]) 23:51, 21 November 2016 (UTC)</small>
FYI ] did a . I didn't find any comments or edit summary to discuss, however. ] (]) 22:35, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

:I think it is too much detail while providing little information. There are few people who know what the Trump Organization is but have never heard of Trump. ] (]) 23:13, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
::But the same can be said of Barack Obama, for example. There are few people who knows of the office of President of the United States but don't know who Obama is. The point of adding Trump's chairmanship to the infobox is because his business career as chairman of The Trump Organization dominated his public life before becoming president-elect, so at a glance, adding it to the infobox will build a more complete picture. Just my thought on it. - ] (]) 06:28, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
:::More people knew about the U.S. presidency before Obama reached the office, and it will continue to be better known that Obama himself after he leaves office. It is probably the only elected office in the world where any person elected is so well known. And Obama is so well known because he is president, not ''vice versa''. ] (]) 07:52, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
::::Yes, I agree that the presidency made Obama famous. However, the same could also be said about Donald Trump because he took over Elizabeth Trump and Son (aka Trump Organization) in 1971 instead of his siblings. Being chairman of his father's company allowed him to pursue the business career that made him well known later on. How much do you hear about Trump's siblings, who were not as involved in the company? It can be argued that The Trump Organization made Donald Trump famous, not vice versa. - ] (]) 02:43, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
:::::No one ever heard of the Trump organization until they heard about Donald Trump. OTOH most people had heard about the presidency of the U.S. before they ever heard of Obama, or Trump for that matter. ] (]) 02:52, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
:::::{{ec}} {{re|Bokmanrocks01}} You got it backwards: Donald Trump's personality and self-promoting style made The Trump Organization famous; you'd never have heard of that firm otherwise. How many real estate developers can you cite from memory, even those who build New York skyscrapers? — ] <sup>]</sup> 02:56, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

== State of the article ==
], after ], who was jailed for the original.) The same approach has been used on ]. I assume the underlying principles and body politics research could and should be used for the public view of Trump]]

Some points which should be dealt with:

* A search for on scholar provides about 2000 entries of actual studies. None of them went into the article.
* The current references (about 600) are mostly online press commentaries stuck together ad libitum.
* None of them has a ].
* An attempt to introduce ]'s comment on Trump got deleted quickly.
* There is nothing about Trump's books
* There is nothing on books about Trump.
* The article lacks a something like a must read literature list.
* The article mentions the ] respectively the authorities control entries but doesn't cite anything out of it. OK, one of Gwenda Brail's biographical books has been quoted once.
* That said, this article has been stuck together at random with online press clippings. It has no backing at all in scholarly sources.

It seems that non of the authors has ever read a book, from or about Trump. Will say, the most-read WP entry is being put together on lowest level possible, and doesn't even use one of several thousand serious studies, not even one. And bookwise its nearly as worse.

You couldn't write a freshman's essay based on that level.
I ask to tag the article on quality till the problems have been solved and ticked. Polentarion ] 11:52, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

:The article (like all WP articles) is a work in progress and it's had a few GA nominations that were unsuccessful, so I think everyone understands that it needs further development, which is under way. So I don't see a need to put in any tags. I agree that your points listed above would be good things to address, except maybe the one about Slavoj Žižek (who I'd never heard of and who doesn't seem that important). It's an excellent list and I appreciate your having researched and posted it. Trump of course became a drastically more important public figure after the election than he was before, so there will probably be more spin-out articles as more sources appear, and those can hold stuff that don't rate packing into the main article. Heck, there's probably enough sources already to write a dedicated article entirely about Trump's hair. ;-) ] (]) 20:10, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

:: @]: You wrote, "''The article (like all WP articles) is a work in progress...''". Given the article's impact on Trump's life, that idea doesn't apply here. "The idea expressed in ] – that every Misplaced Pages article is a work in progress, and that it is therefore okay for an article to be temporarily unbalanced because it will eventually be brought into shape – does not apply to biographies. Given their potential impact on biography subjects' lives..." ].
:: You wrote, "''Slavoj Žižek (... doesn't seem that important)''". Search . 18 search results from December 7, 2015 to November 16, 2016. Latest: "Prominent Slovenian philosopher Slavoi Zizek explains why he thinks Donald Trump's presidency 'will trigger...'." --] (]) 21:02, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

::: dear IP, I have been a little bit sardonic ;) But already before the election, one could have written an article about Trump based on books and studies, instead of press clippings. That hasn't happened ever since. The whole series of Haircomb conflicts on this talk page could have been solved by confining any hair content to be based on university studies about the topic. Which do exist! Žižek is a turbo prof in London, New York and Lubljana university, the sort of guy the Concorde had been built for. That said, a) the article has a large leeway for improvement and b) I get sorta sarcastic if guys fight other authors instead of looking for real sources.Polentarion ] 22:31, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
::::Books and studies in the arena of a living person tend to be problematic in the arena of ]. The books 'written by him' were not written by him, and are clearly not NPOV. The books not written by him are generally not NPOV. This isn't a history or science article. WP looks to reliable sources. The Žižek source you keep bringing up may very well be accurate, but is highly opinionated. The concept that we should look at "scholarly" articles on a recent subject doesn't seem to be encyclopedic. You look for such articles in areas of science and history, not recent events. When Kissinger asked Mao, what are the lessons of the French Revolution, the supposed answer was: “it was far too early to tell”. Let's stick to what reliable sources report. ] (]) 01:40, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
::::: {{reply to|Objective3000}} You don't appear to understand the policy you're citing. See ]. "A common argument is that one source is biased and so another source should be given preference. This bias-in-sources argument is one way to present a POV as neutral by excluding sources that dispute it as biased. Biased sources are not inherently disallowed based on bias alone."
::::: In other words, the editor who excludes a source for being "''highly opinionated''" could be trying to make his own POV seem neutral.
::::: See also ]. "Reliable sources are not required to be neutral or unbiased... Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject."
::::: {{reply to|Polentarion}} It looks like you may be good to go. --] (]) 03:16, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

:::::::{{reply to|Dervorguilla}} - I said nothing along those lines. The reason we use, what is being called, "press clippings," is that the respected press is the most reliable source of information on recent events. As interesting as they may be, I see problems with inclusion of the opinions of a psychoanalytic philosopher. <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 12:55, 20 November 2016 (UTC)</small>
:::::::{{reply to|Objective3000}} I would like to start with the first academic author commenting on Trump being involved here. Please explain the policy that makes Huffingtonpost interns more noteable than Žižek. Polentarion ] 17:24, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
::::::::I don't think a "Huffingtonpost intern" should be used as a source. Do you know that an "intern" was used as a source here? I don't think the opinions of psychoanalysts belong in articles about living office holders in general. ] (]) 18:04, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
::::::::: That sounds like a sort of discrimination due to professional background. Sorry but Zizek is famous, influential and his statements on Trump are being quoted globally. He is just a cultural critic with three professorships, one of them at the university of New York. Polentarion ] 18:34, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

:::::: {{reply to|Objective3000}}: And my point is that "WP ignores reliable sources" - we look for easy going press clippings and we do not care for the overall picture. That said, science nowadays is sorta quicker - we have more than 2000 studies with a doi about Trump, so no excuse to ignore them. One example: The biggest part of this talk page is about Trumpian body politics (Semiotic and symbolic importance of physical details of a politician, leader or royality, including e.g. hair style). Books and studies covering aspects of similar cases in the past could be very useful to solve talk page conflicts in a BLP case. I already referred to the German "we shall overcomb" piece on the Trump hair memes. I assume that those studies would help to put our conflicts in an overall scholalrly perspective and help to reduce or solve them. Polentarion ] 09:54, 20 November 2016 (UTC)


{{od}} The idea that this article (much less the presence or absence of Slavoj Žižek's endorsement in it) has any effect on Trump's life makes me smile. I think Trump is safe from us no matter what we do. I only skimmed the article but it looks ok to me. I do agree that most of your sugestions would improve it, and by all means you should feel free to ]. ] (]) 05:26, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

{{od}} and {{reply to|Dervorguilla}} ] I cannot do that on my own. We as wikipedians need to change the way we work on such pieces. I wrote a short note on my userpage, maybe that could be converted into an essay of general interest. But I don't care about Trump,. I care about the readers. Polentarion ] 09:54, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

::Do you really believe every article on Misplaced Pages is created by people who've read books on it? That's never how Misplaced Pages has functioned in reality. ] (]) 10:57, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

::: For the record, - No. But I doubt a project trying to collect global knowledge on a certain subject will succeed if it describes it based on mere press clippings. We currently ignore several hundred books and thousands of recent scientific studies dealing with different aspects of Trump. Polentarion ] 11:05, 20 November 2016 (UTC)


=== Discussion of the tags ===
As I was being deemed "free to go", I added tags to the article. General cleanup is needed and real sources should be added. List of items see above. Polentarion ] 10:30, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

== Semi-protected edit request on 19 November 2016 ==

{{edit semi-protected|Donald Trump|answered=yes}}


Please link to his mother's article ] thanks ] (]) 12:26, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

] (]) 12:26, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

:{{Done}} - {{Thank you}} - ]] 12:36, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

== Abuse filter ==

Is there edit filter about users to not change the future president to 45th president until 2017 ?<br>'''] (])''' <!--Template:Undated--><small class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added 13:16, 19 November 2016 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:No, and for various reasons it would not be entirely practical. -- ] <sup>]</sup> 13:22, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
::Then you could add code witch replaces "president elect" to "45th president" on 1/20/2017.<br>'''] (])''' <!--Template:Undated--><small class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added 13:27, 19 November 2016 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

== Sr.? ==

I may be wrong here, but shouldn't "Sr." be added to his name in the lead, as he has ] (like with ] and ])? ] ] ] 13:21, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
:There is ] ] is redirect. Compare: ] is also redirect.<br>'''] (])''' <!--Template:Undated--><small class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added 13:25, 19 November 2016 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:Per ], others may differ, but this isn't something I've ever seen him called. -- ] <sup>]</sup> 13:26, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
::Alright, thanks! ] ] ] 13:30, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

== Semi-protected edit request on 20 November 2016 ==
Change his position on gay marriage to "Trump indicated he's "fine" with the high court's opinion legalizing same-sex marriage and called it "settled" http://www.cnn.com/2016/11/14/politics/trump-gay-marriage-abortion-supreme-court/index.html. Currently there is an old statement, from when Trump was battling it out with Ted Cruz, and trying to keep the evangelical vote.

== Semi-protected edit request on 20 November 2016 ==

{{edit semi-protected|Donald Trump|answered=y}}
Change his birth place to '''], ], U.S.''', be more specific. ] (]) 02:27, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

:{{not done}} - Under discussion at ]. &#8213;]&nbsp;] 02:35, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

==Popular vote figures==
Our Trump biography gives the ] but none for the ''popular vote''. Don't know if this is 'the' best source available, but the popular vote figures can be found (). Since this was such a controversial issue we should include these figures also. -- ] (]) 09:59, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
:It's not such a controversial issue, really. Obama and Hillary Clinton have both acknowledged that Trump is the president-elect. There's really not going to be a last-minute appeal based on popular vote numbers or swaying/abolishing the electoral college. This article really doesn't need to state the exact number of popular votes cast (are they even finalized?). ] ] 10:22, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
::Not a controversial issue? There's no question that Trump won, but (e.g.) Boxer wants to introduce a bill to end the electoral vote because of this issue, for openers. We should inform the readers of just 'how much' Clinton garnered the P.V. so they're not left wondering and speculating after they've read our article. From what I've seen, the figures are finalized. If not, okay, we should of course wait until they are. -- ] (]) 10:34, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
:] bill is going nowhere. There are plenty of other articles where readers can get the exact "P.V." figures, no? Is it somehow being suppressed by not having it here? ] ] 10:42, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
::Yes, I know the bill is ridiculous, but it still reflects the magnitude of the controversy. And no, we wouldn't be 'suppressing' it from the world, this is only one article, buy since many people are wondering, why not include these numbers? Is there a definitive reason not to? -- ] (]) 10:53, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
:Yes there is a definitive reason not to. One click on the "''Main article: ]''" link shows the popular vote numbers right there in the infobox. It does not need to be repeated here, as it would be redundant. ] ] 11:06, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
::That article also has the electoral vote figures, so by your reasoning, we should not include them here.(?) -- ] (]) 11:14, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
:Yeah, pretty much. There's many articles concerning the election, and inundating this bio with election figures is not necessary. ] ] 11:17, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
::'Inundate' means to overwhelm. Mentioning a couple of figures doesn't come close to this idea. Many articles and sub articles have a contextual overlap of information, within reason of course. Nothing wrong with that. Are you saying we should strike the electoral vote figures? -- ] (]) 11:25, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
:Heh. I'm not going to get into a debate with you here. You asked the question, and I'll let others chime in now. ] ] 11:30, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
{{od}}It's the age-old question, how tangential is too tangential? The logic that "if we're covering x, why shouldn't we cover the connected issue y?", ultimately takes us to coverage of something like declining birth rates in Madagascar lemurs, so I try to avoid it. In my view, the popular vote issue, if any, is too tangential for a biography of Donald Trump. I'm with Doc. &#8213;]&nbsp;] 14:49, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

:Evaluation: They are biased Though but they are biased and viewable scores they are because he has a lot of scores and because he talks about mainly trump and how he got his money . If he was being biased then it would be bad because he would be giving only one opinion on one person and leaving out the other people which will not inform the people about what the other candidates did bad. If there not biased which they are not then that means they give a little information and not there own opinion about ever candidate for example only talking positive about Donald trump would be biased but talking about trumps negatives and positives and talking about Hilary’s negatives and positives is not biased.<br>Each fact is appropriate and referenced appropriately. but not reliable reference most of them are news references which they provide false information to the public most of the time. Here are some options that this person can take in order to have more scientific articles in his paper for factual information I know because they are not scientific scores meaning a peered reviewed journal, a book, and others news articles are merely just like face book post they put information on the news to entertain the public some of the news is true but a lot isn’t. http://corvette.salemstate.edu:2062/ehost/detail/detail?vid=7&sid=52cae105-2649-4f05-9ce9 bdcb788057fe%40sessionmgr4008&hid=4214&bdata=JkF1dGhUeXBlPWNvb2tpZSxpcCxjcGlkJmN1c3RpZD1zc2Mmc2l0ZT1laG9zdC1saXZlJnNjb3BlPXNpdGU%3d#AN=119442523&db=ufh or http://corvette.salemstate.edu:2062/ehost/detail/detail?vid=9&sid=52cae105-2649-4f05-9ce9-bdcb788057fe%40sessionmgr4008&hid=4214&bdata=JkF1dGhUeXBlPWNvb2tpZSxpcCxjcGlkJmN1c3RpZD1zc2Mmc2l0ZT1laG9zdC1saXZlJnNjb3BlPXNpdGU%3d#AN=119442524&db=ufh.<br>Everything in the article is also relevant to the topic with nothing to distract me so that is good and not missing . This is good because the person needs to stick to the topic so the reader can make sense of what there reading in the article. The trump plaza is a little over represented in this article I would cut back a little bit on it and there is nothing under represented. And There is no information out of date because this is a current event of 2016. The only thing that can be added is a little more information on how he is president now. <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 14:02, 20 November 2016 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

::'Popular vote' is mentioned twice in the article, but including a couple of figures somehow transforms the idea into something tangential -- in the ''General election'' section? -- ] (]) 17:30, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
:::It's pertinent information and quite notable - winning the presidency but losing the popular vote doesn't happen often. Of course this should be included in the lede, per coverage in sources.] (]) 17:43, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
:::::Well, we should mention the popular vote figures, but not in the lede -- in the ''General election'' section. Is that what you meant? -- ] (]) 17:53, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
::::::I see no reason to omit from the lede. It's like literally five words, not even a sentence.] (]) 17:55, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
::::::::Given the historical significance, mentioning the popular vote in the lede also is perhaps okay, but not the figures. Not even the electoral figures are there -- but we should at least include the popular vote figures in the ''General election'' section. -- ] (]) 18:04, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
::::::::::We absolutely do need to report the popular vote issue, both in the lede (in general terms, not numbers) and in the General Election section. After all it is historically significantly - it's only the fifth (or fourth depending who is reporting it) time in U.S. history that this has happened. But we should not try to report exact figures because they are changing daily and will continue to do so. It's currently 1.3 million plus. My personal preference is to use a generic number like "more than a million" until we get final results. Here's what the Hillary Clinton article says in its election section: "A week after the election, the popular vote count showed her leading by more than a million votes, with many votes yet to be counted.<ref>{{cite news|url=http://www.politico.com/story/2016/11/clinton-popular-vote-trump-2016-election-231434|title=Clinton’s lead in the popular vote passes 1 million|last=Conway|first=Madeline|date=November 15, 2016|work=Politico|accessdate=17 November 2016}}</ref>" I propose doing something like that here (modified so it is about him instead of her). --] (]) 20:38, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
{{reflist}}
:::::::::::I'm fine with that. Just keep in mind that the margin by which she won the popular vote was greater by which both Kennedy and Nixon won their respective elections.] (]) 20:58, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
:: I'm all for covering the popular vote in the General Election section. But it really has no place in the lede. It's literally a footnote in the life of the article's subject. That should be the ultimate test for what gets in the lede of a biography. The fact that he won, of course, is a life-changing event (and one that impacts the entire world). But the minutiae of how he won (electoral college vs popular vote) doesn't belong in the lede. ] (]) 22:11, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
::::As we have a ''General election'' section, dedicated to Trump's election, we need to mention anything distinctive, historically or otherwise, about that election -- esp since the popular vote issue has taken on notable proportions. If the final numbers are not available then we'll just have to wait (unlike what they've done in the ] article.) In the mean time, yes, we should make a generic reference, in the section, and mention "more than a million". This way any biased reader that comes to the page won't assume the margin is respectively more or less than it is in reality. -- ] (]) 22:41, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
:There is no need to mention either the electoral vote figure or the popular vote figure in this article. Those figures and other details are covered in the 2016 election page. This article only has to say Trump won the election. That's it. There is no need to even mention either the electoral vote or the popular vote in this article. If we cherry pick what details to put in this article and what details not to put, then it just becomes too chaotic. Some people might argue to include the fact that Trump won most of the states. Some people might argue to include the fact that Trump won just about all the counties. Some people might argue to include the fact that Hillary won just about all the major cities. Just my two cents. ] (]) 16:09, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
:::Once again, we have a section dedicated to the ''General election'' and adding the election results would be among the top choices of what to include there. Covering the historically notable and controversial popular vote would only involve adding a sentence, if we really must curb such information. (Note: One of the distinctions of a well written article is that it offers depth of knowledge on important issues, regardless if an item happens to be mentioned somewhere else, so we should aim high from the start.) Once again, many articles and sub-articles have a small amount of informational overlap, which is good, as it ties the narratives of these articles together. And deciding (or "cherry picking" if you prefer) what goes into an article is standard operating procedure. -- ] (]) 20:07, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

== Trump university ==

Any legitimate reason, other than ] why any mention of Trump University keeps getting removed from the lede? Especially right now, because Trump settled the lawsuits (after promising to never settle), it's all over the news and there is a ton of sources. and ton more.

Obviously that a president-elect ran an organization which was sued for fraud and settled the case is notable. I believe this is a first time that something like this has happened. There's no justification from omitting Trump Univ from the lede.] (]) 17:46, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
:Not really. He licensed his name to dubious guys running this venture, and that was a liability in his presidential campaign. Now he closed the case. How big is this story compared to Trump's whole life? I say not big enough for the lead of his bio. — ] <sup>]</sup> 18:11, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
::Agree with JFG. I also note none of Hillary's scandals appear in the lede of the her article (cattle futures, whitewater,benghazi, etc...). ] (]) 18:21, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
:::Maybe because there was no legal cases involved and it was just media/Republican created "controversy"? Did Hillary settle any fraud cases? No? Then that's probably why it's not in the lede there.] (]) 20:59, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
::::If Hillary Clinton had had to settle ''fraud cases'', the US "republicans" would go berserk and it would totally dominate the lead section of her biography and the article. --] (]) 04:26, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

: It is notable that Trump is a scamster, but unfortunately RSs have not given this story the coverage it deserves. For instance, here is the NYTimes front page from yesterday http://www.nytimes.com/indexes/2016/11/19/todayspaper/index.html As you can see, they didn't even give it top headline billing on the story's biggest day. The section on TrumpU in the article body is of roughly the same size as the one on his golf courses. So, per ], it shouldn't be in the lead without more coverage. ] (]) 18:22, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
:::I'm inclined to agree with the others here that it should not be in the lede. He has had a very active and sometimes controversial business life, and this isn't the first (or the second, or the third) time that he has paid a fine or settled a claim for serious allegations. They are referenced in the article text, and detailed in full elsewhere (], ], etc.). And there's a bunch of other important stuff that isn't in the lede, for example being the first candidate in decades to not release his tax returns, or the number of times he has declared bankruptcy. Basically the Reliable Sources which determine our coverage have given him a pass on many matters that would normally have been lede-worthy. --] (]) 20:22, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
::::The lede is supposed to summarize the main topics in the entire article. Any topic that is given its own section should at least get a brief mention in the lede. -- ] (]) 23:04, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
::::: Its in the sub-section of Business career so not really its own top section. Also there are about 54 sections including subs on this article, that would be a lot to put in the lead. Finally going to agree with ] and basically everything they said. ] (]) 00:46, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
:::::::Mentioning '54' items in the lede is nothing fantastic. Anything that has its own section, or subsection, should get at least a few words in the lede. Sometimes it's possible to mention several things in the course of one sentence. Not going to press this one, but a review of the sections in terms of representation in the lede wouldn't hurt. -- ] (]) 02:51, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
::::::::The lead should certainly be revised. It doesn't have enough information about his business ventures. And there is a lot of unnecessary material which could be removed to make way for new information. For example, the lead describes him winning the primaries. Well, of course, if he is President he won the primaries. Also, the description of his early life and education seems unnecessarily detailed.--] (]) 20:27, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

==Image way too large and given too much weight==
In the ] section, the image of the protestors is considerably larger than all other images in the article, save one, even those of Trump. Do we really need the image at all? There seems to be an ] issue here, and quite possibly a POV issue. The image needs to be either removed or made the same size as most of the other images. As it is, this image is about twice the size as the image of Trump making his victory speech. -- ] (]) 23:04, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
:I agree with you. I moved both of those pictures to the side and thumb sized them. It would be nice to crop the Obama-Trump picture, so we could see more of the central personages; anybody up for that? --] (]) 01:00, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
:::Thanks for managing the image sizes. To avoid that stacking appearance I rearranged them a bit. -- I checked the for the photo of Obama and Trump and it's not the best quality. Yes, the image does need cropping, but when I tried to crop the image it came out rather small. When I tried to enlarge the cropped image it came out looking sort of fuzzy, so I enhanced the focus. Hope the upgraded image is acceptable. -- ] (]) 03:16, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Does anybody know when the official White House portrait of Trump will be done so we can replace this garbage.
:::Who ever you are, you can voice your opinion about the current photo ].
'''Note''': The talk page/TOC is very long -- seems like it's time to archive some of the sections that haven't been commented in in 30 days if there are any. -- ] (]) 03:16, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
:A ] is already archiving threads on a daily basis, after a week of inactivity. — ] <sup>]</sup> 05:31, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

== clarification of Hillary Clinton winning the popular vote ==

It should be made clear that Hillary Clinton won the popular vote nationwide rather than the popular vote. Election in the US is decided by popular vote in the 50 states + DC rather than by popular vote nationwide as in for example Russia, Syria, Ukraine. In the case of the 2016 US presidential election, Donald Trump won the popular vote in most of the 50 states + DC while Hillary Clinton won the popular vote nationwide. It is incorrect to state that Hillary Clinton won the popular vote just because she won the popular vote nationwide when in fact Donald Trump won the popular vote in most of the 50 states + DC. In fact, even in Russia and Ukraine which do use the popular vote nationwide system, a candidate must win a majority AKA more than 50% of the votes nationwide in order to win on the first ballot without a run-off, a threshold Hillary Clinton failed to reach in the 2016 US presidential election.
] (]) 04:09, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

: US presidential elections are decided by number of electoral college votes, not by "popular vote in the 50 states + DC." ] (]) 04:49, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
::Who wins in each of the 50 states + DC is determined by who wins the plurality of popular votes. ] (]) 04:51, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

== Trump's German heritage ==

It seems a little one-sided to include the fact that "Trump has said that he is proud of his German heritage" etc., but not include the fact that ''they are not proud of him'' (, '']'', and many other reactions including from their next President and current foreign minister who called him a hate preacher). --] (]) 04:33, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
:This appears to be biased. Who gives you the right to speak for all German people? I'm sure there are many Germans if not the majority of Germans who are proud of Donald Trump. ] (]) 04:37, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
::You have misunderstood. Misplaced Pages is based on what sources report. German and other media have reported extensively on the German negative reaction to Trump, both from the country's elected leaders, from people in Trump's town and in the overall population, and that he is strongly disliked by the vast majority. I don't speak for any Germans since I'm not German, and it wouldn't have been relevant anyway. --] (]) 04:42, 21 November 2016 (UTC)]
:::The Die Welt source is not a survey. They just went around the town looking for people who hate Trump. Maybe they found a couple of Muslim refugees who said they hate Trump and reported that as their basis for the people of Kallstadt hate Trump. Unless they publish a survey showing full methodology and results, that source should be not used IMO as it would be deemed a propaganda piece. ] (]) 04:48, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
:::::Agree with IP user 38.121.82.105. Oppose inclusion of this divisive stuff. It sounds like another media hit piece. Does this source actually ''explain'' why the "vast majority" of Germans hate Trump? How did they go about establishing the consensus of the "vast majority" of Germans? Or did they conveniently leave that tid-bit out of the equation? Just remember, 'pollsters' who go around asking loaded questions (e.g.have you stopped beating your wife yet?) often cherry pick the results that supports their predetermined opinion. -- ] (]) 04:58, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
::Oppose - an editorial in Die Welt is hardly representative of the views of all Germans, and would not pass notability requirements anyways. ](])<sup><nowiki>(please reply with { {re|BrxBrx}})</nowiki></sup> 06:02, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
*Do not include. This is a) trivial at best and b) not a scientific or solidly sourced allegation. --] (]) 18:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
::Oppose - the opinion of Die Welt does not represent the opinion of the German people. Even if it did, which it clearly doesn't, it is not something that rises to the level to be even remotely included in the article.--] (]) 18:11, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
:::Oppose what exactly? This seems most of all like a strawman. I'm not aware of anyone advocating any specific content at this point ''based solely'' on an article in Die Welt; rather, it has been pointed out that ''many'' sources have described how Trump is ''highly unpopular'' in Germany; for example, their designated new President has called him a hate preacher. Surveys in Germany have also shown how unpopular he is there (he would only receive 5% of the votes) and discussed this in the context of his German ancestry which he says he is so proud of --] (]) 20:12, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
::::Well, in that context, since you started the topic (you actually created this discussion topic) then this discussion seems to be an opportunity to bash and complain about Trump. That is a not an appropriate topic for the this particular talk page. The ONLY reason for this talk page is to discuss how to make the Donald Trump talk page better. I stated that that I oppose putting in this particular topic because frankly it is really a far fetched topic. Just to make sure I don't put too delicate point on it: Who really cares about what the opinion writers at Die Welt think or don't think about the President-elect of the U.S.? A: Next to no one. Also since you are the person who started the topic aren't actually proposing to do anything with the information then why is it here? Let's just remove it. I propose that this section be withdrawn by you and if you are unwilling to do that then it should be covered because it shouldn't be here in the first place.--] (]) 20:55, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
:::::Also, who cares that Trump would only get 5% of the vote in Germany? That is daft. It is unbelievably unimportant and strange. He's not running for the Presidency of Germany so that information is only meant to bash and criticize Trump. How about we put in the Hillary Clinton article some daft article written in Indonesia and Hillary Clinton would only get 3% of the votes if she were to run for the Presidency of Indonesia? It is goofy. This whole section seems to be a ] for Tataral to hang negative articles about Trump. I say we hat the whole topic and move on.--] (]) 21:10, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
::::::'''NOTE:''' The editor Tataral has edited other articles related to Trump. In the article about ] he made the following edit: . It was later reverted by another editor. Charles Kushner is the father of Trump's son-in-law and advisor ], ]. This topic is a bogus topic. It needs to be hatted.--] (]) 21:21, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
:::::::Noted. Also noted that ] is ''indeed'' a convicted felon (and a rather spectacular one at that). Please stop trying to discredit Tataral, who is entitled to an opinion different than yours; that doesn't mean that ] doesn't apply. <span style="font-family: Gill Sans MT, Arial, Helvetica; font-weight:140;">]</span> <sup>''] ''</sup> 21:25, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
::::::::Yes, Kushner is a convicted felon, so what? That does not mean that this topic is a real topic. He even stated that it is not a real topic. He literally stated that he did not bring up the topic to make a change to the Donald Trump article. He said that. If he did not propose a change to the article then why did he start this topic. You have completely missed the point. This page here is to discuss beneficial changes to the Trump article. It is not here to discuss what percentage of ] would vote for Trump if he ran for ], whether Kushner is a felon or not, or any other irrelevant topic. This discussion topic is a ] for Tataral or others to bring up negative or critical topics about Trump. It is not a real discussion. It is a bogus topic.--] (]) 21:49, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
:::::::::As far as I know, Clinton is not of Indonesian origin, has not said she is proud of being from Indonesia, has not served as Grand Marshal of the Indonesian Parade etc etc. The purpose of this discussion is to point out the one-sidedness of invoking his proudness of his German origins, while not mentioning how he is perceived there. While I haven't proposed a specific new text, I am proposing that we include a sentence or something on how he is perceived in Germany or their reaction to his election, for example the foreign minister and designated president's description of him as a hate preacher, but clearly not based ''solely'' on the Die Welt article which was just mentioned as one of many examples. "He literally stated that he did not bring up the topic to make a change to the Donald Trump article" is a blatantly false claim, but typical of your peculiar style of "debate", it seems. --] (]) 21:56, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
::::::::::You state that Trump's German town is "ashamed" of him. He does NOT have a so-called "German town". No such thing exists. He is not a resident or citizen of Germany. He was not born there. He was born in Queens in NYC. He is an American. You have not made it clear how you want to change the article. As a matter of fact, your comments in that area are confusing. If there is a change to be made to the article then the sentence should be edited to state that he is proud of his "German-American" heritage.--] (]) 22:11, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
:::::::::::Also, your topic seems to be lead to the proposition that if someone, somewhere on this planet feels negatively about Trump then their opinion needs to be prominently displayed in the article. I say no. If you had an article that stated that only 5% of German-Americans wanted him to be elected to POTUS then I would not find this topic so completely off the charts ridiculous.--] (]) 22:17, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
::::::::::::I edited the sentence where I changed "German" to "German-American". Done.--] (]) 22:21, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
:Oppose. If he announces he's running against Merkel, I'd be inclined to revisit the issue.] (]) 20:41, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

:Oppose. Are we still talking about this? ] (]) 22:17, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

== Trimming political positions ==

The section on political positions is now the longest in this biography, and much of the information is redundant with the main article ]. Globally, the article is still a bit heavy at 79 KB / 13,000 words of ]. As the campaign season is over, I would suggest heavily trimming that section, summarizing contents and sending readers to other pages for details. — ] <sup>]</sup> 05:36, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
:I disagree. The section in this article ] It provides a good a summary of his positions and contains less content than the ''Business career'' section (as it should). Actually, I think the section ''carries even more weight now'' as he will soon have the capacity to try and implement some of these ideas. -- ] (]) 10:28, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

==False statements==
While reading the intro to copy for another purpose, I found this statement to be a bit pov and pointed. Disregarding "controversial", "Many of his statements in interviews, on Twitter, and at campaign rallies have been controversial or false." So we're just going to call the man out as a liar as a statement of fact in the lead? I happen to agree with the statement but I find it true of most politicians. While lacking sourcing, I have little doubt, like about every politician, false statements were made. For a BLP, we tend to give a certain amount of difference for political spin and statements of his opinion. I think "or false" should be removed as inappropriate, but if maintained, I should be qualified, such as adding "or , in some cases, false." ] <sup>]</sup> <small><i>14:56, 21 November 2016 (UTC)</i></small>
:The current wording is the result of this lengthy RfC -- ] (]) 15:46, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
::Wow, majority rule "trumps" NPOV - well, Strong Oppose. I don't like him, but that's pretty damn bias, particularly considering the media we rely on as sourcing was outwardly supporting Clinton. I recall Obama getting lie of the year for Obamacare, don't expect I'll see that in his lead. ] <sup>]</sup> <small><i>16:11, 21 November 2016 (UTC)</i></small>
:::I assume you're aware that "majority rule" is not the defining characteristic in play during an RfC closure. -- ] (]) 16:24, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
::::Sure, but anyone can see it sticks out like a sore thumb as a POV statement in a BLP when placed in Misplaced Pages's voice. Whatever the arguments of sourcing from WP and Politico, its current phrasing should be a non starter. Anyway, I've said my thoughts. ] <sup>]</sup> <small><i>01:11, 22 November 2016 (UTC)</i></small>
:::::Right, which means that it was 1) policy based, 2) backed by reliable sources and ALSO had majority support. You act like majority of editors supporting Misplaced Pages policy is a bad thing or something. Wow.] (]) 03:57, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
::: {{reply to|Morphh}} See ], § 1 (]), graf 1 ("Misplaced Pages aims to '''describe disputes'''... NPOV means ... including all verifiable points of view which have sufficient due ]."). Have you found a significant number of sources that dispute the point of view about "false" statements? Or that say, "Yes, but..."? --] (]) 00:50, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
::::I'm quite aware of the policy - I helped write some of it. You're not stating a particular example in the lead - it's weasel worded. Many of his statements were false. That type of statement requires qualification, such as "were described as false". Then you're placing the onus on the sources, not in Misplaced Pages voice. ] <sup>]</sup> <small><i>01:11, 22 November 2016 (UTC)</i></small>
::::And to part of your question, there are sources where Trump would disagree with that statement or does he not count as an opposing viewpoint? Here is one from today: http://nypost.com/2016/11/21/donald-trumps-media-summit-was-a-f-ing-firing-squad/
::::Anyway, I don't care enough to get into a debate. I just found it surprising and while agreeing with the statement, I didn't think it should be stated like that. ] <sup>]</sup> <small><i>01:34, 22 November 2016 (UTC)</i></small>
::::: {{reply to|Morphh}} I was actually supporting your point about "sticking out like a sore thumb". But you don't have to go against consensus by removing the phrase. Just '''add''' some language about the opposing POV. There's no consensus against adding, just against removing. --] (]) 02:45, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
{{od}} {{u|Morphh}} makes a solid point. Since the article got (even more) massive readership after the election, several uninvolved readers have taken the trouble to comment on the talk page about this particular "sore thumb" wording. I take it as a sign that ] and I'd welcome a new RfC about removing those famous two words "or false" from the lead. Strangely, the article body is worded more cautiously than the lead, with attribution to fact-checking organizations, third-party analysis of Trump's hyperbolic style and mention of Trump's rebuttals. — ] <sup>]</sup> 03:51, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
::::::Disagree. If it's opinion pieces then we need to attribute. If it's news reports we don't. You do realize that whether something is "false" or not is not a matter of opinion, right? ] (]) 04:57, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
:::::::We're not denying that Trump lied on the campaign trail. We're questioning whether this is notable enough for inclusion in the lead of his main bio. While it may have been a hot issue during the campaign (and even then the RfC attracted many "Strong oppose" comments), I believe it shouldn't be as prominent now. As {{u|Morphh}} said, Obama got "lie of the year", that's not in his bio, and Clinton was called a liar by none less than the FBI director, that's not in her bio either. <small>And please don't lecture me about ]…</small> — ] <sup>]</sup> 06:00, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
::::::::''Clinton was called a liar by none less than the FBI director'' - yeah, that's also false. Please keep in mind that BLP applies to talk pages.] (]) 06:05, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
:Come to think of it, perhaps the whole sentence should be trimmed or rephrased. Instead of:
:{{talkquote|Trump's 2016 presidential campaign received unprecedented media coverage and international attention. Many of his statements in interviews, on Twitter, and at campaign rallies have been controversial or false. Several rallies during the primaries were accompanied by protests. }}
:we could just say
:{{talkquote|Trump's 2016 presidential campaign received unprecedented media coverage and international attention as the candidate triggered numerous controversies and protests.}}
:Sounds less weaseling… What do you think? — ] <sup>]</sup> 04:00, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
::No. We had an RfC about it. Your proposal flies in the face of the consensus established through that RfC.] (]) 04:57, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
:::That RfC started August 25, almost 3 months ago, an eternity in politics. Need I remind you ]? — ] <sup>]</sup> 05:53, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
::::Sure. But here is the thing about false statements. The passage of time does not make them magically true. So there is really little point in revisiting this.] (]) 06:03, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
::::: Again, ]. He lied, that's not in question. Should we point this out in the lead in Misplaced Pages's voice? That point deserves being re-opened now that the campaign is over. — ] <sup>]</sup> 06:58, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Multiple reliable sources have quoted Mr. Trump saying, "SJW tears are delicious!" <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 06:19, 22 November 2016 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

== Splitting article ==

The article is pretty long (79 kB readable prose size); maybe we should split it? —] (]) 17:23, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
::It's a little too early for that as the article is still in its formative stage. The idea of page length is a guideline, not a rigid and unyielding policy. As it says at ] at the top of the page, guidelines are ] Articles about Presidents, among others, often present us with such exceptions and whose length often far exceeds this guideline. For future reference this guideline also says that ]. Just a note: There are many GA and FA articles that exceed guidelines, and with good reason -- they are well written, offer depth of knowledge and give the readers more than enough, rather than not enough information. -- ] (]) 18:17, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

== Trump said wall may include some fencing ==

--] (]) 22:49, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

It's one of his core issues. I'd support adding something about the fence. ] (]) 00:06, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

== Celebrities Fleeing "Trump's America" ==


{{u|FMSky}}, I had ] before you brought this here, and {{u|Nikkimaria}} already responded there. {{u|Muboshgu}} made their support for exclusion clear with . ]] 10:51, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
Can we have a section on this here. Pretty please? About how all these big-time celebrities swore up and down that they'd leave the country if a hateful, racist, mysogynistic, xenophobic, anti-LGBTQ, horrendous SOB such as Trump were to be actually elected? And then, when it happened, how absolutely not one of them followed through? That each and every one of them not only lied, but tried to influence voters to do the same? ] ] 06:37, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
:'''Support''' as proposer. ] ] 07:40, 22 November 2016 (UTC) :Too much shit going on all at once. Almost need a consensus item. &#8213;]&nbsp;] 10:59, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
:The connection to Cleveland is ]. We do not have the space in this already needing-to-be-trimmed article for a factoid that was barely mentioned by RS. &ndash;&nbsp;]&nbsp;(]) 14:42, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
:'''Support''' claims of leaving America was a fairly notable angle of the election program. ](])<sup><nowiki>(please reply with { {re|BrxBrx}})</nowiki></sup> 06:43, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
::If this was mentioned in the lead, we also should mention that he is the first president with a felony conviction and the oldest ever inaugurated per leads on other president pages talking about the age of the presidents and notable historical information. But some editors are very against this, so this whole thing will likely go nowhere. 19:34, 23 January 2025 (UTC) ] (]) 19:34, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
::No it wasn't. It's absolutely undue.] (]) 06:57, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
:::Oldest ever inaugurated and only felon president are far more important to point out than Grover Cleveland. &ndash;&nbsp;]&nbsp;(]) 19:46, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
:::That is absurd. There is a ton of coverage about this in the media. ] ] 06:58, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
::::No, there really isn't, although I guess it depends on what you consider "the media", and even if, this article ain't the place for it.] (]) 07:02, 22 November 2016 (UTC) :I presume the accomplishment will eventually be added to the lead. ] (]) 19:54, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
:::You claiming "undue" isn't going to wash. You know this, right? C'mon, man... ] ] 07:03, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
::::Do you have anything constructive to say or are you just going to keep typing "lol" as if that was some kind of brilliant insight? It's goofy gossip at best and it has no place in this article.] (]) 07:05, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
:::Goofy gossip? This is why you lost the election. FYI... ] ] 07:07, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
::::Uh, ok. Please read ].] (]) 07:10, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
:::What's undue about it? ] ] 07:14, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
::::How about you try to articulate why it should be included? You know, like with sources and stuff.] (]) 07:17, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
:::You're far too biased against Trump to have a NPOV discussion with. It's quite shameful that you've had the influence on this article that you've had. I hope it is diminished now that things have changed... ] ] 07:28, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
::::Didn't you get topic banned the last time you started up with the personal attacks? Again. Explain why this is so central to Trump's biography that it needs to be mentioned. Stop discussing editors. Discuss content.] (]) 07:33, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
:::Shaddap. ] ] 07:35, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
::::Here is your chance to remove your offending comment. Feel free to remove this comment of mine right here (but not others) along with it.] (]) 07:39, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
:::I am offended that you are accusing me of offending you. ] ] 07:41, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
(unindent) Such a section would not be undue. There is plenty of coverage on the various celebs that said they would leave if Trump got elected . ] (]) 07:20, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
:You've pretty much scrapped the barrel there and exhausted every story that was written over the course of a year long plus campaign. Please stop pretending that this was some big story (outside of far right media, neo-Nazi websites and fake news websites). And please explain why is this somehow central to Donald Trump's life? Especially after you edit warred to minimize the mention of sexual assault allegations, which are in fact a notable subject? ] (]) 07:31, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
:Actually, wait, this is sort of funny. The CNN source is from the "Entertainment" section. And the first line is "it happens every presidential election". Ok ok, let me go to the Obama article... ... ... nope, nothing there about celebrities moving out of the country. George Bush. Nope, not there either. Millard Filmore. Oh wait, he got to be president cuz Taylor got pneumonia or something. Come on, can we please be serious here? This is trivial crap.] (]) 07:37, 22 November 2016 (UTC)


== Wording in opening ==
If you really must, file a proper ].] (]) 07:47, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
{{atop|Duplicate of ]. Eligible for manual archival after this time tomorrow. &#8213;]&nbsp;] 01:46, 24 January 2025 (UTC)}}
:Not necessary. Why would it be? ] ] 07:52, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
This seems odd “ is an American politician, media personality, and businessman who has been the 47th and current president of the United States. The “has been” I think should be who is the 47th. ] (]) 01:41, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
{{abot}}


== Correction for the mention of withdrawing from the World Health Organization ==
:Care to describe how I've scraped "the bottom of the barrel"? Or is that just a colorful substitute for an argument? Can you find sources about celebs that said they would move out of the country if Obama won? That's right, didn't think so. You might also watch bandying about the "neo-Nazi" straq man argument, unless you can point out which of the sources I have presented are "neo-Nazi". ] (]) 07:55, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
::You scraped the bottom of the barrel, by, like I said, picking out essentially every existing source printed over the course of the campaign. From borderline sources. I don't have to find any sources about celebs moving out if Obama won, because I don't wish to put that kind of stupid inane trivia into his article. And if you do a quick google search, it's easy to see that aside from the couple sources you mentioned above, it's pretty much all alt-right and neo-Nazi crap that keeps harping on this topic.
::Seriously, if you really genuinely believe that this is something that is crucial to the biography of Donald Trump, start an RfC.] (]) 08:06, 22 November 2016 (UTC)


As I understand, Donald Trumps executive order was to state his intent to leave the WHO not expressly removing the US from the WHO immediately. This should be corrected to state this fact. ] (]) 02:10, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
:::Repeating a ], no matter how colorful, does not make it true. How do you know I've picked out "essentially every existing source printed over the course of the campaign"? Oh look, another "bottom of the barrel" source . Wait, is that the Washington Post? Btw RfC is for when several users reach a genuine deadlock, not for one lone user's ] objections to relevant, sourced material. ] (]) 08:11, 22 November 2016 (UTC)


:I agree though I would not word it exactly as you have. I think this BBC source is telling. From the executive order: "
:::Here's some more "scraping" . Seriously if you wanted to argue against the addition of this material, you could try more convincing arguments. Attacking the sources as "neo-nazi" is just not going to cut it. ] (]) 08:14, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
:(d) The Secretary of State and the Director of the Office of Management and Budget shall take appropriate measures, with all practicable speed, to:
:(i) pause the future transfer of any United States Government funds, support, or resources to the WHO;
:(ii) recall and reassign United States Government personnel or contractors working in any capacity with the WHO". This is in practice a withdrawal or at least starting the process of withdrawing. From the BBC <blockquote>"They wanted us back so badly so we'll see what happens," Trump said in the Oval Office, referring to the WHO, perhaps hinting the US might return eventually."</blockquote> <ref>https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c391j738rm3o </ref>
:Maybe in light of this the idea is:
:* change {{xt|Trump withdrew the U.S. from the World Health Organization and Paris Agreement.}}
:* to: Trump ordered the US government to stop funding and stop working with the WHO and announced the US's intention to formally leave the WHO.
:] (]) 03:00, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
::That sounds more correct ] (]) 04:20, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
{{ref-talk}}

Latest revision as of 13:32, 24 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.
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 
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, especially 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.
WikiProject iconBiography: Arts and Entertainment / Politics and Government
WikiProject iconThis 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
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the arts and entertainment work group (assessed as Mid-importance).
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the politics and government work group (assessed as Top-importance).
WikiProject iconBusiness Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis 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
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconClimate change High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis 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
HighThis 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
WikiProject iconConservatism High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis 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
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconCrime and Criminal Biography Top‑importance
WikiProject iconThis 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
TopThis article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconNew York City High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis 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
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconPolitics: American / Political parties Top‑importance
WikiProject iconThis 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
TopThis article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by American politics task force (assessed as Top-importance).
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by Political parties task force (assessed as High-importance).
WikiProject iconTelevision: American Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis 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
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the American television task force.
WikiProject iconUnited States: Television / Presidential elections / Government Top‑importance
WikiProject iconThis 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. United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States
TopThis article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by American television task force (assessed as Mid-importance).
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. presidential elections (assessed as Top-importance).
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. Government (assessed as High-importance).
WikiProject iconUnited States Presidents: Donald Trump Top‑importance
WikiProject iconThis 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 Presidents of the United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United States PresidentsUnited States Presidents
TopThis article has been rated as Top-importance on the importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Donald Trump task force.
WikiProject iconUniversity of Pennsylvania Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis 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
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject icon2010s Top‑importance
WikiProject iconThis 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
TopThis article has been rated as Top-importance on the importance scale.
          Page history
Former good article nomineeDonald 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
DateProcessResult
June 2, 2006Good article nomineeNot listed
February 12, 2007Good article nomineeNot listed
September 17, 2016Good article nomineeNot listed
May 25, 2017Good article nomineeNot listed
December 2, 2018Good article nomineeNot listed
July 15, 2019Good article nomineeNot listed
August 31, 2019Featured article candidateNot promoted
April 29, 2020Peer reviewReviewed
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.
Media mentionThis article has been mentioned by multiple media organizations:
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 138 times. The weeks in which this happened:
          Other talk page banners
Section sizes
Section size for Donald Trump (91 sections)
Section name Byte
count		 Section
total
(Top) 9,137 9,137
Early life and education 3,418 3,418
Business career 149 35,380
Real estate 4,555 15,952
Manhattan and Chicago developments 6,166 6,166
Atlantic City casinos 3,610 3,610
Clubs 1,621 1,621
Licensing the Trump name 1,364 1,364
Side ventures 7,220 7,220
Foundation 5,025 5,025
Legal affairs and bankruptcies 2,315 2,315
Wealth 3,355 3,355
Media career 3,445 5,107
The Apprentice and The Celebrity Apprentice 1,662 1,662
Early political aspirations 5,185 5,185
2016 presidential election 18,738 18,738
First presidency (2017–2021) 1,512 175,267
First presidency early actions 1,722 1,722
Conflicts of interest 3,377 3,377
Domestic policy 20,134 20,134
Race relations 6,415 6,415
Pardons and commutations 2,605 2,605
Immigration 3,112 20,439
Travel ban 4,347 4,347
Family separation at the border 6,278 6,278
Mexico–United States border wall and government shutdown 6,702 6,702
First presidency foreign policy 2,876 36,063
First presidency foreign policy: Trade 2,550 2,550
Russia 4,226 4,226
East Asia 21 10,653
China, Hong Kong, Taiwan 4,914 4,914
North Korea 5,718 5,718
First presidency foreign policy: Middle East 56 15,758
Afghanistan 3,042 3,042
Israel 2,642 2,642
Saudi Arabia 2,229 2,229
Syria 3,797 3,797
Iran 3,992 3,992
Personnel 8,725 8,725
Judiciary 4,174 4,174
COVID-19 pandemic 291 30,420
Initial response 7,145 7,145
White House Coronavirus Task Force 4,747 4,747
World Health Organization 2,673 2,673
Pressure to abandon pandemic mitigation measures 7,804 7,804
Political pressure on health agencies 2,690 2,690
Outbreak at the White House 2,667 2,667
Effects on the 2020 presidential campaign 2,403 2,403
Investigations 1,079 26,089
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 12,835 12,835
First impeachment 10,202 10,202
Second impeachment 3,390 3,390
2020 presidential election 34 23,372
Loss to Biden 6,907 15,684
Rejection of results 8,777 8,777
January 6 Capitol attack 7,654 7,654
Between presidencies (2021–2025) 5,206 23,227
Legal issues 21 18,021
Classified documents 4,442 4,442
2020 election 5,415 5,415
2016 campaign fraud case 3,179 3,179
Civil lawsuits 4,964 4,964
2024 presidential election 16,714 16,714
Second presidency (2025–present) 1,826 6,549
Second presidency early actions 2,114 2,114
Second presidency foreign policy 548 2,609
Second presidency foreign policy: Trade 717 717
Second presidency foreign policy: Middle East 1,344 1,344
Political practice and rhetoric 9,004 53,582
Racial and gender views 9,371 9,371
Link to violence and hate crimes 10,073 10,073
Conspiracy theories 3,322 3,322
Truthfulness 10,483 10,483
Social media 5,815 5,815
Relationship with the press 5,514 5,514
Personal life 18 6,165
Family 1,323 1,323
Health 3,693 3,693
Religion 1,131 1,131
Assessments 18 6,974
Public image 4,516 4,516
Scholarly rankings 2,440 2,440
Notes 136 136
References 30 30
Works cited 18 12,053
Books 3,216 3,216
Journals 8,819 8,819
External links 5,709 5,709
Total 406,743 406,743

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:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

67. The "Health" 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)

68. Do not expand the brief mention of Trumpism in the lead. (RfC January 2025)


Racially charged

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)

"This section is pinned and will not be automatically archived." And why is that? If the discussion is over, why not let it be archived? This is a busy page, no need to keep a thread that is over if there isn't a strong reason for that. Cambalachero (talk) 01:18, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

Indeed. removed. Zaathras (talk) 01:28, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

"Racially changed" is supported later in the article under the section Donald_Trump#Racial_and_gender_views, so nom the text will not be removed. Zaathras (talk) 01:28, 23 January 2025 (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

14 Jan 2025 — 432 = 58 + 60 + 145 + 169

21 Jan 2025 — 439 = 46 + 60 + 181 + 152

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

14 Jan 2025 — 14,756 – 403,398 – 191

21 Jan 2025 — TBD – 422,683 – 095

Edit War

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)
Looks like you made this change re archiving . Bob K31416 (talk) 07:19, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
"Whatever you want to do is fine with me." 2601:483:400:1CD0:324A:DECE:5253:C8FB (talk) 17:06, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

Making a section heading change

Just a reminder that the inauguration is in a couple of days and the time for taking an action discussed above is coming. It appears that there is consensus to make an edit after the inauguration that is the following section heading change,

from First post-presidency (2021–2025)
to Between presidential terms (2021–2025).

It's fine with me if anyone makes the change. I'll leave it to you. Regards, Bob K31416 (talk) 11:14, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

Inter-presidency? First post-presidency? Which one?

Can we start an RFC? Right now it's at the subject "Between Presidential Terms" which doesn't read right. Pyraminxsolver (talk) 05:53, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Use the Grover Cleveland page, as a model. GoodDay (talk) 05:54, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
We don't use RfC unless we fail to reach consensus without RfC. I don't think we have attempted the latter as of yet. ―Mandruss ☎ 05:58, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
Yeah, although I made the edit per Bob's suggestion above, Interpresidency might be better. Riposte97 (talk) 11:31, 21 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 think it makes sense to replace it to the new one once it becomes available. Current official picture should be then moved to the section about his first presidency. Onikaburgers (talk) 21:11, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
Yes I also think it's reasonable to replace the current portrait with the 2025 version once it's available. 2A02:1406:10:ED6A:0:0:369E:4EDF (talk) 00:19, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
The 2025 portrait is now available. Hopefully someone can update it. 2600:6C4A:4B7F:DBC0:81AF:2AD8:9DD7:F170 (talk) 17:41, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
No, it is not. That is a photograph taken by a private individual, not a government portrait. There is no evidence that the photographer of this photograph has or ever will release it under an acceptable free license. It does not suddenly become public domain just because Trump wants to use it. Nobody other than the photographer or someone they sign rights away to, not even the President, can release copyright on an image they did not take. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 18:28, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
Photos for both President Trump and Vice President Vance have been listed on the official White House website, is it good to now post them on the wiki page?
https://www.whitehouse.gov/administration/donald-j-trump/
https://www.whitehouse.gov/administration/jd-vance/ Pizza noob 65 (talk) 18:11, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
The previous image is more suited for his[REDACTED] page, dare I say even worth breaking precedent for. The new image is not suitable for the far future. Pharaoh496 (talk) 07:53, 22 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)
The previous image is more suited for his[REDACTED] page, dare I say even worth breaking precedent for. The new image is not suitable for the far future. Pharaoh496 (talk) 07:53, 22 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)

Proposal to supersede consensus #50

This section is pinned and will not be automatically archived.

Uninvolved closure requested. ―Mandruss ☎ 16:59, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

Not a voteIf 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)
      Eminem "criminal"? Is this a joke? JacktheBrown (talk) 20:53, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
      He pleaded guilty to weapons charges for two incidents in 2000, got probation both times. It's mentioned in Eminem#Legal issues. He wasn't running for president at the time . Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 21:08, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
      @Space4Time3Continuum2x: in the sense: almost all American rappers who started rapping between the early 90s and early 2000s committed criminal actions, so Eminem (like many other rappers) isn't a correct example for this talk page. JacktheBrown (talk) 21:30, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
      I think Alalch was just referring to the OP's consistency claim by pointing out that the article on Eminem, who had pleaded guilty to a felony, also doesn't call him a felon or criminal in the first sentence (or anywhere else, AFAIK — I just skimmed the article). WP says we should avoid labels and, instead, describe what happened. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 12:59, 14 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)
    Support. Factual, verifiable, and most importantly widespread coverage. Satisfies WP:BLPCRIME. Onikaburgers (talk) 21:08, 11 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)

"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)
    Yes. He is famous for being a controversial president, making inflammatory remarks and having divisive policies. The felony convictions are not the reason he is notable, his presidencies and business career are. The conviction should be mentioned in the lead, but not the first sentence. QuicoleJR (talk) 14:21, 15 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[REDACTED] 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)
  • 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[REDACTED] 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[REDACTED] 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[REDACTED] 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[REDACTED] 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[REDACTED] 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[REDACTED] 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)
    Whether we are admins is irrelevant; their opinion doesn't count for more than ours anyway. Nor do we need to be admins to highlight issues of AGF. — Czello 15:58, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
    Czello is correct. You have a distorted view of what admins do, and of the division of responsibility between admins and non-admins. I wish behavior issues were handled solely by admins, but that is not the reality. One of en-wiki's greatest flaws is the requirement for ordinary editors to police the very people they are expected to collaborate with. I don't know how many other wikis have the same flaw. ―Mandruss ☎ 17:35, 11 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)
Oppose - not notable enough yet to warrant mention in the first sentence. Of course if that changes in the future, so should the lede. 2003:CD:EF49:C700:DD80:5A19:2283:EFDA (talk) 19:53, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
Oppose - it is true, but doesn't warrant first sentence status as it's not at all what he is most notable for. I would support adding something about his being the first president to be convicted of a felony somewhere in the first paragraph. Being a felon isn't notable enough, but being the first president/felon is arguable noteworthy enough for first paragraph status. Separate from that I'd oppose calling him a criminal even if we did include his conviction in the first sentence as 'criminal' is too generic a term that could be interpreted in many ways. "Convicted Felon" seems more specific and more in keeping with other articles that referencing well known criminals 144.51.12.162 (talk) 20:00, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
Oppose It's certainly relevant enough to have farther down in the lead, but it's not one of the primary reasons he's notable. I'd be against removing it entirely as reliable sources do talk about his felony convictions regularly, but first sentence is way too aggressive given that his level of notability wasn't affected by the felony conviction. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 15:55, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
Oppose There is a lot of talk in this about WP:LEAD however this is about the first sentence. MOS:FIRST is the real guide here.
  • "Do not overload the first sentence by describing everything notable about the subject."
  • "The first sentence should introduce the topic, and tell the nonspecialist reader what or who the subject is, and often when or where. It should be in plain English."
The nonspecialist reader needs to know this is a man born in 1946 and served/is serving as the POTUS. Adding more detail will only make the first sentence further from plain English. Czarking0 (talk) 22:21, 23 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)

  • 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[REDACTED] 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. 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)
    I'd say Trump is most famous for his inflammatory rhetoric, immigration policies, and January 6. The hush money conviction is not in the top 5. QuicoleJR (talk) 20:03, 13 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)
  • Comment 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[REDACTED] 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)
Off-topic about IP addresses, WP:AGF, resolution of a double !vote, etc. Ok to continue within the collapse. ―Mandruss ☎ 06:11, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
Are you the same IP as above 2601:282:8903:b3c0:e03b:9d22:3c30:1a19 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) that voted support? Because they geolocate to the came place and ISP. ALso looks like 65.153.22.75 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). PackMecEng (talk) 17:21, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
@PackMecEng: When the first halves of two IPv6 addresses (2601:282:8903:b3c0) are the same, they are always the same device. The device changes the latter half frequently and that is beyond the user's control. This editor can demonstrate their good faith by striking one of their two bolded !votes; else we have a clear socking situation.As for 65.153.22.75, it's probably a situation of IPv6 for their phone and IPv4 for their computer or other non-phone device. That address has not posted a bolded !vote that I can see, so the only problem is possible bludgeoning; seems to me they are consuming significantly more than their share of oxygen in this discussion. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:31, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
@Mandruss Says you, with practically half the comments here coming from you. Pot meet kettle. 65.153.22.75 (talk) 19:37, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
WP:BLUDGEON is not about comment count, as a lazy read of just its nutshell will reveal to you. I don't think I have repeated essentially the same arguments at great length and ad nauseam. Are you going to strike or not?? ―Mandruss ☎ 19:47, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
@Mandruss Already did. Changed from a vote to “a comment”. Wasn’t intentional. I’m not trying to double dip. Thought I was voting on a separate vote started below in a different subsection. Also, some of us anons without accounts sometimes text from a home PC. Then use our mobile device when we are out and about. I’m in my 60s and behind the curve when it comes to texts. But not pretending to be anyone other than who I am. And that’s all that needs to be says about it. Verbose or not, you too are strongly opinionated and invested here as well, and commented more than your fair share too. Given the stakes and unprecedented nature of this heated historical moment, it’s reasonable, expected, and par for the course. We are simply just both spirited strong-willed blokes. Have a good one. 2601:282:8903:B3C0:4989:2E9B:F75E:3173 (talk) 20:20, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
Wasn’t intentional. I’m not trying to double dip. And I gave you the benefit of the doubt, per WP:AGF. You'll note that I did not accuse you of anything. (Some editors should take note: we are entitled to our suspicions, but expressing them absent clear evidence is a violation that should be dealt with more harshly in my view. Regrettably, some editors don't know what "clear evidence" means. You violated that principle at least once, here, and then doubled down here. That remains unacceptable in my opinion.)My view of constructive talk page behavior is shared among many experienced editors: Don't repeat yourself—we heard you the first time; the more repetition, the longer the thread and the less likely it is that new arrivals will read existing discussion. Comments are never between just two editors, but some editors act as if they are. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:54, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
@PackMecEng Thanks for catching this. Thought I was on a different subspace (the one below that started a new vote). I corrected it. Wasn’t trying to double dip. It’s now a comment. Cheers 2601:282:8903:B3C0:E4AF:EA9E:F67C:C0C (talk) 20:07, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
Thanks! I appreciate it. PackMecEng (talk) 20:09, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
You can't really cite the coverage in the press as "consensus" as that's heavily subject to WP:RECENTISM. — Czello 19:04, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
@Czello This is actually the opposite of RECENTISM, as the verdict was many moons ago, been debated to death here, and given the thoughtfulness of the American legal system in its methodological approach (especially in the drawn out fashion under Biden and with all the delays) this has been given MORE than enough time for us to be able to call it. A convicted criminal being sentenced after a serious trial is literally the closure of said dragged out process. This is a dodge, and WP:NOT recent, and is WP:NOT our job to avoid reporting harsh truths when it becomes necessary to do so. 2601:282:8903:B3C0:C071:CE5B:4487:3425 (talk) 23:38, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
This 2601:282:8903:B3C0 IP is engaged in ridiculous Wikilawyering all throughout this section. Sentencing was yesterday, hence RECENTISM. WP:NOT is not at all related to anything here. Nor are the other essays raised, such as SPADE. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:03, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
@Muboshgu No, but you are flirting with trying WP:GAMING the system here by misrepresenting others here. And engaging in a borderline personal attack.
This isn't a game, and the sentencing is the conclusion of Trump's verdict from MONTHS ago. What is "ridiculous" is the suggestion that this is somehow RECENT news. Trump was a convicted criminal MONTHS ago, remember?? And the American legal system doesn't say that a conviction doesn't count UNTIL you are sentenced. The sentence is simply the punishment. The conviction is the important part.
The only reason why sentencing is even relevant now in this 'second-look-of-sorts' at including information about Trump's criminal behavior in the opening is because there was a chance the Judge may have reversed himself and dismissed the case. Between the SCOTUS giving its blessing on Trump's sentencing and the Judge doubling down, this old news about Trump's verdict now has proper closure. And we can easily report on it more directly.
The only WP:SPADE is see here is you trying to find some fancy way around reporting obvious factual pertinent information for whatever personal agenda you have to bury it in the lead. Re-read WP:LEAD It clearly says that in the lead, "It should identify the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, INCLUDING any prominent controversies. There is nothing recent about Trump's verdict, it is literally one of the most controversy and notable things about him, as he is the only American President in all of world history to be a convicted felon. And he's been a convicted felon for a while now, nothing recent about it. 2601:282:8903:B3C0:C071:CE5B:4487:3425 (talk) 01:28, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
whatever personal agenda you have to bury it in the lead. You did it again. Consider this fair warning: One more and I'll see you at WP:ANI, unless someone sees fit to do it now. (To those such as Slatersteven who would scold me for for saying this here instead of your UTP, I would respond that that doesn't work for some IPv4 editors and most IPv6 editors. The UTP disappears into the ether every time the IP address changes, which is quite frequently, so it's rarely worth one's time to post on it. You yourself have posted in this discussion under seven different IP addresses, one IPv4 and six IPv6, each with its own UTP.) ―Mandruss ☎ 01:48, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
Like I said, Wikilawyering. And yes, also failing to AGF. A closing admin will take it into account. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:42, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
The previous debates resulted in no consensus to include in the lead. It hasn't been persistently a presence in the press or something he's primarily known for since the initial conviction. It's back in the press now, hence recentism. — Czello 08:15, 12 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)
    Michael Cohen (lawyer) served time in prison, was fined, and lost his law license because of the campaign finance laws violations on behalf of Trump. Cohen wasn't running for office when he was punished. It appears more logical to say that Trump got away because he was running for the presidency. Arbeiten8 (talk) 15:47, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
  • Strong support On Misplaced Pages, I think there are systemic issues with the handling of political articles. It is best that readers be made aware, as soon as possible, that this is not the place to go for balanced coverage of topics involving political ideology. Calling Trump a "criminal" in the very first sentence would telegraph that to readers quite marvelously. By all means, have at it. Marcus Markup (talk) 15:48, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
    The president-elect is a career criminal dating back to 1968 when he falsified medical records to include bone spurs in furtherance of draft dodging felony, before he became businessman and media personality. Kenneth Kho (talk) 16:08, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
I know he is. It is a good edit. Go at it. Marcus Markup (talk) 16:21, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
Lol Big Thumpus (talk) 16:24, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
  • Oppose - The body, of course, the lead, absolutely, the first sentence? Not yet, it is not one of the defining characteristics of what makes him notable. I could certainly see that changing, but it is not at that point by RS coverage yet. PackMecEng (talk) 16:06, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

Please remember this is a BLP, and any accusations must be backed up with sources, and he can't be accused of breaking laws with out there even being an investigation by the authorities. Slatersteven (talk) 16:12, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

Support Outside of playing more golf on the dime of taxpayers than any other President (a little humor), unfortunately the hard truth is that according the consensus of the sources he is known for being America's first convicted felon to be elected to the highest office of the land. He and he alone enjoys that distinction. There has been no other President in the last few hundred years charged with hundreds of crimes, or even a single felony, let alone convicted of one. That alone makes this not only notable but necessary to highlight in the lead.
The biggest disagreement here among the naysayers (and some trolls) seems to be that this "is controversial",
So let's look at WP:LEAD, shall we? It clearly says, "It should identify the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, INCLUDING any prominent controversies.
Since the biggest disagreement here among the naysayers (and some trolls) seems to be that this "is controversial", many are saying we should NOT highlight it front and center, etc".
I want editors to note that WP:LEAD in fact wants us TO INCLUDE PROMINENT CONTROVERSIES. Either some misguided editors need to refresh their memory and read this, and we all seem to agree Trump's many crimes and convictions need to be included in the article regardless as they are empirically sound, so this should be distilled to what is appropriate for a lead.
-->Is it "notable" per WP:LEAD? Yes, for the same reason that President Barack Obama being elected the first African American President, as it has been pointed out to death here.
-->It is summarized? Yes, this has played out in the public, and with the press, and here and now has found proper closure with sentencing and with the blessing of even the SCOTUS.
-->Is it prominent? It is at least one of the things Trump is known best for as President since no other President enjoys this exclusive, historic, unique distinction.
And for those saying that this celebrity or that politician isn't highlighted in the lead as a criminal and yadda, yadda, yadda, then I suggest fixes those articles if they too fit the above criteria.
For those letting possible political bias interfere with their duties as an editor, my ask is please keep it simple and lets not treat one controversial subject differently than any other. This isn't about whether Trump deserves his conviction. It's about its notoriety, notability and whether the consensus in the press reflects as much. And we must reflect the press per WP:V otherwise we are basically endorsing a loophole around the WP:NPOV violation. EmmaRoydes (talk) 18:23, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
A few things, pretty much no one is saying it should not be in the lead. What they are discussing, and what this RFC is about, is if it should be in the first sentence. So that kind of undercuts all of your points. Next do not accuse people disagreeing with you of being trolls or that it must be political bias. That is not helpful to discussions here. PackMecEng (talk) 02:34, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
From my experience, the editors who complain about other people editing based on their "political bias" are usually the ones whose editing is most influenced by their political biases. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:16, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
  • Oppose, this conviction is nowhere near what Trump is best known for and would be wildly WP:Undue. If he'd been convicted in relation to January 6th, then sure, but this is minor at most. Better mentioned later in the lede. Kowal2701 (talk) 18:46, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
    @Kowal2701 That’s fallacious. There’s nothing minor about 34+ felony convictions. In accordance to American law, the justice system upgraded those minor misdemeanor charges into felonies because the jury found that Trump had been committing multiple misdemeanor crimes as part of a felony criminal to influence and interfere with the 2016 election. Convictions for interfering with a democratic election is the opposite of “minor”. 65.153.22.75 (talk) 18:50, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
    @Kowal2701: I agree, Trump best known for this conviction? It sounds like a provocation by users who dislike him (and I don't like him much either, but I'm objective). JacktheBrown (talk) 18:51, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
    Agreed, frankly it'd be a bit embarrassing if this were to succeed (although nom is clearly good faith) Kowal2701 (talk) 18:53, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
    Thank you, I'd add that this is not a fringe RfC, I looked up a similar mid-2024 RfC that was closed as no consensus, and it noted the support side had a majority, which took me by surprise as I would have opposed back then, he was not officially a felon yet. Kenneth Kho (talk) 19:24, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
    @JacktheBrown How is it “provocation” that Trump is a convicted criminal for 30 plus serious felonies involving an election interference scheme? Lol That was the finding by a jury, not a simple allegation. If it’s provocative or even embarrassing then that’s the natural consequence for the one committing a crime. That’s on the convicted, not on us. I challenge your “objectivity”. Liking him or disliking him has nothing to do with this. That saying, you can have your own set of opinions but not your own facts?? The law and the nature of convictions happens to carry some ugly truths. So do we waterdown the Ted Bundy page or the Harvey Weinstein page for fear of personal embarrassment of said subject? Trump is also an adjudicated sexual assault perpetrator. That’s also a first for Presidents. That other saying, if the shoe fits? Objective indeed. 65.153.22.75 (talk) 19:33, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
  • Comment — See the lead sentence of the Misplaced Pages article Michael Cohen (lawyer). Regards, Bob K31416 (talk) 02:50, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
    I think we can safely assume you're an Opposer without a !vote to date. The "other side" has already been advised against other stuff and whataboutism, correctly in my opinion. Trump is neither Obama (Supporters) nor Cohen (Opposers). He is a whole new animal, so we should not look to precedents either way (especially cherry-picked precedents). ―Mandruss ☎ 03:30, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
    @Mandruss: why "animal"? JacktheBrown (talk) 03:39, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
    Animal, noun sense 5. ―Mandruss ☎ 03:42, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
    Thank you, it's always nice to learn new things. JacktheBrown (talk) 03:48, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
    I put it out there so that editors could chew on the lead sentence of an article about someone convicted of crimes and involved in the 34 felony counts of Trump. Another one involved and having a Misplaced Pages article is Allen Weisselberg. As far as I'm concerned, either way works: without "criminal" is more appropriate as far as writing a Misplaced Pages article, whereas with "criminal" in the lead sentence it puts up front the tone of the article that follows. Regards, Bob K31416 (talk) 08:11, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
  • Comment Although I voted support, I think calling him a "criminal" is too non-specific and is a loaded term. The fact that Barack Obama's racial identity as "the first African-American president in U.S. history" is worthy enough to be included in the first paragraph of the lead; but Trump's 34 felony convictions and being the first acting and former president in U.S. history to be a convicted felon is not worthy of being included in the first paragraph of the lead, is a double standard. I think a separate RfC to simply debate whether this unique status should be included in the first paragraph of the lead may be warranted, irrespective of the exact wording. BootsED (talk) 22:36, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
    Have we had a separate discussion about first paragraph as opposed to first sentence? I may have missed it, or my memory may be starting to fail in my somewhat-old age. If so, can someone provide an archive link? If not, we don't go to RfC unless we fail to reach consensus without RfC. Assuming no political motivations per WP:AGF, there isn't any particular rush to get this resolved in this biography; four months would not be excessive for something so significant. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:17, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
    Separate - no. It came up during this RfC about adding "convicted felon" to the first sentence. There was also this discussion and two brief ones (here and here) that didn't get much traction. When this discussion has been closed, we should start a separate one about mentioning the felony conviction in the first paragraph. It was major headline news, including Trump's extensive efforts all the way up to the Supreme Court to get the case dismissed. (And now he can't buy or own a gun but next week he'll be able to deploy nuclear missiles .) Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 16:44, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
    I see you and Bob K31416 believe that "criminal" is too non-specific, loaded, and set the tone for the article that follows. I thought the complete opposite when I started this RfC, and still do. I don't like the term "convicted felon" in previous RfC, and I'm not a fan of an entire sentence for how he is the first convicted president in U.S. history. I intended "criminal" to dispassionately mean he was convicted of a crime without specificity, and that it simply mentions in passing one of his many other titles such as the unspecific politician, businessman, media personality titles, such that no tone is set for the rest of the lede at all. A person who has no idea who he is and stumble upon the four titles would think this is probably interesting, and it gets super interesting when the person reads "who became 45th (and 47th) ...", the same way I found it interesting when I first read "politician and humanitarian" in Jimmy Carter. Kenneth Kho (talk) 15:41, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
    Should this article really be geared towards a hypothetical reader who doesn't know who Trump is? Does such a person even exist? Riposte97 (talk) 20:25, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
    ...Yes, since that's the entire long-term point of something like an encyclopedia. We should be writing articles so that people can read them in 100 years and come away feeling like they've been informed in a broad way, not like they've read a contemporary news article about the subject. That's why WP:RECENT exists. Big Thumpus (talk) 22:05, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
    @Big Thumpus: I agree with you, but it's also true that in 100 years there will probably be other virtual encyclopedias, and perhaps Misplaced Pages will be replaced with something even better and much more automated. JacktheBrown (talk) 22:15, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
    Venturing even further off topic, a future Misplaced Pages will be written mostly by AI bots (maybe that's what you meant by "automated"). If done correctly, that will largely eliminate editor bias. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:32, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
    @Mandruss: "...will be written mostly by AI bots (maybe that's what you meant by "automated")." Yes. JacktheBrown (talk) 22:40, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
    Yeah, I spoke in haste. And countless humans will be forced to find new hobbies. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:42, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
  • Oppose Being convicted of any offense for which not punishment inflicted doesn't make someone notable. Also, there are plenty of politicians and others who have been convicted of crimes who are not described as criminals and lots of criminals (probably including U.S. presidents) who have never been convicted of anything. Anyway, it would just make the article look absurd and discredit it in the eyes of readers. TFD (talk) 23:36, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
  • Comment — I briefly tried to find sources that describe Trump as a "criminal", i.e. using that word, and I was unsuccessful. Maybe someone else can find such sources. Thanks. Bob K31416 (talk) 16:48, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
    How about the court? O3000, Ret. (talk) 16:58, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
    👍 Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 17:24, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
    Thanks but is that referring to the type of court or the defendant? Bob K31416 (talk) 18:01, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
    Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 18:09, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
    Not sure what difference it makes as he was convicted in a criminal court. As said below, a convicted felon is by definition a criminal. Nonetheless, I !voted Oppose. O3000, Ret. (talk) 18:21, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

A convicted felon is by definition a criminal Anonymous8206 (talk) 16:56, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

Donald John Trump (born June 14, 1946) is an American politician, media personality, businessman, criminal, native New Yorker, father, husband, and amateur golfer who served as the 45th president of the United States from 2017 to 2021.All of which is eminently verifiable and amply supported by RS. That does not mean it should be in the first sentence or even the first paragraph. Please stop with the simplistic arguments. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:10, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
I totally, completely agree with Mandruss. JacktheBrown (talk) 21:00, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
+1 Maxeto0910 (talk) 21:01, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
It's a statement of fact...if you had to sum him up in one sentence that pretty much covers it..this is exactly what the first sentence is supposed to do Anonymous8206 (talk) 23:59, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
Which entirely misses my point. Done trying to communicate with you on this issue. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:11, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
  • Support. His conviction got a huge amount of attention, and sources have pointed out that he is notable as the first US president who is also a convicted criminal. It's at minimum as notable as "media personality". Cortador (talk) 13:32, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
    I wouldn't mind removing "media personality" TBH. He is notable for being president twice and for being a businessman. He is not notable for his felony convictions. They should be in the lead, but not the first sentence. QuicoleJR (talk) 14:17, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
The fact of the matter he is not a media personality he's a former media personality..if being a convicted felon is less significant than that what would be ? It belongs in the first sentence..it is relevant if for no other reason there are a lot of people who look at Misplaced Pages articles and never get past the first sentence...I generally don`t get past the first paragraph..I was taught in school to get to the point in the first sentence..that the first sentence should support the first paragraph and the first paragraph should support the body of the work..I support wording it as convicted felon rather than criminal as it is more descriptive and accurate Anonymous8206 (talk) 18:59, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
BTW, what's the meaning of the term "media personality"? Thanks, Bob K31416 (talk) 20:36, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
It sounds better than "reality television host". BTW without hosting "The Apprentice", Trump likely never becomes president or charged with any crimes, so note the WP:RECENTISM in saying he isn't notable for it. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:43, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
Do you have a source that explicitly states that Trump wouldn't be a president or convicted criminal without having been a TV host? Cortador (talk) 21:16, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
Can I prove a negative? Of course not. I said "likely" and that is my opinion. Read this. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:25, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
See Donald Trump#Media career. He was a media presence (radio and TV talk shows, cameos in movies and on TV shows, source for tabloids and society pages of NY Times and other papers) before, during, and after the Apprentice, not to mention his Twitter activities. See also the first discussion for this consensus which had 10 options to choose from. Examples for definitions: Dimensions (Media personalities, encompassing TV hosts, news anchors, and social media celebrities, are individuals known for their presence in various media platforms), Urban Dictionary (A modern term for the carefully formulated and overtly fake publicly displayed personality used by ‘celebrities’ who lack natural presentation talent). Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 21:23, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
Do you expect me to take your arguments serious when you are citing Urban Dictionary? Cortador (talk) 08:11, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
@Cortador: I don't agree with you at all, because it would probably be the only article in the entire encyclopedia to contain this term in the initial part of the lead; some users are very angry with Donald, but no valid reason has been presented for the inclusion of the (pejorative) term "criminal" only on the Trump page. JacktheBrown (talk) 23:01, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
"Other articles don't do X" is not and has never been a valid argument here. Also, I recommend you don't edit based your personal feelings, but on how sources report on the subject of an article. Cortador (talk) 09:59, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
  • Strongly oppose He's not known for being a criminal qua criminal. Trump's crimes are inextricably linked to his career in either business or politics. They were business-related/political in their very nature. It more than suffices to mention the convictions further down the line, but to insert "criminal" in the very first sentence is manifestly undue. KINGofLETTUCE 👑 🥬 12:18, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
    +1. JacktheBrown (talk) 18:23, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
  • Statistics: Although this is not a vote, at the present time there are 22 Oppose opinions expressed, and 8 Support opinions being expressed; along with these there are nearly a dozen Comments which have been added sometimes neutral and sometimes of explicit viewpoints. ErnestKrause (talk) 00:38, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
    Thanks. Despite protestations to the contrary, there is no clear policy basis for either side; it's all "editorial judgment". So a closer would have no reason to override the numbers. If I were on the Support side, I'd concede to save everybody a lot of time, but I know better than to hope for that. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:47, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:NOTDEMOCRACY The fact that trump is a convicted felon is extremely relevant and should be in the first sentence of the article for obvious reasons Anonymous8206 (talk) 17:30, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

We heard you the first time. And the second time, and the third time, and the fourth time, and the fifth time, and the sixth time... I've lost count. Endless repetition does not strengthen one's argument, it just makes one look silly and annoys people. ―Mandruss ☎ 17:54, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
The first sentence is supposed to explain why the subject is notable. Trump is notable for his business career and his two presidencies, not the hush money payments. It should be in the lead, but it is undue for the first sentence. QuicoleJR (talk) 17:34, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

The fact that trump is the only us president to be a convicted felon is more important than his business career..he specifically as a us president had crossed the line with regard to the law morality and ethics Anonymous8206 (talk) 18:29, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

Seventh time. JacktheBrown (talk) 18:43, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
Now 8...if it`s all about who gets the last word here no problem...trump is a convicted felon and now president...it is a turning point in history...it is going to be the only thing he`s remembered for in the end Anonymous8206 (talk) 13:51, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
@Anonymous8206: insisting will not bring users closer to your idea. Really boring. JacktheBrown (talk) 14:47, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

It is time for everyone who has posted here to shut up, Nothing new is being added, and just let oterh have their say. Slatersteven (talk) 14:52, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

It's about ripe for a closure request, I think, unless the Supporters concede. I'll submit the request soon. Then we wait for probably 4–8 weeks for a closer. Discussion can continue during the wait, but I agree that little of use is being added lately and we don't need more pointless clutter. ―Mandruss ☎ 04:22, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
You get the last word as always and that`s just the it is right ? Anonymous8206 (talk) 16:12, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
Didn't you know? I have been anointed by God. ―Mandruss ☎ 16:37, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

I have now asked for this to be closed, enough is enough. Slatersteven (talk) 16:47, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

@Slatersteven: "...enough is enough." Exactly, this RfC is a waste of time. JacktheBrown (talk) 18:02, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

"Criminal" in the lead sentence is a bit tough, but there is precedent to describe him as the first felon to be president in the lead paragraph. These firsts can be seen in Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, Kamala Harris, Richard Nixon, Woodrow Wilson, etc. Surtsicna (talk) 23:45, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

2nd Term time

I believe that under the section that says assuming office where it says January 20th, 2025, should have an end date of January 20th, 2029, considering the fact that this is his second term and he will not be eligible to run in the 2028 election, if it cant say that under "assuming office" then it should say that the day he becomes President, thank you. Communism-socialism-is-part-of-my-past (talk) 02:04, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

No, per WP:CRYSTALBALL... who's to say it doesn't end before that date? - Adolphus79 (talk) 02:15, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
Or after that date. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ – Muboshgu (talk) 02:17, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
Also, it will not be longer then january 20th 2025, since the 22nd amendment limits presidents to 2 terms, to change that, he needs two thirds of congress, which he wont get. Communism-socialism-is-part-of-my-past (talk) 02:33, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
That's WP:CRYSTALBALL. You're saying he will need two thirds of Congress. You're saying he will respect the 22nd amendment. You're saying that the end date will be in 2029. But we don't know any of that, because none of those have happened. FPTI (talk) 08:46, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
Further more, the suggested content is verifiable Communism-socialism-is-part-of-my-past (talk) 02:35, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
If[REDACTED] "does not predict the future" then there should not be "assuming office" at all, thank you for offering me a contradiction. Communism-socialism-is-part-of-my-past (talk) 02:30, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
The current treatment is standard for all U.S. presidents, most likely for all politicians. See Joe Biden on January 1, 2021 and on February 1, 2021. See Donald Trump on January 1, 2017 and on February 1, 2017. See Barack Obama on January 1, 2009 and on February 1, 2009. And so on.The end date is added after leaving office; see Barack Obama on January 1, 2017 and on February 1, 2017.This article is not going to deviate from that standard. If you want to propose a change to the standard, this is not the place—discussion on this page governs only this article.A recent proposal to change "Assuming office" to "Scheduled to assume office" for all officeholders-elect failed at Village Pump, see Misplaced Pages:Village pump (policy)/Archive 198#WP:CRYSTAL in officeholder articles and infoboxes. ―Mandruss ☎ 05:25, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
Off-topic question: why do the infoboxes for Trump in 2017 and Obama in 2009 show their correct positions (e.g. incumbent) but not the correct age at the time (71 and 48, respectively)? Looks as though the template always uses DOB + difference to current year (Trump 78, Obama 63). Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 15:29, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
The {{birth date and age}} template calculates the age based on the current date when the article is rendered, so it wouldn't work when displaying years-old revisions. Similarly, if an image is deleted after the time of the revision, it's redlinked when displaying the revision. Similarly, if a template is modified in a way that changes its output, the change is reflected for all old revisions of articles that use the template. Anything not physically in an article's wikitext is unreliable for old revisions. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:14, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
Constitutionally, his second term will expire at Noon EST on 20 January 2029. However, we aren't 100% certain if he'll serve the entire term. We assume he will, but that's it. GoodDay (talk) 06:03, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
"The kings go up and the kings go down, and who knows who shall rule?" FPTI (talk) 08:47, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

New Trump-produced portrait

This section is pinned and will not be automatically archived.
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Change Trumps official portrait to the 2025 portrait 2601:300:4B81:9C70:B848:8708:D29D:D129 (talk) 23:59, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit extended-protected}} template. — In any case, what 2025 portrait? There should be a new one available after he takes office. It might be a month or two, so be patient. Don't worry, we have this covered. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:10, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
https://www.timesnownews.com/world/us/us-news/donald-trumps-inauguration-portrait-sparks-mugshot-comparisons-on-social-media-bad-article-117280859 - this is what I believe they where talking about, Trump today had a unofficial portrait taken of him for his inauguration. I think that is what they where talking about. I personally think we should wait until after he takes official, but it is a recent photo and honesty would be more appropriate to use then the current portrait taken in 2017, which is over 8 years old. Jimco1945 (talk) 03:13, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
Agree I think so too! https://commons.wikimedia.org/File:TrumpPortrait.jpg MediaGuy768 (talk) 03:52, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
Should be noted on the page that this is his inauguration portrait, not his official portrait (at least not yet). Biden and Harris (and Trump and Pence) had different inauguration portraits than official presidential portraits. Dingers5Days (talk) 04:02, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
Were they included in Misplaced Pages articles without being deleted by the WP copyright police? ―Mandruss ☎ 04:14, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
Bidens page used his official portriat as Vice President until April 9th, 2021 when his official portrait was released by the White House. Just double checked way back machine Are Jay Morrison (talk) 06:59, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
Thanks for the explanation. It baffles me how often people expect us to read minds, remotely over the internet. I'm converting this to a discussion thread: Edit request is for things that don't require discussion, such as typo corrections, grammar corrections, reverts of clear violations of consensus, and so on. ―Mandruss ☎ 03:55, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
The photo is the current profile picture for the official POTUS account, signifying it as an official photo Btomblinson (talk) 04:41, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
Oppose. All other factors aside, the reason we can use the White House-produced portraits is because they are produced by the U.S. Government and not subject to copyright issues. That is not the case for this photo. Looks like a non-starter to me. ―Mandruss ☎ 04:01, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
That's my concern too. I was trying to figure out any more information, but I can find no evidence whatsoever that this was created by an employee of the government acting in their official duties. His Twitter does not suggest that he is working for the government - but for Trump directly. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 04:05, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
Special Case for Presidential Transition Teams. The presidential transition team is federally funded and operates in coordination with government agencies. This would fall under PD. MediaGuy768 (talk) 04:19, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
We'll see. Anyway, we need a new consensus to supersede consensus 1, as stated elsewhere. Everyone needs to leave the infobox image alone pending that new consensus. ―Mandruss ☎ 04:23, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
And since Consensus 1 references potential copyright issues on the inauguration image from 2017, I've now reverted this change in image until a new consensus forms and any copyright issues are resolved. I've also asked at the Commons village pump for more opinions regarding the copyright status. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 04:17, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
Ah, thanks. It didn't occur to me that someone would be so WP:BOLD, so I wasn't even watching the article. ―Mandruss ☎ 04:20, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
Consensus 1 references temporarily suspended by #19 following copyright issues on the inauguration portrait - any idea where these issues were brought up, especially any related deletion requests on Commons that may be able to be referenced? -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 04:24, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
The author... Daniel Torok...said the following in my inquiry to him: "Should be public domain on the 20th but with the exception that it can’t be used for commercial purposes without WH approval" From the source himself. Looks like the author intends PD for the photo. No issue to publish. MediaGuy768 (talk) 04:34, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
That is not public domain then. Images uploaded to Commons must be free to use for any use, with only attribution allowed to be required. See this page. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 04:37, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
All presidential portraits have the same terms as the 2025 author mentioned. MediaGuy768 (talk) 04:39, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
No they do not. Official portraits created on behalf of the US Government by an employee of the US Government are explicitly public domain. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 04:40, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
In this case, the official portrait will be this image. They will not retake it. The author is going to PD the image for the National Archives. MediaGuy768 (talk) 04:43, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
Of course they'll retake it. The White House would never let that be the "official" portrait. ―Mandruss ☎ 04:48, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
Misplaced Pages does not operate on "the author is going to PD " at some undetermined point in the future. Until it is public domain, it is not public domain. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 04:46, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
Nope! The author took it on behalf of the federally funded transition team. The author said he is not enforcing the copyright and that it will be full PD on Jan 20. Additionally, the "can’t be used for commercial purposes without White House approval" portion is not enforceable because the WH cant take action on behalf of the author nor should any NC restriction apply to such from the WH. MediaGuy768 (talk) 04:50, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
The image cannot be used until it is explicitly released under a free license by the author or when it is entered into the public domain on the 20th, as has already been explained. The author simply stating that he does not intend to enforce the copyright is not sufficient. See Commons:Licensing Pave Paws (talk) 05:46, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
Misplaced Pages copyright policy is an arcane science not meant for mere mortals. After all, a local consensus to include would not mean squat to the copyright police. Wait for Commons feedback. If they sign off on it, we can discuss other factors. I would still oppose, but it would be premature to say why. ―Mandruss ☎ 05:49, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
Made an account just to change this. Yes! Evaburden (talk) 04:25, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
@Evaburden, it would just get deleted. Wait until the official portrait is released by the White House itself. Hurricane Clyde 🌀 19:12, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
207.96.32.81 (talk) 04:31, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
Wait/Oppose based on above arguments (particularly in regards to copyright). Hurricane Clyde 🌀 19:11, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

Comment. It's a photo the Trump transition team published on their X account, i.e., it's not in the public domain. Here is the deletion request on Wikimedia Commons. We'll replace the 2017 official portrait if and when the new administration releases an updated official portrait. What was TeamTrump, whoever they are, thinking when they published the pictures, Trump with a droopy eyelid and Vance looking like a tired, bearded hamster. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 15:08, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

I challenge you to take an actually good photo of Trump. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 15:55, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
Our current one is a good photo, if one is able to perceive it objectively. Good composition, lighting, and color balance, there's a somewhat-genuine-looking smile, and there's no smoke emanating from the ear that took a bullet. ―Mandruss ☎ 06:54, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
Trump with a droopy eyelid, the "fuck with me and I'll bury you" scowl, and almost comical dramatic film-noir lighting. ―Mandruss ☎ 01:45, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
Nicholas Cage's character Spider-Man Noir from the film Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse comes to mind when you describe the portrait like so. BarntToust 01:51, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
Maybe the scowl is just me. At minimum, he's trying to look like Edward R. Murrow or something. He's trying to project an image or persona, which is not encyclopedic. It belongs on his personal website, not Misplaced Pages. (Again, this is cart-before-horse pending resolution of the copyright question. Sorry.) ―Mandruss ☎ 02:24, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
It's not just you. It's pretty obvious that they're channeling the Fulton County Jail mugshot. They're probably using it for another round of extracting donations from the MAGA cult members. But, hey, if it becomes the new official presidential portrait I'd be all for it, wrinkles and all. Doesn't do justice to the bronzer, but at least the soft focus didn't get anywhere near Kary Lake's preferred settings (day or night). Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 13:57, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
Maybe it's just me, but aside from the copyright issues of this image, I think that there are some warranted WP:NPOV concerns here with the lighting/post-production and expression (which I think is aimed at conveying something), as outlined by Mandruss. We often use officially produced portraits of cabinet members and members of Congress because they are current, of high quality, and free use as works of the U.S. Government (usually confirmed by their metadata). I would posit that these are routine images taken without much thought given for the pose, composition, lighting, etc. aside from what a typical portrait photographer would consider. However, I am not sure the same can be said for this image. Connormah (talk) 02:05, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
I broadly agree with this train of thought. Even if the copyright concerns are resolved (such as the photographer themselves releasing into public domain), I would only support this image if there is no other free image that even comes close to being as neutral. I broadly agree with the idea that we should try to update the image to one that reflects his current (approximately 8 years older) appearance, if/when a free option is available that otherwise works. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 02:19, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
+1. Well said. ―Mandruss ☎ 02:39, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
If it is a portrait produced under directive by Trump and co., then I think that if it looks devious, that's the choice of Trump, and we use the official portrait anyhow. Ultimately, if what ends up being the official portrait is something comparable to this & that is the image millions see as they look at Misplaced Pages, so be it. That image is what Trump wants to project? We go along with it.
Let's not ignore our common sense when we look through this article and we see that a good chunk of it is damning info about crime, uprising, totalitarianism, and fascism. Perhaps a portrait of this caliber would be poetic in a way, representing the content within? BarntToust 14:36, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
That image is what Trump wants to project? We go along with it. Absolutely not. Trump's wishes are completely irrelevant here. That applies as much to the infobox portrait as to any other content in this article. ―Mandruss ☎ 14:45, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
I'm not saying we make Trump's Infobox the way he wants because we want to appease him, I'm saying that we go along with the portrait per policy, and that if it looks horrible, by all means it will be reflective of the horrible things that he has done that are present in the article. BarntToust 14:59, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
Like, even if it's a shitty portrait, it would be due as it would represent the contents of the article therein. Point is, a shitshow should be represented thusly if that's what Trump is gonna send to the Library of Congress. BarntToust 15:03, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
Let's try this: Why are we spending so much time discussing a hypothetical that is extremely unlikely to become a reality? Check out the Commons deletion request; it's almost certain to pass and the image will be deleted. ―Mandruss ☎ 15:07, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
BarntToust, as I indicated above, it is not a WP policy to use official images, and we are not obligated to do so if we feel they might violate our NPOV policy. Usually that is not a consideration, but like many things, that could be a point of discussion here. Connormah (talk) 15:21, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
Oh boy! https://www.whitehouse.gov/ has those exact portraits uploaded now. Public domain licenses thus attached. My point still stands: Trump is known for doing not-good things, the portrait happening to reflect that not-good-ness is reflective of the article, which also does not violate NPOV. BarntToust 17:16, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
In short, having a devious-looking portrait—for a felon who has been compared to Hitler, made racist and sexist remarks, makes falsehoods like rabbits make babies, stole and mishandled official documents, so on and so forth—is not a problem? BarntToust 14:40, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
this is about the portrait and not the politics. Pizza noob 65 (talk) 18:14, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
TeamDrumpf believes the portraits "go hard", so that's what they're thinking. Incoming prez's resembles image at Mug shot of Donald Trump. I'm assuming you meant Vance looking like a tired, bearded hamster as a complement to his work ethic, and as hamsters are cute. Def no BLPVIO there. BarntToust 22:05, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
Hm, work ethic ... Let's go with that, and hamsters are cute. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 14:06, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

Depending on how Trump's new official photo looks, I would be in favour of just keeping his photograph as-is. The current one looks really good. Mgasparin (talk) 06:19, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

Yeah, but it will be 12 years old by the time he leaves office. People don't like such old photos in infoboxen. A lot think it's too old now. It's unlikely a new official White House portrait will be unacceptably poor in quality; those guys know what they're doing. Anyway, we're hoping but don't know there will be another official portrait after he takes office. Trump may order this "inauguration" portrait to be the one used on the White House page, and it may be within his presidential powers to do that. ―Mandruss ☎ 06:34, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

Duplicate edit requests/discussions

I'd like to start a discussion here on duplicate discussions. At this point, they are going to keep coming in, likely multiple per day. Does anyone disagree that, after leaving them up for a reasonable amount of time for the user to see a response (I suggest 12 hours), they can simply be removed from the talk page so they don't get archived and clog up the archive?

Alternatively, if people prefer letting them get archived still, would anyone disagree with archiving them 12 hours after answered so the talk page does not get cluttered up? I am open to shorter timescales as well in either case, but would recommend a couple hours at least. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 02:26, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

@Berchanhimez make an request to WP:RFPP to semi-protect the talk page. It's mostly IP editors doing this. BarntToust 02:28, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
Talk pages are generally not protected if it can be avoided... but if an administrator agrees that is viable here (for at least the next week or so), then I would support waiting on this to see if they die down (and letting auto archiver take over the ones that are already here for now) with that. Going to make that request now, thanks. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 02:31, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
And requested: WP:Requests for page protection/Increase § Talk:Donald Trump. Comments there are welcome, and if another solution is thought up here, please feel free to go contest that request. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 02:39, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
They're gone after 24 hours per consensus 13. It's not like we have to live with them for the standard seven days. And it's a temporary problem that doesn't come up very often. I don't think they "clog up" the archive, as nobody browses archive pages top to bottom, and they don't create a lot of false positives in archive searches (in my experience). ―Mandruss ☎ 02:57, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
Ah, I missed consensus 13's allowance for manually archiving after 24 hours. I agree that the "clogging" of the archives is the least significant issue. The clogging of this page however.. hopefully if an admin agrees temporary semi protection is warranted that will suffice, but if not (or if it's still a problem) I still think 24 hours may be too long if they continue increasing. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 03:02, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
I wouldn't oppose semi, but some competent IPs might. In my view, avoidance of that is just one of the benefits of registration. ―Mandruss ☎ 03:07, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
Presuming the proposed image, isn't a White House image. Recommend we stick with the 2017 image, for now. GoodDay (talk) 06:37, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
Does the image’s publishing on whitehouse.gov make it public domain? anikom15 (talk) 18:49, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
Normally yes, we would be able to assume that anything posted on whitehouse.gov that isn't identified as copyrighted is free to use (either public domain or CC-BY license).
However, Trump's White House has a history of trying to "steal" images that look good to him. In 2017 he directed his White House staff to do the same thing - take his copyrighted photos that were taken of him by a private photographer for his inauguration materials and post them on WH.gov without a copyright notice. The private photographer had no idea Trump was planning to do so, and while the photographer was okay with Trump using them on the White House website, he did not wish them to be freely licensed/public domain.
So in this case, given the historical wanton theft of copyright, it is prudent to assume they are not until the private photographer makes an irrevocable statement that they have done so. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 18:58, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
This should be determined at Commons, not here. A deletion request was recently closed rejecting that argument and keeping the photo: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Presidential Portrait of Donald Trump, 2025.jpg -- JFHutson (talk) 19:16, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
The closer said this is freely licensed now (20 January). What does "freely licensed" mean? I'm not convinced that that is a proper closing. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 19:30, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
It's not a proper closing. While Commons does have different policies, they do have a policy akin to SUPERVOTE on Misplaced Pages, where an administrator should not close a discussion without summarizing the arguments made and explaining why they discounted some of them if it's not obvious. I'm shocked that the admin engaged in such blatant license laundering. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 19:37, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
Then deal with it using Commons policy and procedure. I realize you are doing that, but we don't have to preemptively remove it from WP in the meantime. For now, we have an image on Commons and if we think it's the best image we should use it. -- JFHutson (talk) 19:43, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
There was no license laundering. You are making assumptions without providing any tangible proof or evidence. The photo is published on the White House website under a Creative Commons license (as we already know it wasn't the work of a federal employee). That's it. Bedivere (talk) 00:59, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
The White House cannot license a photo they do not own. I'm not sure how many times you have to be told that User:Bedivere. You've already been told by at least one other commons admin that you were wrong, as well as multiple other commons users opining that you were wrong. Following me to enwiki to harass me here over it is not appropriate. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 01:07, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
I'm not harassing you. I'm just responding the very unfortunate accusations you have made against me without daring to mention me! Bedivere (talk) 01:16, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
Gotta ask, how do you know Trump doesn't own it and thus releases it by CC 3.0? Yeh, why are we all on Enwiki now? BarntToust 01:17, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
The onus is on the users arguing for keeping it to prove that Trump owns it and can release it under that license. Not on the users arguing for deletion. See the precautionary principle. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 01:18, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
And how are you to prove that Torok owns it? He just took the thing, as he worked for Trump Inaugural Committee. I say it's likely they own it, and the White House published with CC 3.0.
Lo, the pot calls the kettle black. BarntToust 01:24, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
The presumption is that the photographer owns the copyright, unless and until it is proven otherwise. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 01:30, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
No, it doesn't. See here. The website doesn't say whether individual photos were "government-produced" or "third-party content on this site ... licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License". The photo was taken before Trump's inauguration, so it's not government-produced. The licensing statement at File:Presidential Portrait of Donald Trump, 2025.jpg is wrong. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 19:27, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
@Pantarch: You are in violation of the BRD enforcement - that edit was reverted and you have reinstated it. Please self-revert until the discussion here has come to a conclusion. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 19:43, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
The conclusion was reached on Wikimedia Commons. I don't understand what you want to discuss here; you are needlessly discussing an alleged copyright infringement that should be discussed elsewhere. Pantarch (talk) 19:54, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
Has anybody noticed that this is in the wrong subsection? I'm not in a mood to fix it. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:01, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
Instead, have you noticed that there are so many duplicates on Wikimedia Commons, many with the wrong license – the correct one is CC BY 3.0 US. Pantarch (talk) 20:03, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

Commons deletion request closed as keep

Me, I'd call that a supervote by the closer. And the closure rationale exists nowhere but in the page history? But what do I know. As I said above, Misplaced Pages copyright policy is an arcane science not meant for mere mortals. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:52, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

It is a supervote, it's now at their noticboard for user/admin problems as a blatant supervote and license laundering. The files have also already been renominated for deletion (if the admin refuses to vacate their close, that's the only way to discuss further unless another admin comes around and wheel wars them to reopen it - they don't have a deletion review for keep closures).We should not rush to change the image until it is fully resolved. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 19:55, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
My bad, I failed to read existing discussion. Overdue for bed. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:02, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
What determines the matter to be resolved? The discussion is closed. anikom15 (talk) 20:05, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
All duplicates should be deleted, and the correct license, i.e.,

This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 United States License. In short: you are free to distribute and modify the file as long as you attribute its author(s) or licensor(s). Official license
, should be inserted on the remaining ones. Pantarch (talk) 20:09, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
That doesn't change the fact that you've violated the BRD restriction on this page, @Pantarch:. You are in violation of an arbitration enforcement remedy on this page and I strongly encourage you to self revert before it ends up at AE for violating BRD. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 20:14, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
I didn't violate the BRD restriction because my edit wasn't reverted:
"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" Pantarch (talk) 20:45, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

Challenge consensus item 44

I would like to challenge consensus at Talk:Donald Trump#Current consensus, item 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)

I do not believe that Trump and Kim Jong-Un having talks about denuclearisation is necessary to impart general knowledge of Trump to the reader. It is not notable to try to "convince the fox not to be sneaky, and the fox then gets sly with you about it". Trump has done things far more directly notable than try to convince Kim to get rid of nukes, and those subjects will need to be expressed in the lede more than this, per MOS:LEAD. Things have been historically crowded at the lede, and I figure this ought to be discussed. BarntToust 01:19, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

This made worldwide news at the time and was part of Trump's agenda for months, including several meetings with Kim and other stakeholders. It was a distinct break with the policy of other sitting presidents. It should be featured in the intro.--Jack Upland (talk) 01:53, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
Meeting with Kim Jong Un was a major bullet point in his presidency with regard to foreign policy. I do not believe the progress—or lack thereof—on denuclearisation is worth noting in the lead, however. Especially given North Korea have not conducted a nuclear test since. To me, the unclear results are considerably less notable than the summits themselves. MB2437 02:38, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
I agree and I believe RS supports this. The summits were widely publicized , I would need to see wide publication of retrospective analysis indicating that the results of the summits were unclear in order to believe the results deserve equal weight as the summits themselves in the lead. Czarking0 (talk) 23:19, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
Trump meeting Kim is one of the big highlights of his first presidency. The first thought that a person reading this, not catching up with news everyday, could have is if it had any consequences, any result. So clarifying that it didn't change much things/ or changed few things is, what I feel, essential. --ExclusiveEditor 🔔 Ping Me! 14:41, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

"He became a millionaire at age 8"

Mandruss: You are right. Before people started "improving" what used to be the "Personal life" section (early life and education, family, health, and wealth) and messing with the cites, we had the correct information AND the actual sources for the information, two New York Times articles. Buettner/Craig p.30/31 mentions the trusts Fred T set up for his children by putting apartment complexes in their names and paying them rent, but it's not the source for "millionaire by age 8" (or for "became a millionaire at age 8":). NYT: By age 3, he was earning $200,000 a year in today’s dollars from his father’s empire. He was a millionaire by age 8. In his 40s and 50s, he was receiving more than $5 million a year. I've given up trying to correct the cites or anything else in that section.

References

  1. Barstow, David; Craig, Susanne; Buettner, Russ (October 2, 2018). "11 Takeaways From The Times's Investigation into Trump's Wealth". The New York Times. Retrieved October 3, 2018.

Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 12:08, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

When you start giving up, I start getting worried. Looks like a job for SusanLesch. ―Mandruss ☎ 13:09, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
It sometimes feels like the incoming tide and me with a bucket on the mudflats. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 14:18, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
Ut oh, possible beginning of burnout. Been there, done that, semi-retired. ―Mandruss ☎ 14:25, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
Is "semi-retired" like the Walking Dead? You're editing just like me (undue? - puhleaze:). I'm more "when the going gets tough", although now I take a deep breath before I get going. When you're chewing on life's gristle ... Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 17:16, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
Looks like you spend about 95% of your time here, like me. Unlike me, you do a lot of heavy lifting, "real editor work". I'm mainly a gnome and a janitor. "puhleaze" is undue:). ―Mandruss ☎ 17:24, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
Comment. Our former source, the NYT article, was written by the same duo who wrote the book we're citing. I dare assume a book has even better fact-checking. -SusanLesch (talk) 14:59, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
How is this not puffery? Slatersteven (talk) 13:22, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
? Does it resemble anything at MOS:PUFFERY? ―Mandruss ☎ 14:05, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
Well do we attribute the claim? Slatersteven (talk) 14:09, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
Also wp:undue can be linked to this, is there really a major part of his life and success? Slatersteven (talk) 14:10, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
The context was a bit clearer when the sentence was part of the Wealth section and the Wealth section, in turn, was part of the erstwhile Personal life section. The context is the NYT refuting Trump's claim of being a self-made millionaire/billionaire. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 14:15, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
So then it should, not have been moved, or the context altred. Slatersteven (talk) 14:17, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
You're preaching to the choir. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 14:19, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
Agree with Space. This sentence is needed to refute Trump's narrative. I cited the footnote and have no problem with the current wording. -SusanLesch (talk) 14:51, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
Yeah, fight the power! PackMecEng (talk) 17:06, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
Did Trump make much more money on his own than what he got from his father? Thanks, Bob K31416 (talk) 15:43, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
Maybe, and maybe not. But the point here was his claim that he started from a loan of a mere million and that he had to pay it back. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 17:22, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

Large subsections in the First Presidency section

As a regular rule of thumb, Wikipiedia presidency articles limit the size of subsections to 2-3 paragraphs or less whenever there is a main article for the material being covered. This is done to avoid the reduplication of the same material around Misplaced Pages as opposed to keeping everything in one place and not covering the same material in different articles. The current Trump article in the First Presidency section seems to bypass this approach in at least two of the sections: the one on Foreign Policy, and the other on COVID which itself appears to have 7 further subsections. Both COVID and Trump Foreign Policy have their own fully developed articles on Misplaced Pages, and there does not appear to be a reason to reduplicate the material here on the Trump article. Should those sections be summarized and reduced in size to 2-3 paragraphs each without the multiple subsections? ErnestKrause (talk) 16:51, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

COVID section trims to large subsection in the First Presidency section

Yes. Maybe reduced to even less than that. I've been thinking about the Covid section but haven't thought much about the Foreign policy section. There will be plenty of material coming up for the article. Plenty.
As an example of reduction, here's a possible change of the first paragraph of the Covid section,
from "The first confirmed case of COVID-19 in the U.S. was reported on January 20, 2020. The outbreak was officially declared a public health emergency by Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary Alex Azar on January 31, 2020. Trump initially ignored public health warnings and calls for action from health officials within his administration and Azar, focusing on economic and political considerations of the outbreak. In February 2020 he publicly asserted that the outbreak in the U.S. was less deadly than influenza, was "very much under control", and would soon be over. On March 19, he privately told Bob Woodward that he was deliberately "playing it down, because I don't want to create a panic"."
to "Trump initially ignored public health warnings and calls for action from health officials within his administration, focusing on economic and political considerations of the outbreak.".
Regards, Bob K31416 (talk) 18:10, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
You're correct. We have a good opportunity to carry such an edit off, too. I'd support you if you undertook to make such trims. Riposte97 (talk) 23:00, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
Agreement with Riposte97 and Bob K31416. The section of COVID under the first presidency has 7 sections, and is the summary given above by Bob K31416 intended for the entire COVID section, or, for one of those subsections. Your summary is a good one and let us know which subsections of the COVID section it covers. Possibly you have a similar summary in mind for the Foreign Affairs section as well which you could share with us. The summary so far look pretty good. ErnestKrause (talk) 15:35, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
My example was just for the first paragraph, as I mentioned, perhaps somewhat unclearly? I basically kept one sentence. The idea was to reduce the paragraph to a summary or main point without changing the tone. I think any attempts that might change the tone would jeopardize the success of reduction, which may be difficult to get agreement on in any case. It might be useful to get the thoughts from two of the most active editors, Space4Time3Continuum2x and Mandruss. Cheers, Bob K31416 (talk) 21:59, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
Responding to ping. I'm terrible at this kind of thing, which is why I tend to avoid it. All I know is that the article has needed dramatic reduction for many years. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:02, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
I looked some more at the Covid section with an eye to similar reductions like the first paragraph. Unfortunately, I didn't find the rest of the Covid section amenable to that approach, at least for me. Maybe it would take the main people or person responsible for the Covid section to make an appropriate reduction. Regards, Bob K31416 (talk) 04:18, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
Most likely the section will gradually be reduced in size, as more info is added into the Second Presidency section. GoodDay (talk) 00:51, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
  • Building on the idea stated above from Bob K31416, I've added a short summary for each of the subsections in the COVID section and combined them together which now looks like:
"Trump initially ignored public health warnings and calls for action from health officials within his administration, focusing on economic and political considerations of the outbreak. Trump established the White House Coronavirus Task Force on January 29. Prior to the pandemic, Trump criticized the WHO and other international bodies, which he asserted were taking advantage of U.S. aid. In April 2020, Republican-connected groups organized anti-lockdown protests against the measures state governments were taking to combat the pandemic; Trump encouraged the protests on Twitter, although the targeted states did not meet his administration's guidelines for reopening. Trump repeatedly pressured federal health agencies to take actions he favored, such as approving unproven treatmentsCite error: A <ref> tag is missing the closing </ref> (see the help page). By July 2020, Trump's handling of the COVID-19 pandemic had become a major issue in the presidential election. "

Possibly editors can mention if this looks like a fair summary to replace the current very long COVID section in the article which contains seven (7) subsections with this trimmed version. The trimmed version would then add all of the Further information links for all of the main articles on Misplaced Pages which already exist. ErnestKrause (talk) 15:19, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

I think you're on the track of something good. My first thought is to eliminate the last sentence because it is about Biden. Cheers, Bob K31416 (talk) 19:54, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
Agreed and dropping the last sentence. Pinging Riposte97 and Bob K31416 to see if this looks like a good version to use to trim the current long COVID section. ErnestKrause (talk) 23:33, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
This is a huge improvement. Hopefully the whole article can proceed this way! Riposte97 (talk) 00:15, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
I think you need more editors participating. The relative lack of interest, positive and negative, for this large change does not bode well. All I can say is that I wouldn't oppose your edit. For one thing, it wouldn't be set in stone and editors could modify it once it is in the article. A Bold-Revert-Discuss might get more editors to discuss it. Good luck, Bob K31416 (talk) 00:58, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
Just noticed something else in the sentence that begins, "Prior to the pandemic...". It probably went with other material that was about the pandemic. Alone it isn't about the pandemic. Regards, Bob K31416 (talk) 02:28, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
I started looking at how you got these sentences and it appears that you tried to do what I did with the example of the first paragraph. Good try. Regarding the sentence starting with "Prior..." that I mentioned above, I found that it was the sentence you selected from the subsection World Health Organization. Here it is underlined and enlarged in context,
Prior to the pandemic, Trump criticized the WHO and other international bodies, which he asserted were taking advantage of U.S. aid. His administration's proposed 2021 federal budget, released in February, proposed reducing WHO funding by more than half. In May and April, he accused the WHO of "severely mismanaging" COVID-19, alleged without evidence that the organization was under Chinese control and had enabled the Chinese government's concealment of the pandemic's origins, and announced that he was withdrawing funding for the organization. These were seen as attempts to distract from his mishandling of the pandemic. In July 2020, he announced the formal withdrawal of the U.S. from the WHO, effective July 2021. The decision was widely condemned by health and government officials as "short-sighted", "senseless", and "dangerous".
I think that to find a reduction of this that has a better chance for being accepted, we need to call on one of the main and currently active contributors to the article like Space4Time3Continuum2x and see what they think about reducing this subsection and if they have any suggestions of how to do it. With their participation, it would have a much better chance of being accepted. Otherwise it would take a much bigger participation for a reduction to have a chance. Cheers, Bob K31416 (talk) 17:08, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
Those are useful comments for this from Bob K31416. Regarding the response by the top editors you mention, then Mandruss has already responded above and its completely up to the other top editors if they would like to comment while consensus is being established. If there is consensus between 3 or more editors without contest, then the edit can normally move forward into the main article. I'm presently for supporting the edit as you have stated in your research above, and I'll join in with Riposte97 and Bob K31416 if either one of them is ready to bring this edit into the article. I'm also ready to add my trimmed version of the Foreign policy section under First Presidency here as well for discussion on Talk. It was mentioned at the start of this thread in order for both trimmed subsection versions (COVID and Foreign policy) to go together into the article at the same time, or if its preferred to do them one subsection at a time. ErnestKrause (talk) 19:53, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

Foreign Policy section trims for very large subsection (already has its own Main article)

As a second subsection In the First Presidency section of the article, the Foreign Policy section appears to be too long, and it reduplicates much of the material already covered in its Main article on Misplaced Pages. Here is one suggested version of the trimmed version (now trimmed down to 2 paragraphs) which could replace the current long presentation of material. The system space savings in the main Trump biography article here would be significant. Proposed trimmed version with links to main article:

Foreign policy

Main articles: Foreign policy of the first Donald Trump administration and Trump tariffs

Further information: Russia–United States relations § First Trump administration (2017–2021), China–United States relations § First Trump administration (2017–2021), 2017–2018 North Korea crisis, and 2018–19 Korean peace process

See also: List of international presidential trips made by Donald Trump § First presidency (2017–2021)

Trump's foreign policy during his first presidential term was wide-ranging and addressed international issues and tariff concerns with multiple geopolitical participants including Russia, East Asia, and the Middle East. Trump described himself as a "nationalist" and his foreign policy as "America First". He supported populist, neo-nationalist, and authoritarian governments. Unpredictability, uncertainty, and inconsistency characterized foreign relations during his tenure. Tensions between the U.S. and its European allies were strained under Trump. He criticized NATO allies and privately suggested that the U.S. should withdraw from NATO. Trump supported many of the policies of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. In 2020, the White House hosted the signing of the Abraham Accords between Israel and the United Arab Emirates and Bahrain to normalize their foreign relations.

An economic conflict between China and the United States has been ongoing since January 2018, when U.S. president Donald Trump began setting tariffs and other trade barriers on China with the goal of forcing it to make changes to what the U.S. says are longstanding unfair trade practices and intellectual property theft. The first Trump administration stated that these practices may contribute to the U.S.–China trade deficit, and that the Chinese government requires transfer of American technology to China. The Trump administration weakened the toughest sanctions imposed by the U.S. after Russia's 2014 annexation of Crimea. Trump withdrew the U.S. from the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty, citing alleged Russian noncompliance, and supported a potential return of Russia to the G7. Trump repeatedly praised and, according to some critics, rarely criticized Russian president Vladimir Putin but opposed some actions of the Russian government.

Suggesting this for discussion with editors concerning bringing some trimmed version of this section (this one in 2 short paragraphs) into the main Trump article to replace the long one. ErnestKrause (talk) 16:33, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
It needs more than a single paragraph. At minimum, it should mention the North Korean visits, the trade war with China, and the Abraham Accords, in addition to what is mentioned in that trimming. I understand that it needs trimming, but the section should probably be 3-4 paragraphs post-trim, not one. I would recommend keeping that paragraph as an overview and then adding an Asia paragraph (China, North Korea), a Middle East paragraph (Israel, Abraham Accords), and a Europe paragraph (Russia), although that last one could maybe be merged with one of the other two. QuicoleJR (talk) 16:53, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
QuicoleJR: I've followed your suggestions a little further and have added them into the last version to now give a 2 paragraph version of the trimmed section. Is this the type of trim which you had in mind in your comment above? ErnestKrause (talk) 00:21, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
That is a lot closer to what I was thinking of, although I still think it needs a sentence or two about Israel. The Abraham Accords are considered one of Trump's biggest foreign policy accomplishments in his first term, they are pretty important. QuicoleJR (talk) 00:46, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
QuicoleJR: I'm going to agree with you and make the addition to the end of the first trimmed paragraph of Foreign Policy above. Is it closer to the revisions you have in mind? ErnestKrause (talk) 00:56, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
I think this looks good. QuicoleJR (talk) 01:13, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

Potential addition to the first paragraph of the lead

The page Second presidency of Donald Trump includes the following statement: Upon taking office, he will become the second president in U.S. history to serve non-consecutive terms after Grover Cleveland in 1893, the oldest individual to assume the presidency, the first to take office after having been impeached, and the first convicted felon to take office. These are a lot of historical firsts.

Misplaced Pages pages on other presidents often mention historically significant information in the first paragraph of the lead, see for instance: Barack Obama and the mention that "he was the first African-American president in U.S. history"; Jimmy Carter's "He was the longest-lived president in U.S. history and the first to reach the age of 100"; Richard Nixon's "he became the only U.S. president to resign from office, as a result of the Watergate scandal"; John F. Kennedy's "He was the youngest person elected president at 43 years"; Franklin Delano Roosevelt's "He is the longest-serving U.S. president, and the only one to have served more than two terms"; Grover Cleveland's "He was one of only two presidents to serve non-consecutive terms"; among others.

With this in mind, it seems fitting that information on Trump being the second president to serve non-consecutive terms, the oldest individual to assume the presidency, the first to take office after being impeached, and the first convicted felon to take office, all fall within historical notability and many presidential firsts that should be mentioned in the first paragraph per precedent on other pages. BootsED (talk) 05:33, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

Also, Trump is the richest U.S. president ever. Bob K31416 (talk) 09:05, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
That would violate consensus #38. BootsED (talk) 19:01, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
Bear in mind that anything added to the lead has to be in the body first, with citation. And the sourcing must be direct; no deduction may be required to get from the cited source to the content. ―Mandruss ☎ 14:08, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
The former US president has accomplished a lot of firsts. We shouldn't flood the intro with all of'em. GoodDay (talk) 18:26, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
Part of that sentence is going to be moot in less than 24 hours. Second non-consecutive term and Grover Cleveland: last I heard "second" isn't the same as "first", so this is more ole Grover's claim to fame. I think it's better to mention the impeachments and acquittals the way the lead does now. Oldest: not leadworthy, I don't think we even mention it in the body. First convicted felon: a label to be avoided per MOS:CONVICTEDFELON. I do think we should move the sentence about the felony conviction into the first paragraph but that is a separate discussion. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 18:53, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
What about "Trump has been an influential and polarizing figure in modern American politics." It's definitely supported by sources and the article itself. Personisinsterest (talk) 13:02, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
@Space4Time3Continuum2x @GoodDay @Mandruss @Bob K31416 @BootsED We need to figure this out soon, its going to look so weird if the lead paragraph is only one sentence Personisinsterest (talk) 16:05, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
This section is not about that. See Talk:Donald_Trump#Changing_first_paragraph_after_the_inauguration. ―Mandruss ☎ 16:09, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
"convicted fellon" should be specific or it would go against MOS:CRIMINAL, I also doubt that it carries enough weight. I agree with OP that something in the first paragraph is needed. For me the choice is straight forward, looking at sources what characterize Trump is the aggressive stance toward the many economical issues, means trade war, mass deportations, etc. Cinemaandpolitics (talk) 13:09, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Net worth and consensus 5

Current consensus item 5: Use Trump's annual net worth evaluation and matching ranking, from the Forbes list of billionaires, not from monthly or "live" estimates.

We currently source net worth to this page which is part of said Forbes list of billionaires. But that page identifies the number as "Real Time Net Worth", which is inconsistent with consensus 5 (real time=live). I seem to recall that the Forbes billionaires list used to provide a separate number that was not real-time, but I don't see that now. What's going on? Do we need to change the article? Do we need to supersede #5 with a new methodology, such as updating the article from the real-time number on the first day of each month or each year? ―Mandruss ☎ 09:43, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

Also, the "matching ranking" was removed from the article at some point. ―Mandruss ☎ 09:49, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

It appears Forbes now has two billionaires lists: one real-time and one annual. A Google search for forbes annual billionaires list yields Forbes Richest World's Billionaires List 2024, which lists Trump at $2.3B and #1438 in the world. Seems like that should be our methodology: update the article each time the new annual list comes out. This methodology would reduce net worth from real-time $6.3B to annual $2.3B; I can't explain the huge difference except that maybe ~10 months have passed since the 2024 list came out. The 2025 list might list him much higher, I don't know. Can't say I understand anything about Forbes's methodologies. ―Mandruss ☎ 10:48, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

My bad. I was unaware of consensus item #5. Forbes, WP:FORBES, may not be the authority we'd like to have but they're all we've got. -SusanLesch (talk) 14:16, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
Good enough for me: "Forbes also publishes various 'top' lists which can be referenced in articles." Ok, barring objections, I'll change the article to conform with #5 in a day or two, using the 2024 list. ―Mandruss ☎ 14:34, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
Planned update:

In 2024, Forbes estimated Trump's net worth at $2.3 billion and ranked him the 1,438th wealthiest person in the world.

...which will conflict with the preceding sentence:

According to Forbes, Trump's wealth in 2024 comprised approximately $1.1 billion in real estate, $1 billion in golf clubs and resorts, and $3.5 billion in stock in Trump Media & Technology Group—today his primary asset.

There's already a conflict, but it's not so large. Maybe the $5.6B sum is assets only and the $2.3B is assets minus liabilities? There's a paywall in my way for the $5.6B source. ―Mandruss ☎ 16:08, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
@SusanLesch: Did you write the $5.6B sentence? If so, can you answer this? Is "wealth" a synonym for "assets"? I wasn't aware of that. If not, should it be changed to "assets" for clarity? ―Mandruss ☎ 16:52, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
Not for me to say.
Our The World's Billionaires list was published in April 2024. The breakdown I cited was November 2024. Truth Social's value fluctuates that wildly. -SusanLesch (talk) 17:06, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
Another "improvement" I missed — March 2024 feels like B.C. now (see "Net worth update" link, below). I just reverted to the consensus 5 version. The ranking on the annual billionaires' list used to be in the upper left corner of the Forbes webpage (see Talk:Donald_Trump/Archive_167#Net_worth_update) but the Wayback machine’s toolbar is superimposed on that part of the archived pages. Now you do have to scroll down to "Forbes Lists" to see the annual ranking. The problem was the link — the original link to the "Full profile" works as before. The link has to specify the list; there are others, such as the Forbes 400. The list is published in April, AFAIK. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 17:24, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
Adding the Net worth update discussion and Moratorium on constantly updating Forbes' ranking. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 17:29, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
I like my "Planned update" better (both its text and its citation), but whatever. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:46, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
@Space4Time3Continuum2x: Also, do you see an apparent conflict between those two sentences? If you're a reader, does that raise an eyebrow? If so, how would you resolve it? ―Mandruss ☎ 23:40, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
This was the Wealth section before the election. The section could have used some trimming and updating but not the wholesale deletion of most of the contents. Gone is information that I don't think is "overdetail" for the successful business tycoon persona that he was/is projecting (tax returns showing losses, tax fraud, etc.). After the trim most of the section was about Forbes, from "John Barron" to Trump’s billionaire listing on November 4 and on December 16, 2024. When I reverted the last sentence to consensus 5 adherence, I didn't look at the second to last sentence which was also added here, together with the one that violated consensus 5. IMO, it also falls under #5. It's merely a wordier description of Trump's ranking on the billionaires' list on the day before the 2024 election. This sentence should be removed.
No objection to the wording of the last sentence you proposed in your planned update, above. Don't know about the citation. The url would require the reader to enter "Trump" in the text field, then click the name and the "Full profile" button (exactly what you argued against in last year's discussion, methinks). The current url takes the reader directly to Trump's full profile but that page doesn't name the editors. Either way we'd have to update the cite when the new list is published (year and access date in the current form, and, if necessary, the names of the editors in your proposed cite). Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 10:52, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
The url would require the reader to enter "Trump" in the text field, then click the name and the "Full profile" button - No, they need only enter "donald trump" in the search box, which my citation explains to them. Bingo, it shows both ranking and net worth on the resulting line. No need to go any further for verification. And this way they would see only the annual, not both annual and real-time.Don't hold me to anything I said last year, or even last week. My thinking evolves.No objection to removing anything else that you see fit to remove. ―Mandruss ☎ 11:38, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
I removed the second to last sentence. (Entering just "trump" yields the same line, BTW) Why don't you want readers to see the real-time up-and-down? Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 12:01, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
(Entering just "trump" yields the same line, BTW) Yeah, I know. I could change that. If another Trump became a billionaire, we could change it back. Why don't you want readers to see the real-time up-and-down? Just seems simpler and more straightforward, providing the required verification and not confusing matters by putting other information in front of them. A citation is for article content verification only, not "further reading" or "more information". ―Mandruss ☎ 12:09, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
I really wonder how Forbes is calculating 'real time net worth'. That seems like a misleading gimmick to me.Also, I was under the impression Trump holds the majority of his own meme crypto coin. That alone is valued in the tens of billions. Has Forbes excluded that for a reason? Riposte97 (talk) 20:27, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
As I said, Can't say I understand anything about Forbes's methodologies. I doubt any editor at this article does. I think I saw where Forbes describes its methodologies somewhere, but I can't recall where I saw that. Pretty much moot, since we have no better alternative. We can't do OR. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:16, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
This looks fine. Naturally more can be said, but I think the important thing is that the range of his net worth is nailed down. The second sentence removed might be changed to percents but I am happy with what we have.
Extended content

According to Forbes, Trump's wealth in 2024 was, very roughly, 62 percent stock in Trump Media & Technology Group, 20 percent real estate, and 18 percent golf clubs and resorts. (Truth Media's stock price is volatile.)

Sources

  1. "Trump creates task force to lead U.S. coronavirus response". CBS News. January 30, 2020. Retrieved October 10, 2020.
  2. Ollstein, Alice Miranda (April 14, 2020). "Trump halts funding to World Health Organization". Politico. Retrieved September 7, 2020.
  3. Wilson, Jason (April 17, 2020). "The rightwing groups behind wave of protests against Covid-19 restrictions". The Guardian. Retrieved April 18, 2020.
  4. Andone, Dakin (April 16, 2020). "Protests Are Popping Up Across the US over Stay-at-Home Restrictions". CNN. Retrieved October 7, 2021.
  5. Shear, Michael D.; Mervosh, Sarah (April 17, 2020). "Trump Encourages Protest Against Governors Who Have Imposed Virus Restrictions". The New York Times. Retrieved April 19, 2020.
  6. Chalfant, Morgan; Samuels, Brett (April 20, 2020). "Trump support for protests threatens to undermine social distancing rules". The Hill. Retrieved July 10, 2020.
  7. Cite error: The named reference CNN-testing-pressure was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  8. McGinley, Laurie; Johnson, Carolyn Y. (June 15, 2020). "FDA pulls emergency approval for antimalarial drugs touted by Trump as covid-19 treatment". The Washington Post. Retrieved October 7, 2021.
  9. Edelman, Adam (July 5, 2020). "Warning signs flash for Trump in Wisconsin as pandemic response fuels disapproval". NBC News. Retrieved September 14, 2020.
  10. Sommer, Allison Kaplan (July 25, 2019). "How Trump and Netanyahu Became Each Other's Most Effective Political Weapon". Haaretz. Retrieved August 2, 2019.
  11. Crowley, Michael (September 15, 2020). "Israel, U.A.E. and Bahrain Sign Accords, With an Eager Trump Playing Host". The New York Times. Retrieved February 9, 2024.
  12. Swanson, Ana (July 5, 2018). "Trump's Trade War With China Is Officially Underway". The New York Times. Retrieved May 26, 2019.
  13. "Findings of the Investigation into China's Acts, Policies, and Practices Related to Technology Transfer, Intellectual Property, and Innovation Under Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974", Office of the U.S. Trade Representative, March 22, 2018
  14. Zengerle, Patricia (January 16, 2019). "Bid to keep U.S. sanctions on Russia's Rusal fails in Senate". Reuters. Retrieved October 5, 2021.
  15. Whalen, Jeanne (January 15, 2019). "In rare rebuke of Trump administration, some GOP lawmakers advance measure to oppose lifting Russian sanctions". The Washington Post. Retrieved October 5, 2021.
  16. Bugos, Shannon (September 2019). "U.S. Completes INF Treaty Withdrawal". Arms Control Association. Retrieved October 5, 2021.
  17. Panetta, Grace (June 14, 2018). "Trump reportedly claimed to leaders at the G7 that Crimea is part of Russia because everyone there speaks Russian". Business Insider. Retrieved February 13, 2020.
  18. Baker, Peter (August 10, 2017). "Trump Praises Putin Instead of Critiquing Cuts to U.S. Embassy Staff". The New York Times. Retrieved June 7, 2020.
  19. Nussbaum, Matthew (April 8, 2018). "Trump blames Putin for backing 'Animal Assad'". Politico. Retrieved October 5, 2021.
  20. "Nord Stream 2: Trump approves sanctions on Russia gas pipeline". BBC News. December 21, 2019. Retrieved October 5, 2021.
  21. Diamond, Jeremy; Malloy, Allie; Dewan, Angela (March 26, 2018). "Trump expelling 60 Russian diplomats in wake of UK nerve agent attack". CNN. Retrieved October 5, 2021.
  22. LaFranco, Rob; Chung, Grace; Peterson-Withorn, Chase (2024). "Forbes World's Billionaires List - The Richest in 2024". Forbes. Retrieved January 20, 2025. - Enter "donald trump" in the search box.
  23. ^ Alexander, Dan (November 4, 2024) . "Here's How Much Donald Trump Is Worth". Forbes. Retrieved December 15, 2024.
  24. Crowley, Kinsey (May 1, 2024). "Trump Media stock price fluctuation: What to know amid historic hush money criminal trial". USA Today. Retrieved January 20, 2025.

Updating of Trump & Vance, upon assumption of offices

I realize this page is on enough editors' watchlists, to prevent or revert those who might update the page prematurely, before Noon EST on 20 January 2025. But, perhaps many of you may consider adding JD Vance to your watchlists, to prevent the same thing. PS - I'm presuming that Joe Biden & Kamala Harris are already on many watchlists. GoodDay (talk) 00:13, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

We can't have too many watchers, but see JD Vance page information. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:50, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

Is there a section on his crypto coin?

Is there a section on his crypto coin? Mercer17 (talk) 01:33, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

No. ―Mandruss ☎ 03:48, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
in my opinion its not of enough note to be mentioned as of now . Josephwhyman041104 (talk) 15:02, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
I'll add $TRUMP (really, "Strump"?) to the bullet list in The Trump Organization#Other ventures and investments. (Amazing Photoshop job on the website selling the coin, makes Trump at least 40 years younger and 50+ pounds lighter. Melania's coin is called $MELANIA. Smelania – maybe it's pronounced differently in Slowenian. I know — off-topic.) Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 15:55, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
I would be in favor of giving this more weight. Googling "trump crypto" gives many results including the recent executive order. The article only has the $TRUMP mention. Czarking0 (talk) 23:29, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

Objectivity and Accuracy

The piece in general lacks objectivity and is characterized by a strong, anti-Trump thread throughout in the form of numerous statements that are opinionated in nature but presented as fact or that are plainly inaccurate, in many cases because it seems facts have come to light since some grossly biased statement was written. Examples follow.


Excerpted example of biased characterization from the piece: “After a series of business bankruptcies in the 1990s, he launched several side ventures.”

Comments on the immediately above excerpt: Statement is unbalanced and subjectively critical; Trump, like most entrepreneurs, undertake a collection of business ventures during his rise to success

Excerpted example of biased and inaccurate characterization from the piece: “His immigration policy included a travel ban targeting Muslims and refugees and expanding the U.S.–Mexico border wall; he also briefly implemented a family separation policy. He rolled back more than 100 environmental policies and regulations, signed the Tax Cuts and Jobs Actof 2017, initiated a trade war with China in 2018, and withdrew the U.S. from international agreements on climate, trade, and the nuclear program of Iran. Trump met with North Korean leader Kim Jong Unwithout progress on denuclearization.”

Comments on the immediately above excerpt: Statement is unbalanced and subjectively critical. It can be argued, and many do, that Trump’s tactics toward N. Korea and China reduced those Nations’ aggressive posture, only to see it strengthen again under the lay-down policies of the Biden administration. The immigration policy didn’t “target Muslims,” but rather targeted travelers from nations that have strong culturally-based animus toward the US as demonstrated toward recent and previous acts of terrorism toward America, strong public demonstrations by the populace inciting terrorism toward America, and research, intelligence, and survey information documenting a large number of active terrorists and people that support terrorism toward America. The family separation policy referenced is simply a by-product of detaining adult aliens that have illegally emigrate with minor family members among their group. The minor family members are not arrested along with their adult parents/guardians, but are placed in care while the adults are incarcerated. This is the same dynamic that occurs when US citizens are arrested while caring for minor dependents.

Excerpted example of biased and inaccurate characterization from the piece: “In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, he downplayed its severity, contradicted guidance from international public health bodies, and signed the CARES Act economic stimulus. He lost the 2020 presidential election but did not concede, falsely claiming widespread electoral fraud and attempting to overturn the results, including through his involvement in the January 6 Capitol attack. He was impeached in 2019 for abuse of power and obstruction of Congress, and in 2021for incitement of insurrection; the Senate acquitted him in both cases. After his first term, scholars and historians ranked Trump as one of the worst presidents in American history.”


Comments on the immediately above excerpt: Statement is unbalanced and subjectively critical. Much of the “guidance from international public health bodies” has been demonstrated to be inaccurate and contrived through unethical parading undocumented assertions for things such as the efficacy of masks, the progenitor source of the COVID19 virus as a “wet market” rather than the Chinese laboratory in Wuhan that received funds from the United States’ virology research apparatus headed by Dr. Anthony Fauci, who has been demonstrated as knowingly fabricating and misstating numerous assertions about this “guidance.” The “scholars and historians” reference is not cited and certainly refers to a collection of marxist, intellectually dishonest sophists, much like the 51 national security officials who called the Hunter Biden laptop and the information contained therein a sophisticated Russia disinformation campaign in signed, publicly released statement. Dale Albert (talk) 02:01, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

WP:NOTFORUM ―Mandruss ☎ 07:00, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
Several studies have pointed to the political leanings of Misplaced Pages's editor base. For instance, research by Greenstein and Zhu analyzed political bias in Misplaced Pages articles and found an early tendency towards a liberal bias, which they suggested might be linked to the political orientations of the editors. These studies used methods like analyzing word choice in articles related to U.S. politics to infer political slant. There's evidence suggesting that conservative editors might face more sanctions or blocks compared to liberal editors. This was highlighted in analyses pointing towards institutional favoritism toward left-of-center viewpoints in Misplaced Pages's arbitration and enforcement processes. The demographic of Misplaced Pages editors (predominantly male, from developed countries, often with liberal views) can influence how topics are covered or which topics are deemed worthy of coverage. The richest man in the world, Elon Musk, and Misplaced Pages's own co-founder, Larry Sanger, view Misplaced Pages as politically biased. Misplaced Pages has policies aimed at neutrality (NPOV - Neutral Point of View), and there's a significant effort by some in the community to reduce bias through collaborative editing, which can mitigate individual editor biases over time. DisneyGuy744 (talk) 06:33, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
The opening post is fine in my book (it could suggest specific improvements in addition to speaking more generally). Your comment is not directly related to improvement of this article, is too meta for this page, and qualifies as WP:NOTFORUM vio. I suggest WP:VPM. ―Mandruss ☎ 07:19, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
Thank you for commenting. Citing our Manual of Style: In Misplaced Pages, the lead section is an introduction to an article and a summary of its most important contents. You’re quoting portions of the lead and then state your opinion on them. You have a right to your opinion, but Misplaced Pages content is based on reliably sourced material. Please, read the body of the article and the reliable sources cited there. If you believe material and/or sources to be false or misrepresented, present the reliable sources that support your view. Please, also look at the sources Misplaced Pages considers to be reliable. You can find the list in this article. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 10:09, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
@Dale Albert: you're at least partly right. JacktheBrown (talk) 11:43, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
I agree with @Dale Albert's conclusions on this matter. While the statement "Misplaced Pages content is based on reliably sourced material" may be true in a technical sense, it fails to address the deeper issue of selective sourcing and framing within this article. Even if the claims are based on reliable sources, they appear to have been deliberately cherrypicked to cast Trump in a negative light. For instance, including in the lead the statement, "After his first term, scholars and historians ranked Trump as one of the worst presidents in American history," may be factually accurate, but it raises serious questions about relevance and balance. Is this truly the most critical information to feature in a summary of Trump? What about scholars and historians who hold opposing views or argue that he doesn’t rank among the worst presidents?
Furthermore, this retrospective assessment feels increasingly irrelevant and outdated given that Trump has now returned to office. His presidency once again becomes active today, meaning any historical ranking from his prior term is incomplete and potentially misleading. Instead of presenting a balanced and current overview, the article seems to prioritize narratives that reinforce a one-sided perspective. This undermines Misplaced Pages's goal of neutrality and fairness, especially on such a polarizing subject. For a lead summary, relevance, balance, and up-to-date context are crucial, and this article falls short on all counts. TimeToFixThis (talk) 14:22, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
You're welcome to participate in this article's development like anyone else. Otherwise, I would be interested to know what remedy you suggest. If some editors here are unable to check their biases at the door, your comment is not going to make them find Jesus and repent, and that means you're in violation of WP:NOTFORUM as much as the editor collapsed above. We follow Misplaced Pages policy here; if that's not sufficient, the flaw is with the policy, not the editors. You can discuss policy at WP:VPP. ―Mandruss ☎ 15:32, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
Re your comment "you're in violation of WP:NOTFORUM" — Could you explain that using excerpts from WP:NOTFORUM? Thanks, Bob K31416 (talk) 15:53, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
Discussion not directly related to improvement of this article violates at least the spirit of NOTFORUM. This is a widely accepted principle. General blue-sky about bias cannot be directly related to improvement of the article—as I said, it can't have any effect on the article's content. The way to affect the article's content is to participate in the process, not to discuss bias. This also violates the spirit of consensus 61, by the way. ―Mandruss ☎ 16:22, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
It's incredibly obvious that there is no real attempt at neutrality, especially on this page. To act as if only a few editors have a teeny bias against Trump is disingenuous when studies have proven time and time again that Misplaced Pages has a major left-wing bias, at least in the United States. It's also disingenuous to act as if by citing sources like the New York Times that Misplaced Pages is being unbiased when the Times and most other "reliable" sources have demonstrated clear bias for years. Twinbros04 (talk) 16:04, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
I won't do it myself, but I would support closure of this thread if this kind of commenting continues. The very fact that it applies to far more than this article is a clear clue that it has no place on this page. ―Mandruss ☎ 16:42, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
No offense, but that's a pretty disingenuous idea. It's objectively true that this article, like just about every article on politics, seriously fails to be neutral. Deleting a thread in the talk page just because you don't like it basically proves this point. Ozone742 (talk) 17:20, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
If my argument was that I don't like it, you would have a point. ―Mandruss ☎ 17:33, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
And you just subjectively proved Mandruss's point. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 17:49, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
Reliable sources: that's a discussion to be held at Misplaced Pages:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 17:08, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
Again, please go the village pump if you want discuss the policies of Misplaced Pages, because this problem is bigger than just this one article. Turtletennisfogwheat (talk) 02:37, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
So present the majority of reliable sources that contradict our "selective sourcing and framing", e.g. scholars and historians who hold opposing views or argue that he doesn’t rank among the worst presidents. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 16:57, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

A statement that all or most scientists or scholars hold a certain view requires reliable sourcing that directly says that all or most scientists or scholars hold that view. Otherwise, individual opinions should be identified as those of particular, named sources. Editors should avoid original research especially with regard to making blanket statements based on novel syntheses of disparate material. Stated simply, any statement in Misplaced Pages that academic consensus exists on a topic must be sourced rather than being based on the opinion or assessment of editors. Review articles, especially those printed in academic review journals that survey the literature, can help clarify academic consensus.

Misplaced Pages, Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources#Academic consensus
We don't need or have to do that ourselves. The sentence is badly referenced to begin with. See the quote to the right. Cambalachero (talk) 17:29, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
Yes, you need and have to. This isn't an article about science. Where are we saying that all or most scientists or scholars hold a certain view? We're citing reputable C-SPAN and Siena College surveys of historians and scholars. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 17:41, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
I'm gonna soften my position slightly. I've long been aware that I have one position (we're okay) directed outward to people not actively working on this article (usually but not always non-editors), and a different one (we're not okay) directed inward. It's probably not a good thing to have both. I think "editorial judgment" is allowed to play too great a role in consensus—here and I assume at many, many other articles. That leaves articles vulnerable to the effects of uncontrolled editor biases. That said, this is not the place to discuss that problem, again because it's far larger than this article. This is not a proper use of any article talk page, and that's not a principle we invented. It should be discussed at WP:VPP, and that's the sort of thing I avoid in my semi-retirement; I find it too stressful.If someone wishes to respond to this comment, they should do it at my user talk page. Hell, I'd be happy to host a whole big discussion about these meta issues, but participants should bear in mind that nothing will be changed on my UTP. For any chance of that, use VPP instead. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:57, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
You'll have a hard time convincing a lot of these editors to go there. It appears a lot of them simply think this issue applies to Trump's main article and other Trump-related articles and only those pages and not an issue that could apply to every WP article. Turtletennisfogwheat (talk) 02:39, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
That's fine. If editors continue to abuse this article talk page, I am confident that this thread will be closed. And it needn't be done by me, I have no doubt that a number of other frequenters of this page see eye-to-eye with me on this. ―Mandruss ☎ 02:43, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

travel ban formulation on lead, v2

This has already been discussed on talk page, Archive 183, still it is routinely brought back to a formulation that excludes the word "refugee" from it. The word carries important meaning of the desired effect of Trump actions, it is well developed in the body and is more precise that just vaguely refering to some Muslims countries, since other Muslim countries that had partnership with the US were not included in the ban. It is a good formulation firstly made by @Goszei, if I remember correctly. Since BRD is in place it should be discussed on talk first if editors wants to keep it after a reversion. Cinemaandpolitics (talk) 12:23, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

New Short Description

Because Trump just got inaugurated the 47th US President i think we should update his short description which still says that he is the president-elect.

as a result we should change it from : President-elect and 45th president of the united states.

to : 45 & 47th President of the United States.

or use the alt version : President of the United States. MalborkHistorian (talk) 18:00, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

Why not just remove President-elect ? Slatersteven (talk) 18:02, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
because it would still say that he is the 45th US President but that was in 2017-2021 and now he is the 47th president so thats why we should add 47th to it as well. MalborkHistorian (talk) 18:06, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
Where does it still say, "president-elect" in the short description, it had been removed around 12pm. GoldenBootWizard276 (talk) 18:03, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
I think it should stay as "President of the United States (2017–2021, 2025–present)", as that is how it is written for the Grover Cleveland article. GoldenBootWizard276 (talk) 18:05, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
It also says "President of Russia (1999–2008, 2012–present)" on the article for Vladimir Putin, another politician with multiple non consecutive terms. I agree with User:GoldenBootWizard276. - Sebbog13 (talk) 18:38, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
I agree but it isn't the same for Russia, as they don't number presidents the same way. GoldenBootWizard276 (talk) 18:41, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
If you search Donald Trump on the wikipedia browser it says that he is the president-elect.
MalborkHistorian (talk) 18:09, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
Must just take some time to update. It definitely says "President of the United States (2017–2021, 2025–present)" in the source code. If you want, you can try purging the cache to see if it changes. GoldenBootWizard276 (talk) 18:17, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
i can't edit it because i'm not an Misplaced Pages administrator. MalborkHistorian (talk) 18:20, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
They mean the cache your end. Slatersteven (talk) 18:22, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

Superseding consensus #50, sentences 1 and 2

Original heading: "Updating consensus #50, lead sentence" ―Mandruss ☎ 02:17, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Current wording:

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.

I propose to update it to read

The lead sentence is: Donald John Trump (born June 14, 1946) is an American politician, media personality, and businessman who serves as the 47th president of the United States.

Present tense makes clarifications such as "current" and "since 2025" redundant. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 18:12, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

The "47th..." GoodDay (talk) 18:36, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
Oops. Replaced "serves as the 45th" with "serves as the 47th". Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 19:45, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
What GoodDay said.Instead of amending #50, I think we should supersede it with a new consensus covering the whole first paragraph. That's what #17 did before it was superseded by #50. Otherwise, it's a new separate consensus for the second sentence, or leaving the second sentence unprotected by consensus. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:35, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
I'm in agreement with this proposal. Indeed, anything is better than "...who has served...". Also "current" & "since 2025" aren't needed. GoodDay (talk) 20:43, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
It's getting worst. Somebody keeps trying to link "45th president" to Second presidency of Donald Trump. -- GoodDay (talk) 23:15, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
Don't fret. See this, second paragraph. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:24, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
What about "Donald John Trump (born June 14, 1946) is an American politician, media personality, and businessman who is the president of the United States, serving since 2025 and previously from 2017 to 2021". Rexxx7777 (talk) 23:20, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
Gotta have "47th" & "45th" in there, to match with his predecessors. GoodDay (talk) 23:22, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
I don't really think that's necessary because, unlike his predecessors, he's numbered twice, which is an inconvenience when it comes to word play.
But if we're going that route then maybe something like "is the 47th president of the United States, serving since 2025 and previously as the 45th president from 2017 to 2021". Rexxx7777 (talk) 23:26, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

Donald John Trump (born June 14, 1946) is an American politician, media personality, and businessman who is the 47th president of the United States. He served as the 45th president from 2017 to 2021.

(I started to drop "the 45th" as unnecessary, but it does help clarify the nonconsecutive terms thing right up front. This is one of the few good uses for president-counting in my opinion.) We don't need words like "current" and "previous", and I think we can leave the start date to the infobox. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:38, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
Support - this version. GoodDay (talk) 23:40, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
Or (sorry):

Donald John Trump (born June 14, 1946) is an American politician, media personality, and businessman who is the 47th president of the United States. A member of the Republican Party, he served as the 45th president from 2017 to 2021.

I can go either way, but sentence 2 currently says Republican Party. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:24, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
@Mandruss surely to align with other politicians' articles, it should be: Donald John Trump (born June 14, 1946) is an American politician, media personality, and businessman who has served as the 47th president of the United States since 2025 and previously served as the 45th president from 2017–2021. Utter Donkey (talk) 00:31, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
Strongly disagree. Not all consistency is good consistency. Don't get caught in the consistency trap. Ask not whether something is consistent, but whether it is good. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:38, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
I think the point here is that its weird his first term is worded like it was a previous office. It was the same office, just nonconsecutive terms, kind of like how Vladimir Putin's article is. Rexxx7777 (talk) 00:55, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
If there is zero risk of misleading readers, it's not a significant problem. So explain to me what a reader might be misled to take from my text. ―Mandruss ☎ 01:14, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
I'll rollback my suggestion now that you mention that. There isn't really a risk that your text will be misleading. What I was just saying was that splitting the lead and making it so his first term isn't mentioned until the second sentence is odd because it was the same office he's holding now. Splitting the sentences makes it seem like his first term was some different office he held prior to the presidency.
But I guess you're mostly right. We shouldn't idiot proof everything. Rexxx7777 (talk) 02:14, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
@Mandruss I don't see any reason for it to be different though. The word 'previously' could be dropped I suppose. Why are we making Trump's article different from pretty much every single other politician and world leader who currently holds a certain post? Utter Donkey (talk) 07:33, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
Responded at your UTP. ―Mandruss ☎ 09:10, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
A: Donald John Trump (born June 14, 1946) is an American politician, businessman, and media personality who has been serving as 47th and current president of the United States since 2025. A member of the Republican Party, he previously served as the 45th president from 2017 to 2021
B: Donald John Trump (born June 14, 1946) is an American politician, businessman, and media personality who serves as 47th and current president of the United States since 2025. A member of the Republican Party, he previously served as the 45th president from 2017 to 2021.
C: leave it as is
Note: Saying since 2025 makes sense since that was when he became president. We can't necessarily say until 2029, not crystal ball here. Also, saying "serving as current 47th president" is improper due to the next successor after Trump being 48th president. Cwater1 (talk) 01:30, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
I've lost count of the different proposals, and the discussion is just 8 hours old. Many more proposals are sure to come, since everybody has a better idea and nobody is capable of settling for anything less than their personal concept of perfection (perfect is the enemy of good). Any suggestions for a methodology that might get us to a consensus sometime before July? ―Mandruss ☎ 02:07, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
Donald John Trump (born June 14, 1946) is an American politician, businessman, and media personality who is the 47th and current president of the United States. A member of the Republican Party, he previously served as the 45th president from 2017 to 2021 Btomblinson (talk) 07:02, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
As of this comment, one editor out of seven has expressed support for a proposal that was not theirs. Yes, that includes me, I didn't say I'm any better. ―Mandruss ☎ 07:06, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Sentences 1 and 2 proposals

Proposals containing:

  • is the 47th: A, B, G
  • serves as 47th: E
  • has been the 47th: C, F
  • has served as the 47th: H, J
  • has been serving as 47th: D
  • and current: D, E, F, G
  • since 2025: C, D, E, F, H, J
  • A member of the Republican Party: B, C, D, E, F, G, J
  • served as the 45th: A, B, C
  • previously served as the 45th: D, E, F, G, H, J
  • from 2017 to 2021: A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, J

A:

Donald John Trump (born June 14, 1946) is an American politician, media personality, and businessman who is the 47th president of the United States. He served as the 45th president from 2017 to 2021.

B:

Donald John Trump (born June 14, 1946) is an American politician, media personality, and businessman who is the 47th president of the United States. A member of the Republican Party, he served as the 45th president from 2017 to 2021.

C:

Donald John Trump (born June 14, 1946) is an American politician, businessman, and media personality who has been the 47th president of the United States since 2025. A member of the Republican Party, he served as the 45th president from 2017 to 2021.

D:

Donald John Trump (born June 14, 1946) is an American politician, businessman, and media personality who has been serving as 47th and current president of the United States since 2025. A member of the Republican Party, he previously served as the 45th president from 2017 to 2021.

E:

Donald John Trump (born June 14, 1946) is an American politician, businessman, and media personality who serves as 47th and current president of the United States since 2025. A member of the Republican Party, he previously served as the 45th president from 2017 to 2021.

F:

Donald John Trump (born June 14, 1946) is an American politician, businessman, and media personality who has been the 47th and current president of the United States since 2025. A member of the Republican Party, he previously served as the 45th president from 2017 to 2021.

G:

Donald John Trump (born June 14, 1946) is an American politician, businessman, and media personality who is the 47th and current president of the United States. A member of the Republican Party, he previously served as the 45th president from 2017 to 2021.

H:

Donald John Trump (born June 14, 1946) is an American politician, businessman, and media personality who has served as the 47th president of the United States since 2025, having previously served as the 45th president from 2017 to 2021.

J:

Donald John Trump (born June 14, 1946) is an American politician, media personality, and businessman who has served as the 47th president of the United States since 2025. A member of the Republican Party, he previously served as the 45th president from 2017 to 2021.

Sentences 1 and 2 survey

  • B then A. GoodDay (talk) 07:37, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
  • B then A. ―Mandruss ☎ 08:00, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
  • G. btomblinson (talk) 08:01, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
  • A or B. "Current" and "previously" are redundant since we're mentioning the dates. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 13:53, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
  • C followed by B. I replaced C with my own proposal (similar to F but without "and current" or "previously") because the one that was labeled as a MOS violation will clearly not win. –Gluonz 21:09, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
    I don't know if you noticed that the old C was one way-too-long sentence instead of two shorter ones. Plus the MOS vio. I was being WP:POINTy to include that, wanting to demonstrate the pitfalls of blind cross-article consistency to the proposer. You coulda left it and made yours H, saving some effort, but you're good. I'm too tired to check your work in the "Proposals containing" list. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:00, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
  • B then A. -SusanLesch (talk) 21:45, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
  • H (my own proposal) then J — "has served as" is more natural to be than "has been" or "is serving as"; words like "current" aren't needed because it's present tense and "since 2025" with no end date implies it, and one sentence total, without mentioning his party affiliation, while mentioning his tenure as the 45th directly after mentioning him as the 47th. DecafPotato (talk) 22:49, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
    Your proposal is a 39-word sentence, and your comment starting with "has" is a 56-word sentence. You seem to have a penchant for long sentences. What's inherently good about one sentence total?"The best sentences are around 15-18 words long. Some sentences will be longer, but try keep your sentences to no more than 21-24 words at the most. This helps you keep your sentences grammatical because longer sentences need more conjunctions and more punctuation. Shorter sentences are easier for your reader as well." - Shorter is BetterLongest sentence in ABCDEFGJ (D sentence 1): 30 words. Average sentence in ABCDEFGJ: 21.4 words. You're 82% over that average. ―Mandruss ☎ 03:59, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
    I didn't say there is anything inherently better about only one sentence. However, I felt that the lead sentence(s) would be more concise if the party affiliation was removed. When I did that, I realized that mentioning his previous role as the 45th president then felt unnatural in its own sentence. Therefore, I decided to fold it in to the previous sentence. For what it is worth, however, the new option J is equally preferable to me. (Because I don't feel strongly about whether his party affiliation is included in this part of the lead.) DecafPotato (talk) 11:29, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
    Then I'd suggest changing your vote to J, since H has about a 1% chance of passing and you might as well not vote at all. ―Mandruss ☎ 11:45, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
  • H J. Mostly per DecafPotato; the other wordings sound slightly awkward when I read them out loud (to me at least), and feel unnecessarily worded. "has served as the 47th president since 2025" clearly communicates to readers that he is the current president. Note that I added H's wording to the article previously on January 20, which unfortunately got reverted. Nythar (💬-🍀) 23:25, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
    which unfortunately got reverted Hmmm, I wonder why. See my reply to the Potato. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:12, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
    Two separate things. I replaced "is currently serving as" with "has served as". If combining the lede sentence with the second sentence (while removing "A member of the Republican Party") is too controversial, I'd switch my !vote to support only the change I previously made. Nythar (💬-🍀) 01:41, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
    @Nythar: Sure, I added J just for you. I don't think we've hit all possible permutations yet. ―Mandruss ☎ 02:10, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
    Thanks. Nythar (💬-🍀) 03:42, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
  • J then B. Tantomile (talk) 03:15, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

Infobox

Concerning his being the 47th prez & previously the 45th prez. I'm assuming we're using the infobox of Grover Cleveland, as how to handle this? GoodDay (talk) 18:39, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

I fixed it and apparently got reverted seconds later. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 18:43, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

PS - I do 'kinda' understand though the potential false appearance of having 'incumbent' under 45th. That this would work better, after his second term ends. GoodDay (talk) 18:43, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

Grover Cleveland is long dead and buried and his two presidencies are very much in the distant past. We have a live and living sitting president who was also president in the more recent past. I fixed the infobox to separate the two terms:

Infobox A - separating the two terms
Donald Trump
Official White House presidential portrait.Official portrait, 2017
47th President of the United States
Incumbent
Assumed office
January 20, 2025
Vice PresidentJD Vance
Preceded byJoe Biden
45th President of the United States
In office
January 20, 2017 – January 20, 2021
Vice PresidentMike Pence
Preceded byBarack Obama
Succeeded byJoe Biden

and then got reverted by Admiral Farmer with the edit summary "Since this is the same office, I combinded it into one square. much like the one on Grover Cleveland’s page".

Infobox B in the style of Grover Cleveland
Donald Trump
2017 Official White House presidential portrait.Official portrait, 2025
45th and 47th President of the United States
Incumbent
Assumed office
January 20, 2025
Vice PresidentJD Vance
Preceded byJoe Biden
In office
January 20, 2017 – January 20, 2021
Vice PresidentMike Pence
Preceded byBarack Obama
Succeeded byJoe Biden

It's the same title but 45 is an office Trump held from 2017 to 2021, and 47 is an office he is holding now. Please, self-revert, or maybe someone else who agrees with my reasoning could revert. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 18:55, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

In the split version, the office shouldn't be lower-cased. GoodDay (talk) 18:59, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
Yes, it should be, per MOS:JOBTITLE. 45th is a modifier. 47th is, too, but the capitalized "P" of "President of the United States" is baked into the template — it links to the Misplaced Pages article. We could change it to the grammatically correct lower-case p, I assume, but that would lead to a permanent back-and-forth. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 19:36, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
You're right, it should be lower-cased per JOBTITLE. But this is one place where I think cross-article consistency is a worthwhile thing, and nobody has found the energy to raise this at Village Pump. I find it easier to stomach if I tell myself that heading is in title case. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:33, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
For the time being, offices are upper-cased in infoboxes regardless of modifiers. GoodDay (talk) 20:36, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
I.e., title case. What I said. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:38, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
As far as I can tell, they're only upper-cased because they link to a Misplaced Pages article. But meh, I can live with an upper-case "P". Other than that, any thoughts about the merits? Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 20:45, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
Merits? You mean splitting idea? GoodDay (talk) 20:54, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
No, we often lower-case the first letter of a link to an article. The first character is case-insensitive. See the first sentence of this article, for an example. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:00, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
Other than that, any thoughts about the merits? Other than what I said in my first comment? ―Mandruss ☎ 21:03, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
Merits, two editors asking — the problem must be me. Too obtuse? Which do you prefer, Infobox A with one box for each term or Infobox B? And, PLEASE, disregard the portrait, it changes every two minutes. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 21:26, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
I presume with 'version B', you meant to include the office? GoodDay (talk) 21:32, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
Yes. I just fixed it — don't know what happened there, I just copied it from the main space. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 22:08, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
Ok, so I see two differences between A and B:
  • A has two heading lines. B has one heading line.
  • For me, and I'm not universal, A's headings fit on one line. B's heading wraps. Big deal.
I don't think one is easier to read or understand than the other. So it's practically a toss-up, a flip of a coin. If I have to !vote, I'll !vote for the one with one heading line (B). ―Mandruss ☎ 22:31, 20 January 2025 (UTC) Edited 22:40, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
It didn't take me long to change my mind. B says "45th and 47th", then shows 47th and 45th. Therefore A is a little easier to understand, and I hereby change my !vote to A. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:53, 20 January 2025 (UTC) Edited 04:22, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
Honestly not really? 45 comes before 47, and the 2017-21 term of office clearly came before 2025-present. Rather self explanatory. We can add a note if need be to clarify. But splitting would really make this article inconsistent with all others as all other infoboxes of leaders with multiple terms still use one box. Example: Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, Benjamin Netanyahu, Donald Tusk.
Now the latter two examples aren't counting two separate terms as we have here, but splitting the boxes instead of using a note to clarify would be more inconsistent with the format other articles use for similar situations. Unless there's an example I missed where they do split the boxes for an incumbent with a previous term Bokmanrocks01 (talk) 01:48, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
I agree that there should be two separate boxes. anikom15 (talk) 20:17, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
Best we stick with option B, though I do understand why some might prefer 'A'. Thing is, an RFC would likely be the only chance for 'A' to be adopted & I doubt that would be much of a chance. GoodDay (talk) 23:01, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
Option B other incumbent world leaders who have served previous terms also use just one box. 45th POTUS is not a distinct office from 47th POTUS which would seem the case if it were two different boxes. Also this concern seems to be splitting hairs as most readers can probably understand 45th is for the 2017-21 term and 47 for 2025-present fairly easily. Bokmanrocks01 (talk) 01:15, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
  • I posit that 90% could figure it out if they studied it for half a minute (assume they have never seen an officeholder's infobox before). Why make them study it for half a minute? And then there's the 8% who would take considerably longer, and the 2% who would never figure it out.
  • other incumbent world leaders I don't care. Other stuff exists. 99% of readers will never notice such a "discrepancy", and it's highly unlikely to present an actual problem for the remaining 1%.
  • 45th POTUS is not a distinct office from 47th POTUS is your one decent point, and I'll think on it. It might even change my !vote (back). ―Mandruss ☎ 01:44, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Question Is there agreement that after Trump's term ends the same format as Grover Cleveland's article should be used? Regardless of what you think it should be now with him as incumbent - Bokmanrocks01 (talk) 03:26, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

May we save that for January 2029? If I agreed now, that doesn't mean I'll feel the same way then. ―Mandruss ☎ 03:43, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Option B per discussion. Lesser of two weevils. ―Mandruss ☎ 04:22, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

The Template:Infobox Officeholder applies to presidents of the United States as there is no special template for them. The template specifies the parameters president, order, office, term start, term end, predecessor, and successor for the first office. It specifies the parameters president2, order2, office2, term start2, term end2, predecessor2, and successor2 for the second office (up to 16 offices). It does not provide parameters for combining two terms of office, i.e., the format used at Grover Cleveland is wrong. But Cleveland's two terms are both over, so who cares; I’m not going to start editing there. In Trump's case we should use the parameters as intended. The usage instructions of the template say that The parameter The incumbent is the 47th President of the United States, not the 45th and 47th. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 10:03, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

@Mandruss: @GoodDay: @Bokmanrocks01:: Option B does not comply with the template's usage instructions (and neither does Grover Cleveland, for that matter). This is what I should have lead with if I had looked up the template yesterday. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 10:29, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

@Space4Time3Continuum2x: Does it specifically address nonconsecutive terms, or are you reading something into it? ―Mandruss ☎ 10:51, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
No and no. The logic of the parameters (e.g., order, order2, order3 ... order16) seems self-explanatory to me, as does the infobox ({{{order}}},{{{term start}}}–{{{term end}}},{{{:president}}} ...; {{{order2}}},{{{term start2}}}–{{{term end2}}},{{{president2}}} ...). And the page intended to aid users in the application of Infobox officeholder has an example for someone who held the office of Ambassador of the United States twice (Whitelaw Reid). Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 11:54, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
Different ambassadorships, different offices. Not equivalent. You've lost me with the rest. All I infer from that is that it's possible to do A (we knew that), but nothing to imply that we should do A. ―Mandruss ☎ 12:14, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
Same office (Ambassador of the United States), different country:
  • | ambassador_from=United States | country=France
  • | ambassador_from2=United States | country2=the United Kingdom
Same office (President of the United States), different status (incumbent and former):
  • | order=47th | office= President of the United States | term_start=January 20, 2025 | term–end= -> gives 47th President of the United States + Incumbent + Assumed office + January 20, 2025
  • | order2=45th President of the United States | term_start2=January 20, 2017 | term–end2=January 20, 2021 -> gives 45th President of the United States + In office + January 20, 2017–January 20, 2021
Citing an : The 47th and current president of the United States is Donald John Trump. Seems logical to me. Oh well, good thing I reconsidered going into teaching. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 13:39, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
Lol. ―Mandruss ☎ 13:40, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
Still seems like that is one way order can be used but not necessarily how it should be. Still haven't seen any other articles that separate different terms of one office into different sections in the infobox. Again, we can just add a note somewhere if we are concerned about the order combined into one section causing confusion Bokmanrocks01 (talk) 15:57, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
Whatcha mean? GoodDay (talk) 11:54, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
See my response to Mandruss. I don't know how to explain myself any better. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 13:39, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Website

Should whitehouse.gov now be added to the infobox? anikom15 (talk) 18:41, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

Definitely, especially considering that it is "Trump-themed" now Nurken (talk) 19:20, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

Portrait

The 2025 portrait of Donald Trump is actually licensed under the CC BY 3.0 US license, see https://www.whitehouse.gov/copyright/ – "Except where otherwise noted, third-party content on this site is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License". The same applies to the portrait of JD Vance. Xoontor (talk) 19:01, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

I agree we should change it to those soon AsaQuathern (talk) 19:10, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
No. That is license laundering. The White House did not take the photograph. They do not own the copyright. It does not matter what someone other than the copyright holder says about the copyright status. Normally we would be able to trust the White House, but Trump did the same thing (stole an image) in 2017 when he took office. There is no reason to believe that the White House owns the copyright to this image, and thus they have no authority to release such copyright. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 19:12, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
This is original research and violates Misplaced Pages:No original research policy. Rreagan007 (talk) 20:24, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
The image is on Commons, and was kept after a deletion request. We shouldn't relitigate that here, but at Commons. -- JFHutson (talk) 19:22, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
It's already renominated and the administrator being discussed there. The administrator on commons violated their own policy by SUPERVOTING on the request and ignoring the laundering concerns. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 19:26, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
So, we need to confirm that it was taken by the U.S. Government. A transition official or an official working on behalf of the official transition would count. However, I just want to note you are incorrect in the way you have cited the White House's copyright policy. The White House, legally, cannot pull a picture from the public domain if it was produced by the White House. Congress would have to amend copyright law for them to be able to do so. So, again, I agree with the above. We just need to wait on ownership confirmation. Cliffmore (talk) 19:19, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
The WH needs to clearly label or footnote the images. This doesn't help. How is anyone supposed to know which material is government-produced and which is third-party content. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 19:49, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
  • Comment Whether or not it is in the public domain, this is his inaugural photo, not his official portrait, which has not yet been taken.
ColdestWinterChill (talk) 20:20, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
Can we wait until his Presidential portrait is released before changing the image? This is merely a portrait for the inauguration, same with JD Vance's. — That Coptic Guy (talk) (contribs) 20:46, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
It is a better image than the old one. No reason to wait. -- JFHutson (talk) 20:50, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
Better/worse is a matter of subjectivity which isn't the issue here. It is about selecting which picture is most appropriate for the article, and that to me is going to be his presidential portrait once it is released at some point this year. — That Coptic Guy (talk) (contribs) 21:30, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
When I said better I meant most appropriate for the article. There have been many discussions where editors stated that the old photo was a poor choice because it is so old. In those discussions, it seemed the consensus was that the problem was not that we have to use the official photo, but that there is not a better (more appropriate) photo that we can use on WP. I think the new photo is a better representation than the 2017 photo. -- JFHutson (talk) 21:53, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
2017 is acceptably old, to me, at this stage in life. The new photo is atrociously biased. Old photo should favored. Cinemaandpolitics (talk) 13:04, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
The photo is used as the profile picture for the official POTUS twitter account, so it already is being used by the US government as his official photo for now for his second term Btomblinson (talk) 04:36, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
It doesn't matter. This photo violates MOS:LEADIMAGE in many points. "Lead images should be natural" "also be the type of image used for similar purposes in high-quality reference works" "Lead images should be of least shock value". The new image should be reverted ASAP. If nobody bothers to answer these concerns I will do it myself. Cinemaandpolitics (talk) 13:16, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
The footnote for "natural" clarifies this just means we want the natural choice. I'm not sure why you think it would be unnatural or that high quality reference works wouldn't use the image this subject has chosen to represent themselves as their official photo. I don't think users will find it shocking that the official photo released by the subject will be what we lead with. -- JFHutson (talk) 13:23, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
"this subject has chosen to represent themselves" does not matter. The MOS is pretty clear about the need for an image similar to what's used in reference works, NOT self promotional works. Cinemaandpolitics (talk) 13:32, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
I don't agree that this image is any more self-promoting than any other politician's image. In any case, the MOS is a guideline. It cannot dictate to us over and above good reasons for inclusion (such as that the image is being referred to by the White House as Trump's official portrait). Riposte97 (talk) 08:22, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
While I do agree that any white house portrait is self promoting, the issue specifically with this ne is that it clashes with other images used in reference work about the subject. The difference is just too big to ignore, the manual of style guideline is well thought in favoring broadly used kind of images over novelty self promotional material. Cinemaandpolitics (talk) 17:49, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

Other copies and usage

- Just FYI - File:Donald Trump official portrait, 2025.webp - File:Presidential Portrait of Donald Trump, 2025.jpg.Moxy🍁 20:55, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
Indeed with should wait, until the official WH portraits come out. GoodDay (talk) 20:59, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
File:TrumpPortrait.jpg Moxy🍁 21:01, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
Image on many articles because of Template:Donald Trump series. Moxy🍁 21:04, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

Look likely that an RFC may be required, because the 'new' image looks terrible. The lighting, etc. GoodDay (talk) 22:08, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

Poor Commons.... So much clean up to do - they got so many of these... let alone crop versions. Moxy🍁 23:45, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
I absolutelly agree with @GoodDay. This image should not be used. It doesn't have a standard neutral pose that is favored on Misplaced Pages. It is a purely promotional-emotional photograph. There is no reason to not use the more neutral photo from a few years ago. I urge editors to at least express themselves in this matter, since this is an extremely serious issue in my opinion. Cinemaandpolitics (talk) 13:02, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
Expressing myself. I would support the 2017 official portrait over this Trump self-promotional hijack of Misplaced Pages. I wish us luck in seeking a consensus for that, between Trump-supporters and old-image-haters. Then, if anybody cares about other Trump articles, be prepared to fight the battle at each one individually. Then, be prepared for a continuous 4-year parade of drive-bys complaining about the infobox image. Consensus 1 would be amended to allow the exception; the 2017 is "an official White House portrait", but it's no longer "the official White House portrait" which is what #1 says. ―Mandruss ☎ 13:23, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
Agree with @Mandruss. This is self promotional hijack. Official portrait is not what Misplaced Pages guidelines favor. I'll repeat what I said on another comemnt. This photo violates MOS:LEADIMAGE in many points. "Lead images should be natural" "also be the type of image used for similar purposes in high-quality reference works" "Lead images should be of least shock value". It should be reverted ASAP. Cinemaandpolitics (talk) 13:18, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
No, we have a consensus system in place and we can't declare a national emergency, call out the National Guard, and suspend normal process. "ASAP" will be less soon than we would prefer. But you can help things along by starting a new thread seeking consensus. ―Mandruss ☎ 13:31, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
Looking at this with more attention, the firtst consensus item is so poorly presented, because it forces editors to favor a *future* picture without any agency. It should have never been allowed in the first place because it basically violates the most basic rules of the editing process on Misplaced Pages. An even bigger issue in my opinion. If you think that a new thread is needed I'll open it. Cinemaandpolitics (talk) 13:45, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
Water under bridge, sorry you weren't around in 2016. A new thread is needed to provide a clear consensus to link in the list item. ―Mandruss ☎ 13:49, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
done. Cinemaandpolitics (talk) 13:56, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
"It doesn't have a standard neutral pose that is favored on Misplaced Pages." Neutral trumps non-neutral, but official trumps neutral. Of course, freely licensed trumps everything else (and official stuff is usually copyrighted), but in this case, if the copyright status of the portrait has been settled... Cambalachero (talk) 14:20, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Claim that Trump negotiated the Gaza ceasefire

There have been several edits claiming that Trump negotiated the Israel-Hamas ceasefire the day before he entered office. Last I checked, Biden was president when the ceasefire was announced. I am at my one revert already and cannot keep up with the additions. BootsED (talk) 19:26, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

"How the Biden and Trump teams worked together to get the Gaza ceasefire and hostages deal done" https://edition.cnn.com/2025/01/15/politics/biden-trump-gaza-ceasefire-deal/index.html --FMSky (talk) 19:28, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
Yep, even bidens camp say it. Slatersteven (talk) 19:29, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
And the wiki article doesnt even claim he negotiated it, just that he "helped" --FMSky (talk) 19:31, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
Per @FMSky, CNN reported that they both played major roles. As did the New York Times. The question is whether or not it should be in the presidency section or the transition section. It is certainly notable enough for inclusion. MB2437 19:40, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
I think you need to self-revert this - the wording was challenged, there's discussion ongoing, violation of 24-hour BRD. Trump wasn't president when both sides agreed to the plan Biden first proposed in May. Envoy Witkoff clearly stated that the Biden team was in charge. Saying that Witkoff "helped" (assisted) seems appropriate to me. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 21:56, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
Witkoff also credited Trump with the ceasefire. He stated that whilst Biden's team were the "tip of the spear", "no one has pride of authorship". The wording in its current form seems most sensible, where no opinion on the matter is given. To satisfy due weight, we would also need to make it clear that Trump's incoming presidency expedited the process—which was at a long-standing stalemate—considerably. Biden officials acknowledged the deadline of Trump’s entry into office was a motivating factor in finally finding success after months of failure, per CNN. It's also worth noting that this article is about Trump, not the Biden administration; it's like if I were to write in Angel Di Maria's article, "Di Maria won the World Cup and scored in the final, but Messi scored more goals." It is not exactly challengeable to simply state that Trump and his administration helped, which is a fact verified by several reliable sources. MB2437 22:27, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
@Mb2437:, see preceding edit, I forgot to ping you. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 21:57, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
And enacted a day prior is unsourced. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 22:01, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
"The ceasefire is now due to take effect on Sunday, when the first hostages should be released — the day before Trump’s January 20 inauguration", per Financial Times. MB2437 22:38, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

Removal of "Trump's victory sparked numerous protests in major U.S. cities" in 2016 section

JackTheBrown, you have removed content on the page that has been here for years. I am at my 1RR on this. BootsED (talk) 19:32, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

I think that the text should be kept. GoldenBootWizard276 (talk) 19:39, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
Seems it may have been reverted more than once. Cheers. DN (talk) 20:00, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
Doing some digging and apparently Jack has removed this three times since January 18, 1, 2, 3, and had it reverted each time,1, 2, 3. BootsED (talk) 21:05, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
Mandruss self-reverted, this is revert 3. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 14:56, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
You appear to have Mandruss on the brain. Look again. ―Mandruss ☎ 15:00, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Should Trump be added to the category of "American Zionists?"

I don't think he's ever formally labelled himself as such, but he has been very pro-Israel during his political career. NesserWiki (talk) 22:45, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

@NesserWiki: absolutely NO, supporting Israel militarily doesn't mean being Zionist. JacktheBrown (talk) 11:45, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
Seconding JacktheBrown's opinion. While Trump is pro-Israel, he is not necessarily a Zionist, unlike Joe Biden who very blatantly described himself as one and is the main reason that category applies to Joe but not Donald. Turtletennisfogwheat (talk) 23:58, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
Call me an idiot but….how exactly is being pro-Israel different to being a Zionist? Riposte97 (talk) 08:25, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
Being pro-Israel is a little broader and more about supporting Israel as a state by helping it uphold its rights via funding or other ways of helping; it does not have to be entirely ideologically driven, if at all. Zionism, meanwhile, is inherently specific and ideological, meaning they are wholly in favor of the establishment of a Jewish homeland in Palestine's area. Biden has openly supported and stated that he's for that specific idealogy, Trump simply thinks of Israel as another nation he can get in the good graces of by supporting, even if he overall is apathetic to Israel's zionist goals. Turtletennisfogwheat (talk) 05:34, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

Mass deletions from article

I noticed that a very large amount of information was just deleted from the article. Included in this deletion was the religion section. Religion played a particularly large role in the election of Donald Trump to the presidency and having a few sentences that describe his religious views is not undue. I hope this helps. With regards, Anupam 02:15, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

That editor has been previously advised: If you edit en masse, don't complain if you are challenged by reversion en masse. That edit could've been split into five or six, making things considerably easier for their colleagues. I'm not going to challenge because I don't care about that content, but I would support anybody who saw fit to do so. ―Mandruss ☎ 02:27, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
There are multiple reliable sources indicating that Rev. Normal Vince Peale had a significant influence on Donald Trump. Also, Trump switched from Presbyterian to nondenominational Christianity which is a type of evangelical Christianity. And Trump has won elections through courting the evangelical vote. So I am very firmly against taking out the religious section of the article given religion's influence on Donald Trump. Knox490 (talk) 02:35, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
Anupam, regarding your edit summary here, where did you obtain consensus for that edit? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:36, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
Following Mandruss, the edits by Nikkimaria should have been made into five or six so it'd be easier to analyze. That being said, the religion sub-section does deserve inclusion in the article given the role of faith in Donald Trump's life, and also its role in American politics in general. A significant share of the American population wouldn't vote for an atheist president. Lorstaking (talk) 15:03, 21 January 2025 (UTC)U to
User:Nikkimaria, thanks for your comment. I started this discussion on the talk page in order to determine whether the information should be kept or restored. Thus far, it looks like consensus has leaned towards the former. I did see that you also removed information about where Trump went to Sunday School, though I did not restore that yet. Would you be able to explain why you removed that short clause? I look forward to hearing from you. I hope this helps. With regards, Anupam 19:16, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
Actually User:Nikkimaria, nevermind. It looks like User:FMSky restored the clause regarding Sunday School, which I thought was helpful to have in describing Donald Trump's upbringing. The source text, Historical Dictionary of the Donald Trump Administration (published by Rowman & Littlefield) included both his primary education at Kew-Forest School, as well as his religious education through Sunday School at First Presbyterian Church in the paragraphs describing his upbringing. I believe that we should do the same. I would love to hear your comments as well User:FMSky. Thanks, Anupam 21:01, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
But you restored the content before starting this discussion.
This article is overly detailed, and is only becoming more so with each passing day. Per WP:SS, the best approach to addressing that is keeping a high-level overview here, and deferring detail to subarticles. That means things like his Bible (as previously discussed) and his Bible collection should be included elsewhere.
By the same token FMSky's revert should be undone. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:30, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
The current consensus now supports the presence of the section in the article and I agree with User:FMSky's edit that reinstates the location of his Sunday School. As has been pointed out, religion plays an important role in the United States and a short section is helpful in this article. I just noticed that a large amount of information was just added to the article. If detail is to be removed, it can start there or elsewhere but a few sentences on Donald Trump's basic demographic information and upbringing should be mentioned in this article. I might recommend trimming information about his views on exercise, sleep time or golfing interest, all of which has less bearing on the biography than the role that faith plays in his life (and in the election). The inauguration itself, which was held yesterday, was shrouded in religious imagery and wishing to remove it seems short-sighted. I am open to seeing what others might have to say. Anupam 03:16, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
By all means propose removal of other extraneous details - that would be a great improvement. But in any event the Bibles should go. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:47, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
Having a closer look, the "Religion" section is the shortest section under the "Personal life" heading. Is there any particular reason why you wish to trim this section rather than excising detail from the longer sections? Consensus has already been established to keep this section. With regard to the extraneous details elsewhere in the article, you are welcome to address that; my interest is specifically in the topic of religion as it relates to the topic. Anupam 22:25, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
I would agree that there are other sections that would benefit from trimming, but that should not prevent us from addressing this one.
In the interests of compromise and as per WP:SS, I have created a new subarticle: Donald Trump and religion. That allows us to provide a brief Religion section comprising the specific content others have agreed with, and gives a home to the other details elsewhere. One caveat on the former: Sunday school was removed by another editor prior to my edit, so that piece in particular will warrant further discussion. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:46, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
The information regarding Donald Trump's confirmation belongs in the "Early life" section, not in the "Personal life" section. I will restore that as there was no consensus for it to be moved. Anupam 19:43, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
If we're going to have a Religion section, that's the section in which the religion-related content belongs. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:05, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
No, the confirmation information is not related to his personal life at present. It will be moved to the "early life" section shortly. 00:29, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
Of course it's related to his personal life, as part of his religious history. Why do you believe otherwise? Nikkimaria (talk) 00:31, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
Confirmation is a rite that is completed at a young age typically, which is why it is relevant to the "Early life" section. I hope this helps. With regards, Anupam 03:24, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
Confirmation is a rite that is specific to religion, which is why it is most relevant to the "Religion" section. It also provides more relevant context to the other content there, versus being a disconnected factoid in the earlier section. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:34, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

Should we include Trump's mass pardon of January 6th convicts in the lead?

It does seem relevant, especially in relation to the January 6th capital attack. He said he would do it, and on his first day in office in his second term he did it. JohnAdams1800 (talk) 03:00, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

It has been noted in the articles for his second presidency and the J6 attack Btomblinson (talk) 03:33, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
As someone who is appalled by the pardons, I don't think so. The reference to "his involvement in the January 6 Capitol attack" seems sufficient for the lede. NME Frigate (talk) 03:14, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
It possibly could be mentioned after a semicolon for the sentence about January 6 along the lines of "upon reelection, he granted clemency to all rioters". BootsED (talk) 01:42, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

Remove top article wording

@CNC33 we should remove the felon part, while he is that’s not appropriate for the top line summary of a living person considering he is the current POTUS Btomblinson (talk) 03:02, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

I reverted. ―Mandruss ☎ 03:05, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
Resolved Btomblinson (talk) 03:20, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Infobox image - which official portrait?

The current "consensus" at the top of this page links to the 2017 portrait, but the article uses the 2025 one. Shankar Sivarajan (talk) 05:42, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

I have removed that link as unnecessary and currently problematic. ―Mandruss ☎ 05:56, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

No sources in intro?

Hello, I’ve noticed that there are many potentially controversial claims in the intro section of the article, but there are no sources to back them up. We should find appropriate reliable sources to justify these claims, or remove them if no such sources can be found. Ûtrechtâl (talk) 07:16, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

THey are cited in the body. Slatersteven (talk) 09:35, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
MOS:LEADCITE: "The necessity for citations in a lead should be determined on a case-by-case basis by editorial consensus." We have yet to reach a consensus for a case in the lead that needs a cite. Cite numbers add clutter, we strongly favor readability in the lead over saving a reader the effort of finding the related body content, and we believe that readers wanting to read the source for something they read in the lead are fairly rare. ("We" means a majority of this article's regular editors.) All this said, there is nothing preventing someone like you from proposing a certain citation or two and seeing if the proposal flies. If you do that, please do it in a separate thread. ―Mandruss ☎ 09:47, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

End birthright citizenship?

The main article says for children of illegal immigrants, which makes more sense. It seems pretty weird to just put 'end birthright citizenship' on this page, so could anyone add 'end birthright citizenship ' as is done on the main page? AHWikipedian (talk) 07:34, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Proposed: Use 2017 portrait for the infobox

Original heading: "Challenge consensus item 1" ―Mandruss ☎ 14:11, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

current consensus item This poorly presented consensus item as led to Trump dictating the image used on the Misplaced Pages page. The 2025 White House portrait blatantly violates MOS:LEADIMAGE.

- "Lead images should be natural (Natural means the obvious or usual type of image.)" - "also be the type of image used for similar purposes in high-quality reference works" - "Lead images should be of least shock value"

This photo of Trump is extremely emotional and aggressive, even the lighting is heavily fabricated and does not reflect "natural" photos used in most articles. The shock value is undeniable to me. It should be reverted to the 2017 as soon as a consensus is reached. Cinemaandpolitics (talk) 13:55, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

  • Support per proposer, but the consensus item is not the problem here. Without it, we would still need consensus to stabilize the choice of infobox image. ―Mandruss ☎ 14:00, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
    Which is fair, and part of the Misplaced Pages process. But imagine we get to a proposal that say "use the image used in the most viewed article of that year by the NYT on the subject". That would sound atrocious. Might as well make pages edited directly by an AI algorithm at that point. Cinemaandpolitics (talk) 14:05, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
    I'm changing your heading to something that will attract more attention. Not everybody knows what #1 is, and the fact that this seeks to amend #1 is incidental. ―Mandruss ☎ 14:11, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
    seems ok. Cinemaandpolitics (talk) 17:51, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
  • Oppose: Yes, the image is natural, the man is posing for the photo. Being an official image, it will surely be used by high-quality reference works. And "shock value" is for things like nudity or violence, not for a mere way to look at the camera. Cambalachero (talk) 14:26, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
  • Comment - reiterating my comments above regarding the current image. Again, we are not bound by official images, and we often use them as a matter of convenience because US Government works are free, high quality, and unremarkable/routine with regard to pose, lighting, composition, etc.. I would argue that the latter point comes into question here. Do we have any more recent alternatives, given the first White House portrait is now 7 years old? Connormah (talk) 15:35, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
    • That's not exactly a good argument. If were bound to use official images, we wouldn't be having this discussion to begin with. We don't try to use official images because of being bound to do so, but because the official image is in most cases the most easily recognizable image of a topic. Cambalachero (talk) 15:52, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
  • Questions - I'm a bit confused here. All U.S. presidents' articles since FDR are using the last official portrait. Is this a Wiki-wide consensus if it's not in the rules? And, if so, why change it? Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 15:37, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
    There is no "wiki wide consensus" to enforce anything of the sort. The reason for the change are in my original post. Cinemaandpolitics (talk) 17:53, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
  • Support per proposal, revert to the status quo 2017 White House portrait. The 2024 version is very jarring and unnatural to the reader due to the lighting's attempt to replicate the notoriety of his mugshot. The 2017 is a better reflection of his entire life. TNstingray (talk) 16:08, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
    Au contraire, the official image of his from this year is probably a more accurate summary of his most important moments in life. BarntToust 16:13, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
  • Comment, the result of this discussion should apply to the JD Vance lede image as well. TNstingray (talk) 16:09, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
    Negative. Changes to JD Vance are discussed at Talk:JD Vance. Discussion there can refer to discussion here, but that isn't binding. ―Mandruss ☎ 16:15, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
  • Support - restoring the 2017 image, until we get an updated standard looking image from the White House. GoodDay (talk) 16:17, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
  • Oppose: the MOS says that the image should be natural. This image is completely authentically Trump. It also says images should be neutral. WP:TRUMPRCB explains why content expressive of a less-than-ideal outlook of a subject is allowed, because it is reality. It's a reality that this 2025 photograph expresses the harsh reality of Trump to the best of Daniel Torok's ability. BarntToust 16:20, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
    "harsh reality"? This is a promotional photo released by Trump itself. Cinemaandpolitics (talk) 17:55, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
  • Oppose. What could be more natural than to use the image the subject has chosen as their official portrait? Does anyone really think it's shocking to find the subject's official portrait at the top of their page? The examples used in the MOS for shocking images are of the Holocaust and genitalia. -- JFHutson (talk) 17:04, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
    The subject itself has no priority on Misplaced Pages decisions. Misplaced Pages gives priority to other sources. the manual of style regarding lead images explains this well enough. Cinemaandpolitics (talk) 17:57, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
  • Support changing back to 2017. New portrait is jarring and clearly politically charged with odd, unnatural lighting and an expression clearly imitating his mugshot. Not very inviting for a Misplaced Pages article. Angusgtw (talk) 19:29, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
  • Oppose: I fail to see your point with "The shock value is undeniable to me". There is 0 shock value here. Its just a man staring at the camera. Calling it "extremely emotional and aggressive" is also a huge stretch. Databased (talk) 19:30, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
  • Oppose reverting to 2017 image. anikom15 (talk) 21:23, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
  • Support 2017 image. Misplaced Pages is not to be used as a propaganda venue for Trump. The new image, putting all copyright concerns (still unresolved) aside, is intended to be propaganda. That's not uncommon or limited to Trump - other presidents have used their inauguration materials to advertise themselves as "ready to get to work" or similar. His official image from 2017 is much more natural - note that natural does not mean "how this person always appears", but instead means "without any unnecessary emotion" and similar. The new image is not neutral - it is intended to invoke his mugshot from his booking in a civil criminal case, which itself was intended to be propaganda. Revisit if/when a new official portrait is issued, iff it is as neutral as his old one. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 21:29, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
    Misplaced Pages is not to be used as a propaganda venue for Trump. I'm afraid that horse left the barn months ago. Zaathras (talk) 22:57, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
    Thank you for describing this in detail. This is blatantly constructed advertisement material. It has no place on a[REDACTED] article, nor for Trump or any other political figure. Cinemaandpolitics (talk) 17:59, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
  • Oppose: This is his official portrait, official portrait of the President of the United States. So why not, I am sure he is proud of this photo. Dasomm (talk) 22:06, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
    It is not his official portrait as President. This was an image he had taken on his own accord before he was inaugurated. Official portraits are an entirely different thing, regardless of what Trump calls it. Regardless, Misplaced Pages does not care whether an image is "official" or not. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 22:10, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
    wait, this isn't even the official portrait? then it should not even be favoured by consensus item 1! Cinemaandpolitics (talk) 18:02, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
    it should not even be favoured by consensus item 1! Well it isn't. #1 doesn't currently even know about this new image. We don't care what #1 says or means now, since we can amend it or supersede it with whatever we want. (I favor a superseding new item since those four discussions don't really have any bearing on our current situation.) ―Mandruss ☎ 05:03, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
    I'm pretty sure Misplaced Pages does not care whether he's proud of it, either. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:19, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
  • Oppose Feelings for or against the subject do not matter. If the White House says today that this image is the official portrait, then it is the official portrait, as far as I'm concerned that is the end of the discussion for now. If in a few weeks they have Trump sit for a more traditional style and pose, then we'll switch to that one. The beauty and joy of being a non-paper encyclopedia. Zaathras (talk) 22:55, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
    Misplaced Pages does not have to follow the White House choices for lead images. What is "end of discussion" for you is not an argument here. Cinemaandpolitics (talk) 18:03, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
    Um, yes, we do otherwise it strays into WP:OR. And yes, it is the end. Zaathras (talk) 01:33, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
  • Oppose - wishing to change the article image to one that is eight years old for what seems, from most supporters, to be admittedly political reasons, is a bizarre perversion of MOS policy.This policy has been determined by RfC in the past, and would most appropriately be challenged in the same manner.I'd also note that there have been half-a-dozen discussions on the use of this image here over the last week. I don't see it as great practice to just start a new discussion when you don't agree with an existing one.To those saying this portrait is not 'official', you are explicitly contradicted by the White House. Do you think there's some legal prescription for an official portrait? Like it only counts if the Secretary of Photography takes it with the Presidential Camera on Presidential Portrait Day? Ridiculous.I can guarantee that changing the image will open this talk page up to a torrent of objections from casual readers, as well as (justified) external criticism of Misplaced Pages's bias problem, which we just can't seem to resolve. Riposte97 (talk) 22:51, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
    I'd also note that there have been half-a-dozen discussions on the use of this image here over the last week. I don't see it as great practice to just start a new discussion when you don't agree with an existing one. Well then feel free to blame me for that: ―Mandruss ☎ 23:06, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
    Before opening an RFC a full discussion has to take place. This photo does not correspond to the photos usually used in reference material about the subject, this is a fully doctored image, if this is for you a "political reasons" to remove it then everything is political, even MOS. Cinemaandpolitics (talk) 18:07, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose. Both images essentially show the same thing, and both were authorized by Trump himself (he seems to be somewhat fond of looking "serious" and "tough" on pictures, as he has used similar photos on his social media accounts for many years, and that is how he chose to look even on his mugshot). In my view, both images have roughly the same validity to be on the infobox, but perhaps the most recent one should be used. Badbluebus (talk) 02:46, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
Oppose — 2017 was eight years ago, and the current portrait is far more recent, of a higher resolution, and official. There are arguments to be made that the 2025 portrait it is more representative of Trump's brand and persona, but even if one disagrees with that, it's hard to argue that 2017 Trump is somehow more representative of the current man than 2025 Trump in any regard. And I don't think you can consider his official portrait, despite the darker lighting and lack of a smile, to be of sufficient "shock value" to remove it from the lead. Since it's his official portrait (disregarding its inaugural status because it's on the White House website and the official POTUS social media), it is undeniably natural, as well as the image readers will expect to see. That also makes it the type of image used for similar purposes in reference works (as an official portrait), but as a recent image such a claim is subject to some level of WP:CRYSTALBALL to all degrees, so I think it's not a particularly relevant point. DecafPotato (talk) 23:23, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
When deciding if an image is "used for similar purposes in reference works" you have to look at the present and past, surely not the future. If these kind of images is what reference works will use then, and only then, it will become an appropriate lead image. Cinemaandpolitics (talk) 23:30, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
My point was that official portraits like this one are indeed "the type of image used for similar purposes in high-quality reference works," regardless of if this specific image has been used in such works. However, given that this specific image was published only about a week ago, no such "high-quality reference works" have yet been given the opportunity to use this specific image, and so arguing about the validity of this image against that guideline from either perspective is flawed until such works published after this image are created, and we will then be able to judge which image — 2025 or 2017 — that they choose to use to represent Donald Trump. DecafPotato (talk) 01:29, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
Support reverting to 2017 image - mostly due to the better lighting in the 2017 portrait. It is also a less politicized image. (Oinkers42) (talk) 16:20, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

Changing the section header for 2021-2025 to "Inter-presidency (2021-2025)"

I think that this would be simpler than "first post-presidency" or "between presidential terms". WorldMappings (talk) 15:32, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Slightly Oppose only on the basis that the standard set by Gover Cleveland's page should be followed through on here. When his term ends, I think having it labeled "second post-presidency" would be better (I'm also not sure his second post-presidency will be very long nor very impactful, but that's just a matter of opinion and not too relevant). Twinbros04 (talk) 16:21, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
Oppose as said above, follow Grover Cleveland page and use second post-presidency after this one. Ktkvtsh (talk) 23:00, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
Comment - I'd rather "Out of office (2021–2025)". - GoodDay (talk) 23:19, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
  • Egads no. That comes across like we're characterizing 2021 to 2025 as an interregnum, that Trump somehow rightfully deserved two terms but was interrupted. Zaathras (talk) 01:08, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
    I’m not sure that follows. In studying Trump, it is simply a description of the sequence of events. It would obviously be out of place in a broader history of the US, or on an election page. Riposte97 (talk) 01:38, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
Oppose; I feel like labeling 2021-2025 as the "inter-presidency" implies that it was a planned break rather than an unsuccessful reelection, and that he was entitled to have another administration. I think for neutrality's sake we keep it as "between presidencies", as was done with Grover Cleveland. Tantomile (talk) 03:25, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
With all due respect, I don't see how inter-presidency implies such. To me at least, it's just the time between Trump's two non-consecutive presidencies. WorldMappings (talk) 15:01, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
Oppose. As Tantomile said, it sounds as if it was one presidency with an intermission. The current heading "Between presidencies" is the best option, short and to the point. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 15:19, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

“Inaugural” vs “official” portrait

I think the infobox picture should say “inaugural” rather than “official” portrait. AFAIK—correct me if I’m wrong—nobody in the administration has confirmed if the inaugural portrait will also be the official one (as happened in Obama’s first term). Biden and Harris also had inaugural portraits that did not become the officials. Dingers5Days (talk) 16:40, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Support WorldMappings (talk) 16:49, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
It's on his White House page. I believe that's the definition of "official". ―Mandruss ☎ 16:50, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
There was an attempt to change the caption to "Official inaugural portrait, 2025" per the Description on the image's file page, but that was reverted. ―Mandruss ☎ 16:54, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
Agree. According to Wikimedia According to the description at Wikimedia, it's the "Official Inaugural Portrait of Donald Trump" from the "Official 2025 Inauguration Invite". But good luck trying to add that. I did, and here's what happened. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 16:55, 21 January 2025 (UTC) Space4TCatHerder🖖 10:35, 23 January 2025 (UTC) Sorry, should have struck and replaced the piped link. Space4TCatHerder🖖 10:35, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
According to Wikimedia - Could be wrong, but I don't think MediaGuy768 equates to Wikimedia. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:34, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 14:11, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
Exactly, I feel like the evidence is not clear enough yet to call the portrait his official one. (Discuss 0nshore's contributions!!!) 18:16, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
It is the official portrait until the White House states that it isn't. Trying to qualify it as "not really official" or "just the inaugural portrait" seem to be based on feelings and not facts. Zaathras (talk) 22:50, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
"Seem to be based" — was there a statement declaring the image to be the official portrait? It doesn't have a caption on the WH page where it's sitting next to a few lies about landslide victories and extremist policies of the radical left. We couldn't keep the official Fulton County Jail "portrait" because of WP policies, so now we have an official, even if somewhat airbrushed, imitation, so yay. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 14:34, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
There doesn't need to be an explicit statement. The White House releasing a portrait in this manner makes it de facto "official." This is a dumb hill to fight over. Zaathras (talk) 01:31, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
The BBC describes it as his official portrait, explicitly, rather than his inaugural one. The BBC probably would not make this claim and make it the basis of an article if they hadn't rigorously verified it. The wording in the article also shows that they believe it to be "official", contrasting it with the October 2017 portrait: "The portraits were released by the Trump transition team just days before Trump and Vance's inauguration on 20 January. The official portraits of Trump and his former Vice-President Mike Pence were not released until nine months after they were both sworn in." Tim O'Doherty (talk) 22:53, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
Sounds sufficient per WP. Thanks for linking this. Dingers5Days (talk) 02:38, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
This is not the official portrait clicked or shot by the White House. It is just the portrait clicked by Trump's campaign team and Inaugural committee. The new portrait might be taken soon and released through the website and social media platforms of the President of the United States and the White House. In another news from BBC page, it shows that it is the portrait of President-elect and not of the President. Please see it - https://www.bbc.com/culture/article/20250120-donald-trumps-official-portrait-the-17th-century-painting-that-unlocks-this-mysterious-image . So I don't think to keep the new portrait right now. I propose to keep the old portrait of 2017 until a new portrait is issued. VNC200 (talk) 15:36, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
Strangely the BBC seem to have written several articles on this image. Here it is also explicitly compared to other official portraits, such as this one of Bush the Younger. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 15:47, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
Another article from The Guardian also shows that this is the portrait issued by Trump-Vance inaugural committee and not by the White House. Please look into it - https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2025/jan/16/donald-trump-jd-vance-official-portrait . Change it in old format. VNC200 (talk) 17:17, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
You can argue that this portrait is not used by the White House, though the White House would beg to differ. DecafPotato (talk) 01:31, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

Local policies and guidelines, e.g. Consensus item #61

I noticed there was a discussion regarding Consensus item #61. Misplaced Pages has policies and guidelines regarding editor behavior. If editors here think these should be more restrictive, for example suppressing some discussions that don't violate them, it seems that those editors should take their case to the policy or guideline talk page instead of making their own local policies and guidelines. Such a restrictive local policy or guideline might be considered contrary to the guideline Misplaced Pages:Disruptive editing, "Disruptive editing is a pattern of editing that disrupts progress toward improving an article or building the encyclopedia." Criticism of an article is part of the process of making progress towards improving it. One can take it or leave it. It seems improper to restrict criticism that doesn't violate Misplaced Pages policies or guidelines. If it is thought that such criticism should be suppressed, then one should try to incorporate that into the appropriate Misplaced Pages policy or guideline. On the other hand, if such discussions do violate a Misplaced Pages policy or guideline, then stating so in the consensus item would legitimize it. I would appreciate your thoughts. Regards, Bob K31416 (talk) 19:42, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Consensus 61 was a solution to the ongoing problem of bias complaints from readers who knew nothing about Misplaced Pages content policy. Problems effectively addressed by #61 included:
  • The very significant amount of editor time consumed, time that editors could have spent improving the article.
  • Inconsistent, always incomplete, often disrespectful, sometimes just plain incorrect responses attempting to explain policy, now replaced by WP:TRUMPRCB.
As for PAGs and our authority to do this:
  • Why has no admin ever commented about that? Why has this issue never gone to WP:AE?
  • There is no Misplaced Pages policy prohibiting #61. Therefore it was within our discretion to do it. We used that discretion. It's called innovation.
AFAIK, most editors agree it has achieved its goals; at least I've heard positive feedback from a number of editors and negative feedback from none except you. I propose we not turn back the clock to that more primitive day. The consensus 61 discussion is at Talk:Donald Trump/Archive 155#Handling bias complaints for your review. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:05, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
Misplaced Pages has policies and guidelines regarding editor behavior. Are you suggesting that WP:TPO should anticipate the problem we were facing and explicitly authorize immediate closure of bias complaints from readers who don't understand Misplaced Pages content policy, provided they are provided explanation on a separate page? I don't think that's a reasonable expectation. Regardless, if necessary I have no problem invoking WP:IAR in this case: "If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Misplaced Pages, ignore it." ―Mandruss ☎ 20:36, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
I suspect you still believe, after all these years, that general discussion about bias at this article is a legitimate use of this page. It still is not; it still violates at least the spirit of WP:NOTFORUM. I believe I recall that you have been asked multiple times in the past to go to Village Pump to ask whether your belief is correct, and you have yet to do so. Refusal to do that is practically an admission that you know you're wrong. If you went to VP, they would tell you you're wrong, that would be on the record in the VP archive, and you would have to cease bringing this up periodically. You need to go get a community answer or stop flogging that horse carcass. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:23, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
One has to wonder how many times over the years this user has posted something of this nature, and how many times has it led to a course change. As some point, the complaining itself becomes tendentious. Zaathras (talk) 22:47, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
~8 and 0. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:05, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
I don't think anyone can argue that the article isn't at least a little bit slanted. Is there some way we can address that here, rather than in a grand Wiki-wide project? I see it as one of the most fundamental issues with this article, which is consistently one of the highest-traffic on the site. One suggestion could be that we agree not to blanket-ban deprecated right-leaning sources. Riposte97 (talk) 03:37, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
@Riposte97: How about a new subpage of this page for that purpose? Then advertise it here a la a normal discussion notice (just a heading and a wikilink), with the possibility of pinning if you don't get enough participation in 6 days. ―Mandruss ☎ 03:45, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
And I've already offered my UTP for that purpose, but I don't know how its 172 watchers would feel about that. ―Mandruss ☎ 06:04, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
I don't think anyone can argue that the article isn't at least a little bit slanted which just brings us back to the oft-quoted "Reality has a well-known liberal bias." The Misplaced Pages follows the sources, if you don't like that then go take that up with reality. Zaathras (talk) 14:26, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
I wouldn't go that far. ―Mandruss ☎ 14:29, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
Was thinking exactly the same thing earlier today, but it sets a terrible precedent and could do more damage to the encyclopaedia as these were deprecated for good reasons. It’d be good to balance the narratives from the two sides though, just not use them for facts. It’s worth exploring Kowal2701 (talk) 20:07, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
I perhaps should have been more precise, and referred to sources labelled 'biased'. I have noticed that in the past at this page, some right-leaning sources are dismissed out of hand as being biased (based sometimes on rather flimsy reasoning at RSN). They are routinely removed. However, the article is riven with left-leaning sources that are arguably equally biased. A good example is provided by Rollinginhisgrave below. That is definitely something we can address with sufficient attention.

Mandruss, thanks for the suggestion. I don't mind it. To be clear, is it to workshop alternative wording at a subpage, or discuss structural interventions? Riposte97 (talk) 21:50, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
It's to keep general article bias discussions off this page (such as the recent comments in this very thread). Otherwise, whatever people think is useful. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:59, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
with the possibility of pinning if you don't get enough participation in 6 days. On second thought, the notice would need to be pinned, period. Otherwise people would be linking to the subpage in other threads anyway. It wouldn't make sense to limit awareness of the subpage to people who saw the notice in the first 6 days. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:17, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

Second nonconsecutive presidency/Grover Cleveland in the lead

was placed in the lead for the umpteenth time. Thoughts? Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 18:04, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

And, since it's a bold edit that was challenged more than once, could someone please remove it unless and until there's a consensus to add it? I've used up my 3RR for the day. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 18:06, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
 Done – Muboshgu (talk) 18:18, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
Support continuing to omit from the lead. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:54, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

Continuing discussion on bankruptcy

Responding to Space4Time3Continuum2x's comment in the now closed thread above Talk:Donald Trump#This is the most biased article in the entire Misplaced Pages

Clearly simply noting the number of bankruptcies is misleading as it is a small portion of his failed businesses. And the casino industry was not having difficulties when his three casino businesses went under. O3000, Ret. (talk) 22:02, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
Objective3000 The quoted text from the PolitiFact article contradicts this: "While six in 25 years is a lot, five were tied to a struggling gaming industry." Attaching reliable sources substantiating your comments here would be helpful. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 01:46, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
You can start here: . That's a partial list. Yes that is WP and WP is not a source, although they are linked to articles with sources. It would take a large effort to find RS for all the failures. But if you are saying five is misleading and biased against Trump; that's a Sisyphean hill to climb. O3000, Ret. (talk) 02:06, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
Oh I understand your point better. "if you are saying five is misleading and biased against Trump": I am simply saying that the opinion of a consensus of experts on this matter is DUE per the emphasis placed by PolitiFact and the demonstrated fact that this is not a minority view. Whether it should be included that stating Trump's bankruptcies misleads on his business failures is a separate point, if you would like to discuss such inclusion, opening another thread for that would be the best course to avoid further confusion. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 02:15, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
I'm saying five is misleading and biased FOR Trump. I know the majority view is the claims made by Trump. He has always maintained that he has never been bankrupt. Meaning personal bankruptcy. Point is, a business can fail without ever filing for bankruptcy, personal or corporate. What matters is the total number of failures, if you don't want to be misleading and biased. Look, doesn't matter to me and I'm not looking for a change as nobody cares at this point. Just responding to the claim that five is somehow biased against Trump as well as contradicting a bunch of other WP articles. O3000, Ret. (talk) 02:28, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
"What matters is the total number of failures, if you don't want to be misleading and biased": in your opinion. I'm not interested in a discussion detached from sourcing, although I'm supportive of including this point if you demonstrate it reflects the weight placed by reliable sources. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 02:44, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
I am responding to the original post in this thread, by you, stating that the number of bankruptcies is misleading and is biased against him. The list of business failures is DUE to the point we have 18 separate articles on them with ample RS. This is not surprising as being a businessman is what he is known for and is in the first sentence of the article. I don't see how the article is biased against him on this subject. O3000, Ret. (talk) 12:09, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
I have maintained that simply stating the number of bankruptcies without noting a consensus of expert opinion on what this means is excluding DUE content. This does not preclude that the material you are presenting is DUE, although I did click through some pages to see the sources and wasn't convinced. One page I clicked on for instance, Trump Productions, was the production company Trump produced The Apprentice media through. When Trump was fired from The Celebrity Apprentice while running for president, the business was dissolved. That's not bankruptcy. To summarize this as "business failure" is editorializing. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 14:10, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
I hate to raise whataboutism, and other stuff, but is this what we commonly do when dealing with bankrupts? Slatersteven (talk) 14:16, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
Slatersteven Hm? Could you expand? Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 14:41, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
Is this what we normally do in articles where we mention bankruptcies? or is this giving Trumpy special treatment? Slatersteven (talk) 14:43, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
Maybe it would be best to establish whether you agree/disagree that the source establishes DUE weight for the information's inclusion before we address this point, although I'm not ignoring it. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 15:15, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
How are his bankruptcies not due as he is a noted business person? Slatersteven (talk) 15:25, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
Yes, a discussion of his bankruptcies is certainly DUE, the question is on a PolitiFact article which was fact-checking a comment on an unusually high number of Trump businesses going bankrupt. The article says that emphasizing the large number of Trump business bankruptcies without giving context is misleading: Experts told us during the primary season Trump alone didn’t cause the bankruptcies. While six in 25 years is a lot, five were tied to a struggling gaming industry. Trump was acting, they said, as any investor would. The question is whether including this context is DUE under WP:YESPOV. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 15:33, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
No, mention of them is, again we go back to, why treat him any differently form any other bankrupt, this fails wp:undue and wp:npov as we are giving him special status. Slatersteven (talk) 15:36, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
It is like how when we mention that the economy grew under Trump, we contextualize it by opening with "Trump took office at the height of the longest economic expansion in American history". Similarly, we contextualize bankruptcies if such contextualization receives emphasis in reliable sources, per NPOV, as they do here. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 15:47, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

Rollinginhisgrave, how much do you know about Trump's business record in the late 80s/early 90s? E.g., that he owed the banks $900 million and only averted personal bankruptcy because the banks figured they'd get more money selling off his property if they kept him on as figurehead? They paid him an allowance of $450,000 a month so he could keep up his millionaire lifestyle while schmoozing prospective buyers. And, as O3000 pointed out, the casino industry wasn't in trouble at the time, before the advent of the internet with online gambling and sports betting. I bet the people coming here complaining of bias know and believe only what they've heard from Trump, his allies, and right-wing media. Space4TCatHerder🖖 15:15, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

That material being DUE doesn't preclude this material also being DUE. O3000 has said the casino industry wasn't struggling, which I am interested in getting a source for considering it conflicts with "Experts told us during the primary season Trump alone didn’t cause the bankruptcies. While six in 25 years is a lot, five were tied to a struggling gaming industry." Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 15:21, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
There's more information about the individual bankruptcies leading to his close scrape with personal insolvency in Manhattan developments and Atlantic City casinos. Space4TCatHerder🖖 15:32, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
The experts were asked in 2016. They may have been thinking about this, after the arrival of the internet competition. Trump bought the Plaza Hotel entirely with bank loans, couldn't make the payments; built a casino next door to his other casino, becoming his own competition; gave credit to patrons to gamble with the casino's money — all less than savvy business decisions. This has been documented going all the way back to Wayne Barrett's 1992 book Trump: The Deals and the Downfall. I'm also pretty sure that I've read sources about casinos being moneymakers for everyone except Trump; I'll start looking for them. Here's a source about the Atlantic City boom in the 80s and 90s and the bust not just from internet gambling but also from Native American casinos on tribal lands. Space4TCatHerder🖖 16:07, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
Thanks for these, I'll have a read in a bit and come back to you. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 16:09, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
I had a read of this, although I think you attached the wrong URL for the second source, which I imagine is more relevant. I hope you can attach it. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 05:51, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

No reasonable reason has been given as to why we need to treat Trumpy as a special case as such all we need to do is mention the bankruptcies, if readers want to know how bankruptcies work, they can read the article about it. So my last comment is a firm, no. Slatersteven (talk) 15:38, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

Could you say why you think this is about explaining how bankruptcies work, rather than contextualising the economic context of these bankruptcies? Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 15:41, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

Are these cited sources opinions?

Space4Time3Continuum2x The two sources I flagged there for opinion were:

  • How Donald Trump Evolved From a Joke to an Almost Serious Candidate verifying "His campaign was initially not taken seriously by political analysts"
    • Described at WP:RSP as "Most editors consider The New Republic biased or opinionated. Opinions in the magazine should be attributed." The article was an opinion piece by a non-subject matter expert, in a source flagged for bias and unattributed. Hence I tagged it as insufficient for verifying the claim.
  • Donald Trump is waging war on political correctness. And he’s losing. verifying " frequently made claims of media bias."
    • Analysis by Chris Cillizza, whose analysis has received a mixed reception. It is unattributed, and on a WP:NEWSBLOG hosted by the Washington Post, without apparent editorial control. You may assess this as sufficiently reliable, but I think an argument can be made for it being insufficiently reliable so as to warrant being tagged, and the source being replaced with one without such concerns.

The opinion at hand: cescribed in non-opinion reporting by a third party, in a reliable source with substantially less bias concerns (and what bias issues have been raised should mean the article should be biased against Trump), multiple subject-matter experts are surveyed, and a consensus is reported, that simply presenting the number of bankruptcies misleads readers about Trump's incompetency. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 18:11, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

I have a headache and Jim Beam, signing off for today. I'll get to this tomorrow. Space4Tcatherder🖖 18:25, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
No worries, enjoy your evening, I hope you feel better with rest. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 18:29, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
Apologies, I have gotten PolitiFact and Politico mixed. The only difference I can see this making is that WP:RSP does not flag any concerns of bias for PolitiFact that it does for Politico. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 01:46, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

The articles you flagged are not opinion pieces.

  • The New Republic article by Reeve, a reputable journalist, is the source for this sentence: His campaign was initially not taken seriously by political analysts, but he quickly rose to the top of opinion polls. She cites other journalists and polls, and the piece is an article, not an opinion. Misplaced Pages:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources says that There is consensus that The New Republic is generally reliable.
  • The Fix, Washington Post. May have been something different when Cilizza was writing it but it's currently a section where Aaron Blake (the third source you flagged in that section) and Philip Bump write in-depth analyses.
Thanks for this writeup. I'll leave a note here of my thoughts and hand it over to you, untagging sources if you still disagree with my readings. The New Republic does not distinguish opinion vs reporting. In the most charitable reading of the article, it is not "an article, not an opinion" but a mix of the two, seen clearly for example in "Somewhere inside the egomaniac who stamps his name on buildings all over the world is a man who doesn't want to be seen." This is straightforward opining, not reporting. It is unclear in the piece whether some claims, such as his campaign not being taken seriously by political analysts are opinion or reporting, even if the author provides some evidence for their claims, as almost all opinion piece writers do. In light of such ambiguity, at minimum attribution is required, and the source is insufficient for the claim to be put in wikivoice.
Your notes on Blake and Bump are compelling; The Fix seems to have moved to another site to host analysis in the Washington Post, rather than functioning as a NEWSBLOG where opinions are published. I strongly disagree however with your characterization of the Cilizza piece: that he is commenting on a scientific study does not make it all of a sudden reportage rather than opinion. Reading the piece, it's very obvious it is opinion piece blogpost published on the study. It is not a reliable source for accurately, objectively describing the contents of the study into wikivoice, just as I would not cite other blogs such as Slow Boring or Common Sense to summarise the conclusions of studies. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 00:15, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

Format of Second presidency early actions

Donald Trump#Second presidency early actions

Does anyone else think a 171-word sentence is a bit excessive? I'd favor a bulleted list in this case, which I think would be better than sentence-splitting. Let us ignore specific content details here; this is about format.

Upon taking office, Trump:

―Mandruss ☎ 21:39, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

I think a bulleted list would look very bad, but everything certainly doesn't need to be one sentence. How about this:
Upon taking office, Trump a series of executive orders that froze new regulations, froze hiring of non-military federal workers, barred federal involvement in criminal investigations of political adversaries, prevented federal censorship of free speech, rolled back transgender rights and recognition of any genders outside male and female, and founded the Department of Government Efficiency. In foreign policy, he reversed the withdrawal of Cuba's designation as a state sponsor of terror, designated Mexican drug cartels as foreign terrorist organizations, reversed sanctions on Israeli settlers, and withdrew the U.S. from the World Health Organization and Paris Agreement. He also issued a mass pardon of approximately 1,500 January 6 rioters, granted Ross Ulbricht a full and unconditional pardon. Relating to immigration, he declared a national emergency on the southern border that would trigger the deployment of armed forces and attempted to end birthright citizenship for new children of undocumented immigrants. Furthermore, he granted TikTok a 75-day pause before it would be banned, and ordered the Gulf of Mexico to be renamed to the Gulf of America, and ordered the name of Denali to be reverted to Mount McKinley.
Is that better? DecafPotato (talk) 22:42, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
I think a bulleted list would look very bad Change that last word to "good", and we're in full agreement. Far more readable. As I said, better than sentence-splitting. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:10, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
A list is more easily understood. You've made the case, and MOS backs you up (despite MOS:LIST mostly trying to talk editors out of this).

Prefer prose where a passage is understood easily as regular text that appears in its ordinary form...

Articles are intended to consist primarily of prose, though they may contain some lists.

-SusanLesch (talk) 00:13, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
As time goes on the whole mention of individual orders will get folded into more relevant sections. The deployment of armed forces and designation of cartels as terrorist organizations will likely be briefly mentioned in a section on immigration; Ross Ulbricht and the J6 pardons will be mentioned in the second term's equivalent of the "pardons and commutations" section of the first presidency; sanctions on Israeli settlers will get folded into the section on Israel. We should look at what was written in the "early actions" section of the first presidency to get a better idea of how to structure this one. I believe I read a source that said the amount of executive orders he issued was "unparalleled" in modern American history, so a statement like that will probably cover most of the entire sentence-paragraph that is there right now. We don't want the page to become the entire second presidency of Donald Trump page. BootsED (talk) 01:47, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
I don't see how an article made entirely of prose getting a 16-page bulleted list of one-sentence items in the middle of its content (for something that, for his first presidency, was written just fine in prose) wouldn't be jarring to the reader. Splitting it into multiple paragraphs, cutting out lower-notability items for better WP:SUMSTYLE, or moving actions into their relevant sub-sections (which, as BootsED said, will likely happen naturally over time anyways), would all be preferable alternatives to a list of any kind. DecafPotato (talk) 01:51, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
(for something that, for his first presidency, was written just fine in prose) - First presidency: 79 words and 7 or 8 items, depending on whether you count Ivanka and Jared as one item or two. Second presidency: 171 words and 17 items—so far. Hardly equivalent, so it could easily be written just fine in prose for first presidency while not being written just fine in prose for second presidency. That said, if we felt it important for them to be consistent, there would be nothing preventing us from using bulleted list for first presidency as well.I suspect it's not a matter of being less selective this time, but more that he's more active out of the gate this time.The bulleted list makes it far easier to parse the items: one line per item. That's the purpose of lists. You could say we've done the parsing for them.Hey, I recognize you now. You're the editor who thought it would be optimal to make the article's first paragraph one 39-word sentence—demonstrating very little understanding of good writing. A dead professional writer would spin in his grave.
This user is not a prose nazi and sees no problem with a list or a table being on an article.


―Mandruss ☎ 11:04, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

Content of Second presidency early actions

Trump signing stuff — at least this time around we weren't subjected to pictures of the cabinet surrounding the Resolute desk, proudly beaming at Baby proudly wielding the Sharpie. How about we just write "signed of Executive Orders" on his first day or first days and whatever else he did? For instance, he took time out of his busy signing schedule to order the Pentagon to remove Gen. Milley's portrait from the Pentagon gallery displaying the portraits of all former Chairmen of the Joint Chiefs of Staff (kidding! — no response required); waiting for him to order the Air Force to paint the Air Force Ones in the Trump colors which his 2020 loss prevented. Let's see what they actually do about any of them. Space4TCatHerder🖖 17:07, 23 January 2025 (UTC)Space4TCatHerder🖖 17:01, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
Sorry that my proposal to add nine words to a 30-word sentence so that the whole paragraph felt more natural to me offended you so greatly that you needed to bring it up in an entirely separate discussion. (Wow, 39 words again? How awful...) I have already moved the information about Israeli settler sanctions to the "Israel" section. As more sections open up, we can continue to do the same. I suspect there is already enough information for an "immigration" section, as well as a "pardons and commutations" section. Then we just need to trim what is left a little bit. Barring "federal involvement in criminal investigations of political adversaries" and preventing "federal censorship of free speech" are glorified press releases with zero effect on actual policy. They can be removed. That means we are left with only this:
Upon taking office, Trump signed a series of executive orders. He withdrew the U.S. from the World Health Organizationand Paris Agreement, rolled back recognition of gender identity, froze new regulations and hiring of non-military federal workers, founded the Department of Government Efficiency, and delayed the TikTok ban by 75 days. He also reversed the proposed withdrawal of Cuba's designation as a state sponsor of terror and designated Mexican drug cartels as foreign terrorist organizations. He also renamed Denali back to "Mount McKinley" and the Gulf of Mexico to the "Gulf of America."
I do not see how the above it as all long enough to warrant the insertion of a bulleted list that breaks up prose. And yes, I do believe in cross-term consistency — though it is not my main argument here. But even in that case, I think it is clear that making a list out of the first term's actions is woefully unwarranted due to its short length. DecafPotato (talk) 20:45, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
P.S. To explain my comment. NBC absurdly broke in yesterday with a breaking news bulletin announcing an action taken two days earlier. (They rolled over important local coverage of our dysfunctional state legislature.) -SusanLesch (talk) 14:46, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
Flooding the zone with shit so the media and people won't be talking about groceries and gas not having gotten cheaper and that Republicans in Congress are debating cutting Medicaid to pay for Trump's next massive tax cut for the rich. Space4TCatHerder🖖 18:17, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
DecafPotato, that won't do. You skipped over half the first two days (you missed, e.g., birthright citizenship, DEI layoffs, emergency at the southern border). Also, minimized prose dodges Trump's strategy (aimed at a made-for-TV splash). -SusanLesch (talk) 23:38, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
Birthright citizenship, emergency at the southern border, etc., is what I was referring to when I said I suspect there is already enough information for an "immigration" section that would contain that information separate from the "Early actions" section. And I'm not sure what you mean when you say minimized prose dodges Trump's strategy — would you mind elaborating on that? DecafPotato (talk) 00:04, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
Agree most of the above should be mentioned, this edit whitewashes his actions with a couple deemed "notable" by controversy, and categorises the rest as merely a "shock and awe campaign", which in itself fails WP:NEWSOPED—a running theme throughout this article. His initial executive actions should be presented neutrally, as they were before. The list was already trimmed to the more notable ones. MB2437 00:49, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
I shortened the section to simply state that Trump issued a large number of EO's and mentioned the two ones that got the most media attention: the January 6 pardons and the attempt to nullify part of the Constitution by revoking birthright citizenship. The other EO's should be mentioned where appropriate in other sections on immigration, trade, and ecetera. He is issuing roughly a dozen EO's a day, so we can't simply list them all. Please don't accuse me of whitewashing and AGF. The sources I provided were not op-eds, so WP:NEWSOPED does not apply here. BootsED (talk) 00:53, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
It was not a list of them all, it was a trimmed version to what was widely covered by the media. One source opining that it was a "shock and awe campaign" does not satisfy NEWSOPED, which does not exclusively apply to opinion editorials: editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces. Users seem to consistently disregard this throughout this article, often claiming that if a reliable source gives an opinion, it can be stated as encyclopaedic fact.
I agree that the January 6 pardons and birthright citizenship challenges should be expanded upon to satisfy due weight, but that does not excuse covering up the rest of his significant EOs. MB2437 01:01, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
Surely, DecafPotato. Trump executed a belligerent effort on inauguration day, partly on a staged set. Your minimal paragraph minimizes that effort. Sorry, Boots, so does reducing it to "a series" of orders. -SusanLesch (talk) 01:07, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
Once some more time has passed, I'd like to state how many orders Trump passed in order to quantify the large amount. He's still passing them every day like candy, so I think calling them "a series" or "a large series" or something of that nature is warranted. The description of it as a "shock and awe" campaign, I believe, aids that description of a large, sudden, and "belligerent effort" as you say. Again, many of these EO's will be put in more appropriate sections as time goes on. I don't want this page to become a massive list and have endless arguments over what is and isn't important to mention in the long run. BootsED (talk) 01:19, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
It is not one source, both sources say so. Notice I say described as a shock and awe campaign.
  • Barron's: "President Donald Trump's first day back on the job began with what has been dubbed a shock and awe campaign, a burst of dozens of executive orders meant to jump-start his political and economic strategies."
  • WaPo: ""It's kind of an executive-order shock-and-awe campaign," said Matthew Dallek, a political historian at George Washington University. "The shock and awe is to send a message to his critics and most importantly to his voters, his supporters, that he’s back, and that he is going to try to deliver on his campaign promises, and he’s going to do it aggressively.""
  • The Hill: "President Trump promised shock and awe when he was elected, and his Inauguration Day at times felt like an effort to overwhelm his critics, his opponents and a media trying to keep up."
  • Fox News: In his inauguration address, the new president vowed that things across the country would "change starting today, and it will change very quickly." And moments later, White House deputy chief of staff Taylor Budowich took to social media to tease, "Now, comes SHOCK AND AWE." They weren't kidding.
  • The Associated Press: "Democrats struggle to pick their message against Trump’s shock-and-awe campaign"
  • Salon "President Donald Trump's transition team and outside allies have been signaling for weeks that they were planning to "flood the zone" in the first 100 days of the new administration. Former senior adviser and activist Steve Bannon had pushed this idea during Trump's first term, telling author and journalist Michael Lewis that "the Democrats don’t matter. The real opposition is the media. And the way to deal with them is to flood the zone with s**t.” He called it "shock and awe," which was described by historian Douglas Brinkley as "bizarre, rapid-fire presidential policy making.""
  • Vox: Trump’s “shock and awe” approach to executive orders, explained
So yes, there are many sources that are not exclusively op-eds that call it a shock and awe campaign. I don't want to list each and every one. BootsED (talk) 01:14, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
It is still not appropriate to replace the entire list with such a description. The list can be concluded with "His first-day orders were widely described as a shock-and-awe campaign", or similar. Again, the list before is not whole; it was already trimmed to the notable pieces of legislature. MB2437 01:17, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
But why even bother with listing every executive order? That's what the link to List of executive orders in the second presidency of Donald Trump is for. This page is about Donald Trump in general. We don't want massive lists of intricate detail in what is a biography. Per summary style, the extensive detail and list there currently should (and already is) be on appropriate child articles relating to his second presidency. The important thing to summarize is that there were a lot, and they were issued quickly in a shock and awe campaign. BootsED (talk) 01:23, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
Again, it was already a summary of the most notable pieces of legislature... not a list of every executive order. There was no intricate detail, only a concise list of 14 presented neutrally:
Upon taking office, Trump signed a series of executive orders that withdrew the U.S. from the World Health Organization and Paris Agreement, rolled back recognition of gender identity, froze new regulations, froze hiring of non-military federal workers, founded the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), barred federal involvement in criminal investigations of political adversaries, further prevented federal censorship of free speech, reversed the proposed withdrawal of Cuba's designation as a state sponsor of terror, issued a mass pardon of approximately 1,500 January 6 rioters, designated Mexican drug cartels as foreign terrorist organizations, attempted to end birthright citizenship for new children of undocumented immigrants, renamed Denali back to "Mount McKinley" and the Gulf of Mexico to the "Gulf of America", delayed the TikTok ban by 75 days, and declared a national emergency on the southern border that triggered the deployment of armed forces. On January 21, Trump granted Ross Ulbricht a full and unconditional pardon.
I'd say 153 words summarising his entire span of initial actions is fairly well done. MB2437 01:28, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
Those were all executive orders. None of them were pieces of legislation.
And that was just his first day. If we want to summarize all his EO's, why not also include his massive list of second and third day EO's as well? What makes his actions about renaming a mountain just as worthy of a mention as attempting to nullify part of the Constitution? This page is already massive. BootsED (talk) 01:55, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
Sources

  1. "Trump signs executive order directing US withdrawal from the Paris climate agreement — again". AP News. 2025-01-20. Retrieved 2025-01-21.
  2. "Trump rolls back trans and gender-identity rights and takes aim at DEI". The Guardian. Retrieved 21 January 2025.
  3. "Trump commutes sentences of Jan. 6 extremist group leaders; Tarrio gets pardon". thehill.com. The Hill. Retrieved 21 January 2025.
  4. "Trump pardons roughly 1,500 criminal defendants charged in the Jan. 6 Capitol attack". NBC News. 2025-01-21. Retrieved 2025-01-21.
  5. ^ Office of the Press Secretary (January 20, 2025). "Restoring Names That Honor American Greatness". whitehouse.gov. Retrieved January 20, 2025 – via National Archives.
  6. "Trump signs slew of executive actions after being sworn in". CNN. Retrieved 21 January 2025.
  7. "Trump signs the first executive orders of his new administration". NBC News. Retrieved 21 January 2025.
  8. Doherty, Brian (2025-01-22). "President Donald Trump pardons Silk Road founder Ross Ulbricht". Reason.com. Retrieved 2025-01-22.

Duplicate section headings

MOS:HEAD says section headings need to be unique. Just for starters, section links in the page history and contribs should be reliable. There is currently no way to link to "Foreign policy" under "Second presidency"; try this and see: Donald Trump#Foreign policy.

I already "disambiguated" "Early actions", but the following remain and this list is sure to grow. Foreign policy, Trade, Middle East, Israel. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:25, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

It's either "First presidency foreign policy" and "Second presidency foreign policy", or "Foreign policy 1" and "Foreign policy 2". Et cetera. I see no other alternative. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:30, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

The software automatically appends "_2" to the link, which is not visible as the heading appears in the article. So to get to the Foreign policy section in the second presidency, one can use Donald Trump#Foreign policy_2 without renaming the heading. Did you check history and contribs to see if it goes to the right place? Regards, Bob K31416 (talk) 22:24, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
I did not know that; Fun Facts to Know and Tell. Unfortunately, the page history doesn't know that trick. Very likely same for contribs. And then there's the other 99% of editors who don't know the trick (it took me 11.5 years to learn about it), so will be unable to make use of it on talk pages or in articles. Not viable in my opinion. And then there's that pesky MOS:HEAD thing. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:21, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
The section heading appended to the edit summary is the name of the section as it appears on the page. In other words, if this was the second section named "Duplicate section headings" on this talk page, my edit summary would link to the other one, even though I clicked edit next to this one. Whether that's enough to change the headers to be unique or not... I don't know. Part of me says that we shouldn't have to have unique subsection headings just for internal use (edit summaries). The other part of me thinks that it's beneficial, especially given this page is so long that it can take minutes to load edits/edit previews for some users if they don't edit the section itself... -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 03:26, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
Part of me says that we shouldn't have to have unique subsection headings just for internal use (edit summaries). That's very debatable, but at a minimum it must be possible to link to second presidency sections in articles. ―Mandruss ☎ 03:42, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
As Bob stated above, it technically is possible to do so, but it's not easy and it's not really intuitive unless you already know how to do that. Hence why I'm not opposed to just making the headings unique. I'm just not sure it's policy mandated to do so. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 03:45, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
I don't claim it's policy mandated, just that it's necessary. Policy doesn't anticipate nonconsecutive terms. ―Mandruss ☎ 03:47, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
Ah, yep, I agree with you there that it is ideal. I'm just not sure it's really necessary. It's possible to link to the sections from other pages (or this page) via the method Bob identified. It's also possible to use {{anchor}} to create anchors without changing the headings to be unique, which would allow easier linking to them from other pages. So I'm not sure unique section headings is necessary or even the best way. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 03:55, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
Fair enough, that's the purpose of this discussion. Sometimes an issue doesn't get enough attention until one changes the article. So I did. ―Mandruss ☎ 03:58, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
Yeah, if they can be unique without it being awkward, I definitely support that. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 04:00, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
Lol. I don't think that's possible; see below. ―Mandruss ☎ 04:02, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
Part of me says that we shouldn't have to have unique subsection headings just for internal use (edit summaries) BTW, it's not edit summaries that are the issue. It's the clickable section links in the page history and contribs pages. Surely you knew they were clickable, so maybe you misspoke. ―Mandruss ☎ 09:44, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
I understand it's going to end up looking pretty ridiculous with so much "First presidency" and "Second presidency" repetition in section headings. It's just better than any alternative. ―Mandruss ☎ 03:54, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
Technically, we could reduce that problem by qualifying only the second presidency sections that duplicate first presidency sections; i.e., leaving the first presidency sections alone. So we'd have Donald Trump#Foreign policy and Donald Trump#Second presidency foreign policy. Not sure that's a good idea, either. ―Mandruss ☎ 04:25, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

Residences listings

Per the documentation for {{Infobox officeholder}}, the |residence= parameter should be limited to "residences that come with the office", ie only the White House. Propose re-removing the rest. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:56, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

I have no problem with BOLD edits to conform with guidelines (template docs are the equivalent of guidelines in my book). If you get challenged by reversion, then you can come here for consensus if you think it's important enough to do so. ―Mandruss ☎ 04:18, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
re-removing I guess I missed that word the first time around. So I take it you have removed it before and somebody put it back, so you're coming here for consensus to make your edit stick. I hereby support removal per the template doc. ―Mandruss ☎ 10:57, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

Trump portrait caption

Per the date of which the portrait was first published, it's probably not the official portrait, Usually, it takes 3-8 months for a portrait of a president to be finalized after its inaguration, so should it be 'inagural' or simply official? 🗽Freedoxm🗽(talk • contribs) 06:50, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

Trump breaks norms. There is no reason to assume there will be another portrait. There's also no reason to assume there won't. And it looks like he decides what's "official". The issue of the image is very much up in the air at this point; until it's resolved, I suggest we not fret about the caption. Hell, I wouldn't object if somebody removed it for now (but I'm just one guy and I don't run the place, unfortunately). ―Mandruss ☎ 08:17, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
Anyway, I'm a bit confused by your comment. If you think it's probably not the official portrait, why would it make sense for it to say simply official? ―Mandruss ☎ 07:36, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

2nd president to serve nonconsecutive terms

There's been some back and forth over whether to include this in the lead. Are we going to mention his impressive feat of only being the 2nd pres to serve nonconsecutive terms in 250 years since this country was founded or are we going to ignore it because we all hate him? --FMSky (talk) 09:40, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

Impressive feat that he couldn't complete two terms without getting voted out? are we going to ignore it because we all hate him? See WP:AGF. ―Mandruss ☎ 09:44, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
I dont get the first part, what do you mean by getting voted out? --FMSky (talk) 09:47, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
Didn't you hear? He lost the 2020 election. It was in all the papers! ―Mandruss ☎ 09:48, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
?? Yeah obviously. But thats even more impressive that he got back in, thats not exactly common --FMSky (talk) 09:49, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
So they cancel each other in terms of impressiveness, making it a wash. An interesting factoid worthy of inclusion in the body. ―Mandruss ☎ 09:53, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
But its considered the most important fact about Grover Cleveland and the only thing everyone ever talks about when it comes to him --FMSky (talk) 09:54, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
As Trump would tell you, being #2 is nothing to crow about. ―Mandruss ☎ 09:56, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
This might actually be true lmao --FMSky (talk) 09:57, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
Oh it's definitely true he's not satisfied with anything less than #1. I don't know how he sleeps at night being only the 1,438th wealthiest person in the world. My comment was mostly in jest. More seriously, as has been said before on this page, the second of anything is far less noteworthy than the first. ―Mandruss ☎ 10:01, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

According to Grover Cleveland, which is a Featured article, Cleveland has been praised more recently for honesty, integrity, adherence to his morals, defying party boundaries, and effective leadership. Wouldn't it be wonderful if reliable sources said the same about Trump? Cullen328 (talk) 10:03, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

Cullen328 if reliable sources say that about Cleveland, they're not in the article. The claim is unsourced, added without a source by an editor who has been flagged many times (e.g. ) for adding unsourced/false information. 10:14, 23 January 2025 (UTC) Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 10:14, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
Rolling don't miss much. ;) ―Mandruss ☎ 10:21, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
self-hat comment on Cleveland
Check out the last paragraph of Cleveland's article. Date-raped (allegedly) a woman. She had his baby. He had the baby placed in an orphanage and paid for his stay. He had the mother admitted to an insane asylum which released her five days later, finding her not insane. He then supported her financially. And the paragraph in the featured article ends on this odd note: Although lacking irrefutable evidence that Cleveland was the father, the child became a campaign issue for the Republican Party in Cleveland's first presidential campaign, where they smeared him by claiming that he was "immoral" and for allegedly acting cruelly by not raising the child himself. Considering Cleveland was a Democrat, I kind of figure that the Republican Party made the child a campaign issue for the other party, and I assume "smear" and "allegedly" acting cruelly for dumping the kid in an orphanage is due to someone's notion of NPOV. Featured article ... Space4TCatHerder🖖 11:14, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

FMSky, I had started a discussion before you brought this here, and Nikkimaria already responded there. Muboshgu made their support for exclusion clear with this revert. Space4TCatHerder🖖 10:51, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

Too much shit going on all at once. Almost need a consensus item. ―Mandruss ☎ 10:59, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
The connection to Cleveland is WP:TRIVIA. We do not have the space in this already needing-to-be-trimmed article for a factoid that was barely mentioned by RS. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:42, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
If this was mentioned in the lead, we also should mention that he is the first president with a felony conviction and the oldest ever inaugurated per leads on other president pages talking about the age of the presidents and notable historical information. But some editors are very against this, so this whole thing will likely go nowhere. 19:34, 23 January 2025 (UTC) BootsED (talk) 19:34, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
Oldest ever inaugurated and only felon president are far more important to point out than Grover Cleveland. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:46, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
I presume the accomplishment will eventually be added to the lead. GoodDay (talk) 19:54, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

Wording in opening

Duplicate of #Superseding consensus #50, sentences 1 and 2. Eligible for manual archival after this time tomorrow. ―Mandruss ☎ 01:46, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

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

This seems odd “ is an American politician, media personality, and businessman who has been the 47th and current president of the United States. The “has been” I think should be who is the 47th. Tentemp (talk) 01:41, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

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

Correction for the mention of withdrawing from the World Health Organization

As I understand, Donald Trumps executive order was to state his intent to leave the WHO not expressly removing the US from the WHO immediately. This should be corrected to state this fact. Nixovel (talk) 02:10, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

I agree though I would not word it exactly as you have. I think this BBC source is telling. From the executive order: "
(d) The Secretary of State and the Director of the Office of Management and Budget shall take appropriate measures, with all practicable speed, to:
(i) pause the future transfer of any United States Government funds, support, or resources to the WHO;
(ii) recall and reassign United States Government personnel or contractors working in any capacity with the WHO". This is in practice a withdrawal or at least starting the process of withdrawing. From the BBC

"They wanted us back so badly so we'll see what happens," Trump said in the Oval Office, referring to the WHO, perhaps hinting the US might return eventually."

Maybe in light of this the idea is:
  • change Trump withdrew the U.S. from the World Health Organization and Paris Agreement.
  • to: Trump ordered the US government to stop funding and stop working with the WHO and announced the US's intention to formally leave the WHO.
Czarking0 (talk) 03:00, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
That sounds more correct Nixovel (talk) 04:20, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

References

  1. https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c391j738rm3o
Categories:
Talk:Donald Trump: Difference between revisions Add topic