Misplaced Pages

Talk:Donald Trump: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia 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 15:50, 31 May 2020 editSPECIFICO (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users35,511 edits Book content← Previous edit Latest revision as of 22:40, 11 January 2025 edit undoMandruss (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users64,359 edits Restored revision 1268846681 by Onikaburgers (talk): You missed the restTags: Twinkle Undo 
Line 1: Line 1:
{{pp-move-indef|small=yes}} {{Talk header|hide_find_sources=yes}}
{{Skip to bottom}} {{Controversial}}
{{Calm}}
{{Talk header|search=no}}
{{Round in circles}} {{Warning RS and OR}}
{{American politics AE|Consensus required=no|BRD=yes|1RR=no}}
{{tmbox
{{tmbox
|image = ]
|image = ]
|text = '''Want to add new information about Donald Trump?'''<br/>Please consider choosing the most appropriate article, for example:
|text = '''Want to add new information about Donald Trump?'''<br/>Please consider choosing the most appropriate article, for example:
{{div col}} {{div col}}
* ]
* ]
* ] * ]
* ] * ]
* ] * ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
{{div col end}} {{div col end}}
... or dozens of other places, as listed in {{t|Donald Trump series}}. Thanks! ... or dozens of other places, as listed in {{t|Donald Trump series}}. Thanks!
}} }}
{{FAQ|collapsed=no}}
{{American politics AE|Consensus required=no|BRD=yes}}
{{WikiProject banner shell|blp=yes|activepol=yes|collapsed=yes|1= {{WikiProject banner shell |class=B |blp=activepol |collapsed=yes |vital=yes |listas=Trump, Donald |1=
{{WikiProject Biography |living=Yes |class=B |a&e-work-group=Yes |a&e-priority=Mid |politician-work-group=Yes |politician-priority=Top |listas=Trump, Donald}} {{WikiProject Biography |a&e-work-group=Yes |a&e-priority=Mid |politician-work-group=Yes |politician-priority=Top}}
{{WikiProject Business |class=B |importance=Mid}} {{WikiProject Business |importance=Mid}}
{{WikiProject Donald Trump |class=B |importance=Top}} {{WikiProject Climate change|importance=High}}
{{WikiProject New York City |class=B |importance=High}} {{WikiProject Conservatism |importance=High}}
{{WikiProject Conservatism |class=B |importance=High}} {{WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography |importance=Top}}
{{WikiProject Politics |class=B |importance=High |American=Yes |American-importance=Top |political-parties=yes |political-parties-importance=High}} {{WikiProject New York City |importance=High}}
{{WikiProject Politics |importance=High |American=Yes |American-importance=Top |political-parties=yes |political-parties-importance=High}}
{{WikiProject Television |importance=Mid |american=yes}}
{{WikiProject United States |class=B |importance=Top |USTV=Yes |USTV-importance=Mid |USGov=Yes |USGov-importance=High |USPE=Yes |USPE-importance=Top |USPresidents=Yes |USPresidents-importance=High}}
{{WikiProject United States |importance=Top |USTV=Yes |USTV-importance=Mid |USGov=Yes |USGov-importance=High |USPE=Yes |USPE-importance=Top}}
{{WP1.0 |class=B |importance=High |v0.7=pass |category=socsci |b1 <!--Referencing & citations-->=yes |b2 <!--Coverage & accuracy -->=yes |b3 <!--Structure -->=yes |b4 <!--Grammar & style -->=yes |b5 <!--Supporting materials -->=yes |b6 <!--Accessibility -->=yes |B-class=pass}}
{{WikiProject United States Presidents |importance=Top |trump=yes |trump-importance=top}}
{{WikiProject University of Pennsylvania |importance=Low}}
{{WikiProject 2010s |importance=Top}}
}} }}
<!-- end wikiproject banner bundle -->
{{Banner holder | collapsed=yes | text=Readership |
{{Banner holder |text= Page history |collapsed=y |1=
{{Top25 | place = | week = ]; ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], and ], 2016; ] and ], 2017}}
{{Article history
{{Annual readership|scale=log}}
|action1=GAN
|action1date=15:43, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
|action1link=Talk:Donald Trump/Archive 1#GA Failing
|action1result=failed
|action1oldid=56507759

|action2=GAN
|action2date=17:59, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
|action2link=Talk:Donald Trump/Archive 1#GA failed
|action2result=failed
|action2oldid=107442121

|action3=GAN
|action3link=Talk:Donald Trump/GA1
|action3date= 17 September 2016
|action3result=failed
|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
|topic=Politics and government
}} }}
{{Afd-merged-from|Health of Donald Trump|Health of Donald Trump|13 June 2019}}
{{press | collapsed=yes
{{Press | collapsed=yes
|org='']'' |date=November 16, 2013 | author=Cuozzo, Steve |title=Don't Trust Anything on Misplaced Pages
|org='']'' |date=November 16, 2013 |author=Cuozzo, Steve |title=Don't Trust Anything on Misplaced Pages
|url=http://nypost.com/2013/11/16/dont-trust-anything-on-wikipedia/ |url=http://nypost.com/2013/11/16/dont-trust-anything-on-wikipedia/
|org2='']'' |date2=July 22, 2015 |author2=Popper, Ben |title2=Someone just deleted Donald Trump's entire Misplaced Pages page |org2='']'' |date2=July 22, 2015 |author2=Popper, Ben |title2=Someone just deleted Donald Trump's entire Misplaced Pages page
Line 41: Line 94:
|org4='']'' |date4=May 28, 2016 |author4=Germ, Erik |title4=5 Secretly Bizarre Sections Of Websites You Use Every Day |org4='']'' |date4=May 28, 2016 |author4=Germ, Erik |title4=5 Secretly Bizarre Sections Of Websites You Use Every Day
|url4=https://web.archive.org/web/20170210205851/http://www.cracked.com/blog/5-truly-bizarre-sections-otherwise-normal-websites_p2/ |url4=https://web.archive.org/web/20170210205851/http://www.cracked.com/blog/5-truly-bizarre-sections-otherwise-normal-websites_p2/
|org5='']'' |date5=October 25, 2016 |author5=Guo, Jeff |title5=Misplaced Pages is fixing one of the Internet’s biggest flaws |org5='']'' |date5=October 25, 2016 |author5=Guo, Jeff |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/ |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 |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/ |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 |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 |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 |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 |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 |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/ |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 |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
Line 56: Line 109:
|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 |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 |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 4, 2018 |author15=Brandom, Russell|title15=Misplaced Pages engages the ‘nuclear option’ after Trump penis hack|url15=https://www.theverge.com/2018/12/4/18125359/wikipedia-trump-admin-account-security-hack |org15='']'' |date15=December 3, 2018 |author15=Brandom, Russell|title15=Misplaced Pages engages the 'nuclear option' after Trump penis hack|url15=https://www.theverge.com/2018/12/4/18125359/wikipedia-trump-admin-account-security-hack
|org16='']'' |date16=May 28, 2019 |author16=Mak, Aaron|title16=Donald Trump’s Misplaced Pages Entry Is a War Zone|url16=https://slate.com/technology/2019/05/donald-trump-wikipedia-page.html |org16='']'' |date16=May 28, 2019 |author16=Mak, Aaron|title16=Donald Trump's Misplaced Pages Entry Is a War Zone|url16=https://slate.com/technology/2019/05/donald-trump-wikipedia-page.htm
|org17='']'' |date17=March 7, 2020 |author17=Pasternack, Alex |title17=How Misplaced Pages's volunteers became the web's best weapon against misinformation |url17=https://www.fastcompany.com/90471667/how-wikipedia-volunteers-became-the-webs-best-weapon-against-misinformation

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

{{All time pageviews|233}}
| subject18 = article
{{Annual report|], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], and ]}}
| author18 = Brian Flood
{{Top 25 report|Jun 14 2015|Jun 28 2015|Jul 19 2015|until|Sep 27 2015|Dec 6 2015|Dec 13 2015|Jan 3 2016|until|Jan 17 2016|until|Jun 12 2016|Jul 3 2016|until|Jul 31 2016|Aug 21 2016|until|Dec 18 2016|Jan 1 2017|until|Apr 2 2017|Apr 23 2017|May 14 2017|until|May 28 2017|Jun 11 2017|Jun 25 2017|Oct 8 2017|Oct 22 2017|Nov 26 2017|Jan 14 2018|Jun 10 2018|Sep 30 2018|Oct 28 2018|until|Nov 25 2018|Dec 9 2018|Sep 22 2019|Dec 15 2019|Jan 5 2020|Feb 23 2020|Mar 1 2020|Apr 12 2020|May 31 2020|until|Jun 28 2020|Aug 9 2020|until|Aug 23 2020|Sep 27 2020|until|Dec 13 2020|Jan 3 2021|until|Jan 31 2021|Jul 10 2022|Jun 11 2023|May 26 2024|Jun 23 2024|Jul 14 2024|Jul 21 2024|Oct 20 2024|until|Nov 24 2024}}
| title18 = Misplaced Pages co-founder Larry Sanger says online encyclopedia scrapped neutrality, favors lefty politics
{{Annual readership|scale=log}}
| org18 = ]
<!-- end page history banner bundle --> }}
| url18 = https://www.foxnews.com/media/wikipedia-co-founder-larry-sanger-says-online-dictionary-scrapped-neutrality-favors-lefty-politics
{{Skip to talk}}
| date18 = 2020-05-21
{{Skip to bottom}}
| quote18 = “A fair article about a major political figure certainly must include the bad with the good,” ] wrote. “] is almost a total whitewash. Meanwhile, as you can imagine, the idea that the Donald Trump article is neutral is a joke.”
{{Banner holder |collapsed=yes |1=
| archiveurl18 =
{{Section sizes}}
| archivedate18 =
| accessdate18 = 2020-05-22
}}
{{Article history
|action1=GAN |action1date=15:43, 2 June 2006 (UTC) |action1link=Talk:Donald Trump/Archive 1#GA Failing |action1result=failed |action1oldid=56507759
|action2=GAN |action2date=17:59, 12 February 2007 (UTC) |action2link=Talk:Donald Trump/Archive 1#GA failed |action2result=failed |action2oldid=107442121
|action3=GAN |action3date=04:35, 18 September 2016 (UTC) |action3link=Talk:Donald Trump/GA1 |action3result=failed |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=FFAC
|topic=Politics and government
}} }}


{{Vital article|level=5|topic=People|subpage=Politicians|class=B}}
{{Banner holder | collapsed=yes |
{{Calm talk}}
{{controversial}}
{{American English}}
{{afd-merged-from|Health of Donald Trump|Health of Donald Trump|13 June 2019}}
}}
{{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 = 117 |counter = 187
|maxarchivesize = 200K |maxarchivesize = 150K
|archiveheader = {{aan}} |archiveheader = {{aan}}
|minthreadstoarchive = 1 |minthreadstoarchive = 1
|minthreadsleft = 4 |minthreadsleft = 3
}} }}
{{section sizes}}
{{auto archiving notice|bot=lowercase sigmabot III|age=7|small=yes}}
{{TOC_limit|4}}


__TOC__
==Highlighted open discussions==
* ]


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


== Racially charged ==
==RFC: First sentence==
<!-- START PIN -->{{Pin message|}}<!-- ] 10:51, 10 November 2034 (UTC) -->{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil|2046768684}}<!-- END PIN -->
{{rfc|pol|bio|rfcid=86C7ED0}}
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)
Should we change the intro of this article to bring it in line with the other US presidents bio intro?
:{{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)
*''...is the ] and current ], since 2017.''
::<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)
Do we need linking to ]? ] (]) 21:45, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
:::I see the grammatical ambiguity. :) &#8213;]&nbsp;] 07:06, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
::This seems backwards. Lead follows body. We shouldn't treat the consensus list as sacrosanct, it's merely there to keep track of RfCs. If the article has moved on, I'd support a new RfC to challenge the previous one. ] (]) 07:32, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
:::{{u|Riposte97}} I think an RfC should be avoided if it can be. Do you think you could ]? I'll have a go as well in a bit. If we don't have luck we can look at overturning Consensus #30.
:::Given it's an ] claim, high-quality sources will be needed. I wouldn't accept journalists being arbitrators of whether his comments were "racially charged", political scientists will have written on it and we shouldn't accept inferior sourcing. This is the standard that was applied for "cult of personality". ] (]) 07:57, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
::::Your reasoning seems consistent with ]. A departure, probably more impactful (disruptive?) than you realize, but maybe ultimately good for the article. No strong opinion provided we adhere to the established consensus process. If that means revisiting #30, I suppose you pass the "significant new argument(s)" test. &#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.
===Survey: First sentence===
*<s>'''Abort''' on the basis this RfC has not been created properly. Per ], it should be a "brief, neutral statement of or question about the issue." Instead, GoodDay has told us what should change and told us what we shouldn't have. -- ] (]) 21:53, 8 May 2020 (UTC)</s> - <small>RfC question has been rephrased. -- ] (]) 11:15, 9 May 2020 (UTC) </small>
::Calm down. I've rephrased it into a 'question'. ] (]) 21:57, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' As per the discussion further up. Since he is currently president, this is a different situation than former presidents. I also think it's just more useful to link to his presidency rather than the general concept. -- ] (]) 02:03, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' - As documented at ] item 17, the first sentence has been thoroughly flogged in recent years, with the last revisitation only two weeks ago. I think it's good enough. The main rationale given for this proposed change is conformity between presidents' BLPs, and there is nothing found in PAGs or other community consensus indicating that as a goal. I oppose that cookie-cutter approach, as it appears to serve a tiny minority of editors far more than it serves readers. No reader is going to be thrown for a loop if this article's first sentence has a different structure than those of other presidents' articles{{snd}}if they even notice the difference. &#8213;]&nbsp;] 06:39, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' - I'm not particularly bothered one way or the other, but I oppose on the basis we have a consensus for the existing text and I see no reason why we cannot have its slightly differing language approach for the current officeholder. -- ] (]) 11:15, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
*'''Support''' - As we don't link to ''Presidency of...'' articles in the other aforementioned bios. Also, we show the years of service in the others. Like any <u>hard-copy encyclopedia</u>, we should have consistency in a series of bio articles. ] (]) 14:24, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
*:Yeah, but this is ''not'' a hard-copy encyclopedia. We can, you know, ''edit'' stuff. -- ] (]) 17:14, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
*:"We should do x" is a completely empty argument without the "why" we should do x. I'd be interested to know "why" it's really important to be like hard-copy encyclopedias in this way, when in many other ways we are happy (or proud) to be different. &#8213;]&nbsp;] 18:55, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
*::We can't accept sloppiness in the intro, which is what we now have. ] (]) 01:41, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
*:::I've just looked again, and I see no sloppiness. Are you sure you're at the right article? &#8213;]&nbsp;] 16:34, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
*::::{{tq|Are you sure you're at the right article?}} Quit it. ] (]) 19:01, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
*'''Support''' - Yes the intro should include ] as what was consensus #17. The April 2020 discussion was *not* a consensus to eliminate the commonly included POTUS link, it was asking about potential alternative techniques to add a link and TALK mentioned to keep the POTUS. There was not an RFC or stated question to drop POTUS, so that should still be present as the explicit consensusifying. There wasn’t technically even an explicit ask to change consensus and add a link - it was just asking for potential means, and a later proposal might have been done. Perhaps “...is the ] and '']'' ], since 2017.“ Cheers ] (]) 23:57, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
*'''Support''' Among the other stated reasons, see ], which discourages the use of that word. &ndash;&nbsp;]&nbsp;(])`
*:"Except on pages updated regularly". &#8213;]&nbsp;] 09:07, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
*::I still feel its good practice to keep it out of pages that are updated regularly, but it seems consensus is not with me on that. &ndash;&nbsp;]&nbsp;(]) 20:56, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' per above. ~ ]] 22:00, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' per everyone above as well as per the consensus to have the current text. –]<sup>]</sup> 19:18, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
::There wasn't a consensus to have the current intro. This RFC is what will determine which version gets a consensus. ] (]) 20:19, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
:::Yes, there absolutely ''was'' a consensus. We all discussed it in your absence and agreed to the change. An RfC is only necessary in a ''deadlocked'' discussion, which was not the case. This RfC is your attempt to overturn an existing consensus because you weren't happy. -- ] (]) 21:26, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
::::A tiny number of editors changing a long-kept version, after a few days of discussion? No consensus there. ] (]) 21:54, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
:::::The change was not made by a tiny number of editors. Most or all of the editors who participate on this page saw the change, saw the discussion, and chose not to object to the change on the basis of the discussion. Many did not participate in the discussion, but nevertheless contributed to the consensus by their silence. The consensus list entry #17 was updated without objection. You were not here to participate in the discussion, nor around to object to the change on this basis of it, and you can't drop in ten days after a change and cry "no consensus". This concept has been reaffirmed many times at this article. &#8213;]&nbsp;] 04:30, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
::::::We obviously disagree on this matter. ] (]) 10:14, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
:::::::Yes, but don't confuse that with having equally valid positions. No one can force you to respond to reason. &#8213;]&nbsp;] 12:00, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
:::::::: I see you unhatted your personal comment eroniously citing ]. Sorry but no it is commenting on the contributor and not on their content and should be hatted as off-topic personal commentary. Stuff like {{tq|No one can force you to respond to reason}} are not helpful and if you want to be taken seriously you should probably stop making them. Quit badgering people that disagree with you. ] (]) 15:09, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
:::::::::Sorry, PackMecEng, but your comment is way out of line. So far, your ''only'' contributions to this thread have been to criticize Mandruss, so maybe you need to heed your own advice. GoodDay missed the consensus party and is now abusing the RfC process (which is really only meant for deadlocked discussion) to try to overturn the will of the editors who participated in the original discussion. Mandruss is right to point that out, and GoodDay's refusal to accept the normal Misplaced Pages process here is the troubling aspect of all this. -- ] (]) 18:20, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
::::::::::We have been having a discussion about it on my talk page, you are welcome to stop by. I do not plan on continuing here unless asked to. ] (]) 19:24, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
*'''Support''' The starting year of his presidency is an important piece of information that should be in the lede, but currently it is not even mentioned there. Given that other presidential articles have term years in the first sentence, then I don't understand why the present article doesn't have it. The infobox has this information, but per ], "the purpose of an infobox: to summarize (and not supplant) key facts that appear in the article (an article should remain complete with its summary infobox ignored)". The starting year of Trump's presidency should be added to the first sentence and it would be of use to the reader who probably, like me, wonders when did Trump start his presidency. ] (]) 18:24, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
*'''Support''' As we write for an international audience, better we link to the page that discusses what a US President is rather than just to the one about this President.--] (]) 19:26, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
*'''Oppose'''. The link was discussed (see consensus #17) and the agreement was to change it to the "''Presidency of Donald Trump''" page. Also, point of grammar, "''since''" requires the use of present perfect, i.e., "''has been''." ] (]) 20:15, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
*'''Oppose/Abort''' per current consensus item 17. This matter was , and it is irresponsible to have an RfC that does not link to the extremely relevant context of the prior discussion in the opening statement. Nothing has changed in the past month that would require revisiting this so soon. <span style="color:#AAA"><small>&#123;{u&#124;</small><span style="border-radius:9em;padding:0 5px;background:#088">]</span><small>}&#125;</small></span> <sup>]</sup> 00:15, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
::Was not resolved at all. A tiny number of editors decided to change #17 among themselves & after only a few days. ] (]) 00:55, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
* '''Oppose''' – Linking to Trump's ''specific'' presidency is more useful to readers than linking to the ''generic'' article about what a U.S. president is. — ] <sup>]</sup> 06:20, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
* '''Oppose''' - As far as I'm concerned, no logical argument has been presented to necessitate the need to change this long-standing lead. ] (]) 18:52, 24 May 2020 (UTC)


This is collaborative so please help! If this can be pinned to the top of this page for a short while it would be valuable. Remember, for ], we are not merely looking for multiple sources describing him or his comments/actions as racist/racially charged, but for the weighted response of high-quality academic sources to these questions. ] (]) 10:21, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
::The current lead ''is not'' longstanding. ] (]) 00:25, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
:{{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)


== Tracking lead size ==
===Discussion: First sentence===
Word counts by paragraph and '''total'''.
* Seems an oops. The April discussion asked about possible ways to add, not about removal. There wasn’t even an agreement *to* add, it just was asking for methods. Cheers ] (]) 00:00, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
{{hidden
* {{re|GoodDay}} For this RfC to have any validity, you need to at least refactor to link to the April discussion in the question. <span style="color:#AAA"><small>&#123;{u&#124;</small><span style="border-radius:9em;padding:0 5px;background:#088">]</span><small>}&#125;</small></span> <sup>]</sup> 00:20, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
| headerstyle = text-align:left; font-weight:normal;
::You can link to that 'short discussion' if you like. ] (]) 00:55, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
| header =
&mdash; '''614''' = 29 + 101 + 106 + 156 + 101 + 121
| content =
&mdash; '''657''' = 46 + 101 + 116 + 175 + 176 + 43


&mdash; '''418''' = 62 + 76 + 153 + 127
== "Personal image" subsection; change to Consensus item 39 ==


I had attempted to add : &mdash; '''406''' = 56 + 70 + 138 + 142
}}
{{tq2|
{{hidden
=== Personal image ===
| 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
Since running for president,<ref>{{cite news |last1=Levin |first1=Aaron |title=History of Goldwater Rule Recalled as Media Try to Diagnose Trump |url=https://psychnews.psychiatryonline.org/doi/10.1176/appi.pn.2016.9a13 |accessdate=25 April 2020 |work=Psychiatric News |publisher=American Psychiatric Association |date=25 August 2016 |doi=10.1176/appi.pn.2016.9a13}}</ref> Trump's temperament and mental status has been a regular topic of public discussion.<ref>{{cite web |last1=Maza |first1=Carlos |title=The awkward debate over Trump’s mental fitness |url=https://www.vox.com/videos/2018/1/24/16928388/strikethrough-trump-mental-fitness-goldwater-rule |website=Vox |accessdate=18 May 2020 |date=24 January 2018}}</ref><ref>{{cite news |last1=Rucker |first1=Philip |last2=Parker |first2=Ashley |title=The White House struggles to silence talk of Trump’s mental fitness |url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/the-white-house-struggles-to-silence-talk-of-trumps-mental-fitness/2018/01/08/2a7d4092-f493-11e7-a9e3-ab18ce41436a_story.html |accessdate=18 May 2020 |work=Washington Post |date=8 January 2018}}</ref> Trump has responded by saying that he has a "great temperament"<ref>{{cite news |last1=Cillizza |first1=Chris |title=Donald Trump’s ABC interview may be his best/worst yet |url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/08/01/donald-trumps-abc-interview-may-be-his-bestworst-yet/ |accessdate=18 May 2020 |work=Washington Post |date=1 August 2016}}</ref> and is a "very stable genius".<ref>{{cite news |last1=Baker |first1=Peter |last2=Haberman |first2=Maggie |title=Trump, Defending His Mental Fitness, Says He’s a 'Very Stable Genius' |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/06/us/politics/trump-genius-mental-health.html |accessdate=18 May 2020 |work=New York Times |date=6 January 2018}}</ref> <s>A 2020 Pew Research Center survey found that most Americans would describe Trump as "self-centered".<ref>{{cite web |title=Few Americans Express Positive Views of Trump’s Conduct in Office |url=https://www.people-press.org/2020/03/05/few-americans-express-positive-views-of-trumps-conduct-in-office/ |publisher=Pew Research Center |accessdate=18 May 2020 |date=5 March 2020}}</ref></s>

{{sources-talk}}
&mdash; '''437''' = 58 + 57 + 156 + 166

&mdash; '''465''' = 87 + 60 + 154 + 164
}}
{{hidden
| headerstyle = text-align:left; font-weight:normal;
| header =
&mdash; '''438''' = 58 + 60 + 156 + 164
| content =
}} }}
While this would be a change to Consensus item 39, "Do not include any paragraph regarding Trump's mental health", I do not think it goes against the rationale of the relevant RfC , because this section does not describe Trump's mental health itself (besides Trump's self-description as "very stable"), it merely informs the reader of this very noteworthy story about his public image. There is no "{{tq|armchair diagnosis}}", and per ] "{{tq|we should include a paragraph just because of the sheer volume of coverage.}}" We could also include more about his personal image similar to ]. Thoughts? ] (]) 18:56, 18 May 2020 (UTC) <small> Removed last sentence from proposal as UNDUE. ] (]) 02:04, 19 May 2020 (UTC)</small>
:Sounds like a good idea..it`s relevant ] (]) 21:06, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
:I think we would need another RfC to overturn Consensus item 39. Most of the material you are proposing was rejected then. I don't think this would add anything to the article.--] (]) 00:54, 19 May 2020 (UTC)


== Tracking article size ==
*'''Yuck, this 'mental health' again'''. Dubious to try in this area, it's not exactly a BLP event or choice, but certainly not this proposal. This one doesn't have the prominence of the earlier items that have been ruled out, and if we're not allowing "mental status" section of armchair diagnosis from professionals why would we seek it from non-professionals ? Just to be clear in WP terms, this appears to be an ] assemblage of stuff, which isn't a coherent set of parts and is ] as given -- as in I'm not seeing the poll shown to have much relative ]. And not a valid psychological opinion per ] or ]. Look, if you want to discuss personality, you're going to have to keep it limited to conveying the POVs about it '''positive ones too''', and also not wander into manufactured things or terms like "mental status". Cheers ] (]) 01:23, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
] size in words &ndash; Wiki markup size in bytes &ndash; Approximate number of additional citations before exceeding the ] limit.
::Yes, I can agree that the poll would be UNDUE without also adding positive perceptions of his personality (which I suggested by referencing George W. above). However, I feel the rest is due. "Mental status" is the term used in the first reference, the APA news source which was discussing the Goldwater rule as the country was first getting "swept up in media speculation about the mental status of" Trump. The APA news used "mental status" again a year later reporting that "psychiatrists have publicly offered their views on the mental status of the 45th president." The opinions themselves are not being discussed in my proposed version, just the fact is that this is a huge story about Trump's image. Notice that this is all I'm suggesting we say about the story itself: "{{tq|Since running for president, Trump's temperament and mental status has been a regular topic of public discussion.}}" ] (]) 01:55, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
{{hidden
::I think is the last information we had in the article about Trump's mental health. This information is materially different than what I am suggesting. There we had actual diagnoses listed. My proposal merely acknowledges that this noteworthy story exists. ] (]) 01:53, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
| headerstyle = text-align:left; font-weight:normal;
::We could also add something about his personal image as the "embodiment of achievement", only with a higher-tier and more positive RS. ] (]) 02:12, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
| header =
::He also has a reputation as a "straight shooter" not worried about political correctness.  ] (]) 02:58, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
&mdash; 15,818 &ndash; 421,592 &ndash; 103
:::], RE: personal image: if you propose to add a few cherry-picked opinions like “achiever” and “straight shooter”, why not a few more generally held opinions like “bully” or “childish” ? Trying to characterize his personality under the title of “personal image” is simply not going to be possible. -- ] (]) 20:14, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
| content =
::::Melanie, I don't appreciate your attitude. I'm sure if we are professional we can summarize his public persona. Yes, "bully" and "childish" are popular descriptions of his perceived personality. Those words help as a starting off point for brainstorming. Those words are judgmental versions of other descriptions, such as "lacking emotional intelligence", "uninformed", "aggressive", or the example from the Pew poll, "self-centered". But, "the embodiment of success" is the public image many sources have said he has successfully cultivated for himself. Sources also described his appeal to voters as someone who "tells it like it is". We don't censor the encyclopedia because topics are difficult. I'm sure we can address everyone's concerns. ] (]) 20:32, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
&mdash; 15,883 &ndash; 427,790 &ndash; {{0}}46
{{u|Scjessey}}, you participated in the relevant RfC; what are your thoughts on these changes to address what had been previously opposed?  ] (]) 13:56, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
:{{reply|Kolya Butternut}} I am not in favor of including anything about Trump's mental state whatsoever. Even high quality sources that discuss the matter are based mostly on speculation and armchair diagnoses, and it just doesn't seem very encyclopedic to me. -- ] (]) 17:59, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
I oppose this addition, for two reasons. One, I still oppose writing anything about his supposed mental state (I have my own opinion on the subject, but IMO none of that kind of speculation belongs here). I don't believe we've ever done that for other presidents. Even when there is a whole article, like ], we talk about his intelligence but not his mental health. Basically, I reaffirm the consensus statement as it stands. Two, it really adds nothing to his biography to say "there has been discussion about his temperament and mental status" and "this is what he says about himself". Thank you for striking the public opinion poll. If we're not allowing analyses from mental health professionals, we should certainly not post the results of popular polls. -- ] (]) 16:01, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
:Melanie, I'm hearing what sounds like ] arguments. Please cite policy reasons for your opposition; the policies cited in the RfC close are not violated with this text. The relevant policy here is ]. "{{tq|Just because an idea is not accepted by most experts does not mean it should be removed from Misplaced Pages. The threshold for whether a topic should be included in Misplaced Pages as an article is generally covered by notability guidelines}}", or for a topic within an article, ] guidelines. Similar information is included about Hillary Clinton in her presidential campaign article: "{{tq|Despite this letter , rumors and conspiracy theories concerning Clinton's health proliferated online. In August 2016, Trump questioned Hillary's stamina and Sean Hannity called for Clinton to release her medical records, fueling these theories.}}" And as for the poll, that was not an "analysis" of Trump's mental health; it was a public opinion poll about his personality and temperament, i.e., his public image. I did not remove it because it did not represent the opinions of experts; I removed it because including that opinion alone created a ] problem. ] (]) 18:20, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
::Please don't throw around cheap accusations like ]. Reaffirming consensus is not JDL. If you want more policy reasons, just ask. I oppose it because 1) IMO it obviously violates BLP to talk, or speculate, or ''report that other people are speculating,'' about a person's mental health absent any actual evidence. BLP overrules FRINGE by a mile. And 2) we don't do this for other people even when there has been public speculation. I already cited GW Bush, where there is an entire article about his public image but does not say anything about his mental health. For an example on the other side of the political spectrum, look at ]; there have been many attempts to claim that he is "losing it" but they are not mentioned in the article. Some of us have worked to keep them out. -- ] (]) 18:42, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
:::Melanie, please be civil. Like I said, I don't feel your arguments are policy-based; that is my understanding of WP:JDL, but I could be wrong. It is not a violation of BLP because we would only "{{tq|report that other people are speculating}}" about someone's mental health ''with evidence'' that they are in fact speculating. {{tq|2)}} sounds like ], but George Bush is not a comparator here; as far as I know his mental health has not received coverage in RS. I referenced George Bush only to show an example of a "Personal image" subsection. Obama's image section is less personal: ] ] is also WP:OTHER, and obviously the weight is quite different here. <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 19:21, 16 May 2020 (UTC)</small>
::::You asked for my policy based reasons. I gave them. You disagree. You apparently either think citing BLP is not a policy based reason, or that BLP doesn't apply to what you are proposing to do. I think it does. So let's move on and see what other people think. -- ] (]) 19:45, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
{{pb}}{{u|CaptainEek}}, does my proposed text above avoid the policy problems discussed in ? Note the sourcing published by the APA itself. I wonder if we were to consider the hypothetical of a notable individual who is 100% of the time identified with the perception of having mental illness, what would Misplaced Pages do in that situation? My thought is that we would not try to inform readers about his mental health itself; we would inform readers about this aspect of his life story. ] (]) 19:21, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
:Considering that the very first source in the proposed addition focuses on the Goldwater rule (which was the subject of extensive debate last time), I find little substantial difference between this version and previous versions. Speculating on a person's mental health is a BLP issue. If folks wish to hold another RfC, they are free to, as consensus can change. Still, I think without new and better sources, it would only be an attempt to re-litigate. As I said in my close {{tq|I think there could be some carefully worded addition at some point in the future}}. I don't think this addition is carefully worded enough, and I think it doesn't provide DUE weight. I think a more solid version should be work-shopped prior to any new RfC. Such a version probably needs to be paragraph length, and summarize a good dozen or two sources. However, my viewpoint should not be the overriding factor here. My close was merely a summary of the arguments presented at the RfC, and reflected a very, very difficult discussion. Most importantly: my close summarized that folks felt we could not create a neutral, BLP conforming paragraph given the sources available. ] <sup>]</sup>] 20:00, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
::{{u|CaptainEek}}, I am trying to understand your interpretation. The RfC discussion about the Goldwater rule seems to center on whether it is appropriate for Misplaced Pages to use medical opinions from professionals who violate their own professional standards. The APA obviously is not violating the Goldwater rule by reporting that the media is discussing Trump's mental status, so this addresses the concerns raised in the RfC discussion about the Goldwater rule. The was meant to inform about his mental health itself, and it included diagnoses. I am not proposing we say anything like, "according to Dr. Bandy Lee, Trump is dangerous". I am proposing that we either say something about his public image or we say something about this ongoing media event in his life. We may have a dozen or more sources between the ''Vox'' video and WaPo meta-stories. ] (]) 20:47, 19 May 2020 (UTC) <small>] (]) 11:34, 20 May 2020 (UTC)</small>
:::The last version focused on issues of direct speculation, but the overall conversation was about whether or not to mention it at all. My close and reading of consensus was on a basis of no inclusion whatsoever. However, I'm not against a new RfC to see about inserting this paragraph. I just think it currently goes against the last RfC, and thus would ]. ] <sup>]</sup>] 16:24, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
::::{{u|CaptainEek}}, I understand if you don't want to stick your neck out, but I note that you did not directly answer my questions.  Yes, I know your close found consensus for no inclusion whatsoever, but I would ask that you acknowledge that your close does not give policy reasons against the text I am proposing.  You don't have say my proposal is consistent with policy, but I would like you to say that your close has not addressed that policy question.  ] (]) 16:58, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
:::::Well the close and discussion weren't dealing with the text you suggested. However, I do think the close tackled the policy issue: any paragraph about his mental health would need to be carefully written to give ] coverage and avoid ] issues. I don't think the current paragraph does that, it is hard to balance such a controversial issue in two sentences. The replies by Trump are cherry picked, and don't actually make the addition any more neutral. But, as a closer, I can't single-handedly approve or deny your addition. Bottom line: if you want to include it, I think you'll need another RfC, as tortuous as that may be. ] <sup>]</sup>] 17:13, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
::::::{{u|CaptainEek}}, Yes, a new RfC will be required, but I don't want the new one to be dismissed by the old close, that's why I'm asking for more interpretation. Do you agree my proposed text does not violate WP:MEDRS and WP:PSCI? Lastly, can you share your opinion on why the proposed text does meet NPOV.  What about simply, "In response to questions raised about his temperament and mental status, Trump has described himself as a 'very stable genius'", as the only text referring to his mental status?  That is the most famous and oft-repeated quote by Trump about the subject. ] (]) 17:51, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
{{od}}{{u|Kolya Butternut}}, The RfC stated {{tq|The question here is whether we should have something or nothing.}}, and my reading of consensus was at the time: nothing. Now I do agree that the old one was on the basis of of issues like MEDRS and PSCI. The suggested text you left on my talk page does not violate either of those policies. That does not mean I support or oppose the addition mind you, I have no strong personal opinion on the matter, which is why I closed the discussion in the first place. You've asked me to amend my close, that would be a pretty unusual step, especially so long after its been closed. But I can help interpret it: the close and RfC were focused on an in-depth discussion including sources that speculated directly about his mental health, and that is what one of the big concerns was. My close was based greatly on those arguments, such as that armchair diagnosis, as so many were trying to do, was ]. Avoiding such sources and discussion would be a must for any addition. And your addition has done a good job staying away from that.


&mdash; 15,708 &ndash; 430,095 &ndash; {{0}}12
But as Melanie points out above, and I pointed out in my close, BLP issues remain, even when FRINGE sources are discounted. As I said in my close {{tq|If Trump were a historical figure, we could write much more on his mental health. But since he's still kicking, we have to be much more precise.}} Here is where changing consensus might come into play. Since you are seeking to add this section, the ] is on you to find support. Since it does not include FRINGE items, it is not totally against my close, and it could be the "carefully worded addition" I suggest. But I am not, and cannot be, the person to unilaterally say if its appropriate. This is where you need broader community input. The last RfC was definite: armchair diagnosis is FRINGE, and the issue needs to exactingly follow BLP. Current discussion should be on what is acceptable under BLP, and ensuring that coverage is DUE. ] <sup>]</sup>] 16:31, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
:Link to my comments at your talkpage.
:When you say "{{tq|BLP issues remain}}", would I be correct to interpret that to mean that the community needs to come to a consensus on whether my proposal adheres to BLP, not that you are stating BLP "problems" necessarily remain? ] (]) 17:08, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
: MelanieN stated "{{tq|1) IMO it obviously violates BLP to ... report that other people are speculating, about a person's mental health absent any actual evidence.}}" To confirm, you disagree with this portion of her comment ?  ] (]) 17:40, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
::{{u|Kolya Butternut}}, No, I agree with {{u|MelanieN}}'s statement. Reporting on speculation is tantamount to ]. ] <sup>]</sup>] 18:28, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
:::{{u|CaptainEek}}, wouldn't it be ] and ]? I'm sure there are other examples, but the speculation about Hillary's health has been included ] (]) 23:47, 24 May 2020 (UTC)


&mdash; 15,376 &ndash; 414,196 &ndash; {{0}}67
I’m going to step in here. ], you proposed a week ago to include a sentence “Trump’s temperament and mental status have been a regular topic of public discussion.” It was discussed. One IP agreed. Four people so far have disagreed: Jack Upland, Markbassett, Scjessey, and myself. You then pinged CaptainEek, the closer of the previous RfC - the one which established the current consensus not to include a paragraph about Trump’s mental health. You asked CaptainEek whether your proposed text avoids the policy problems they discussed in their lengthy and detailed RfC close. They gave you a detailed reply, concluding {{tq|my close summarized that folks felt we could not create a neutral, BLP conforming paragraph given the sources available}}. You asked them repeatedly for clarification, five times now. They reaffirmed that they did not feel your proposed statement would be allowed under that RfC, but you are still challenging. Enough already. Stop ] CaptainEek, who has been very patient and courteous and has given direct replies to your questions, and recognize that your proposed addition has not received support here. Time to ]. <small>(I am speaking here as an editor, not an admin. If you feel that I am too ] to object to your line of questioning, and if you choose to continue it, I will be glad to take your conduct to the community for an independent verdict.)</small> -- ] (]) 01:04, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
}}
::I'm not sure what WP:INVOLVED means when you're acting in your capacity as an editor. I feel that you are being uncivil, perhaps due to clouded judgement as a result of your involvement in the discussion where you previously voiced opposition and displeasure. That can be forgiven, but you must stop. I have not felt that CaptainEek's responses have been direct, but I have been patient because I understand that they must answer carefully to be precise and to be consistent with a very long and contentious RfC close. CaptainEek's latest comment was particularly clarifying for me; I did not realize they felt my proposal was BLPGOSSIP. They never addressed that before. That new policy clarification alone should inform you that your reaction is unwarranted. If you didn't see it, I carried the discussion to CaptainEek's talkpage (I thought I read somewhere that that is the appropriate step to take before challenging an RfC close at WP:AN), where I asked about a different proposal which has not been discussed here. I take your comment, "{{tq|If you feel that I am too ] to object to your line of questioning, and if you choose to continue it, I will be glad to take your conduct to the community for an independent verdict.}}" as a threat. Please stop trying to shut down a good faith discussion which happens to challenge something you have fought very long and hard against. I'm sure the community would also appreciate clarification before their time is wasted on a burdensome close review that I hope will not be necessary. Now, there are a couple things still left to discuss.
{{hidden
::CaptainEek (Please also notice my previous question above.), I sourced my proposed text almost word-for-word from the ] book article. If it's not a BLP violation there I don't think it's a BLP violation here. There's also the text from the ] article: {{tq2|Trump's first use of the term was in response to allegations of mental health problems in the recently published book Fire and Fury, which was followed by extensive discussion of the subject on cable news. On January 6, 2018 Trump tweeted "Actually, throughout my life, my two greatest assets have been mental stability and being, like, really smart.... I went from VERY successful businessman, to top T.V. Star... to President of the United States (on my first try). I think that would qualify as not smart, but genius....and a very stable genius at that!" He has described himself as an "extremely stable genius" or "true stable genius" on several subsequent occasions. On one such occasion he also called on multiple members of his staff to testify that he was calm and under control.}} This act of Congress was proposed because, as CBS reports: {{tq2|"The President believes he is a 'stable genius.' I do not," Boyle said in a statement. "Before voting for the highest office in the land, Americans have a right to know whether an individual has the physical and mental fitness to serve as President of the United States. While it is necessary to take the current President's concerning behavior seriously and I support legislation to address these ongoing concerns, I believe we must also be proactive and do all we can to ensure a situation like this does not arise again."}} I do not believe this is gossip. ] (]) 02:15, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
| headerstyle = text-align:left; font-weight:normal;
* Misplaced Pages should not report opinion and speculation on the mental health of a BLP subject. Even Trump's opponents have toned down this line of attack now compared with 2017. No jokes on stables either, thanks. — ] <sup>]</sup> 04:11, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
| header =
* Note: I have posted a about this thread at ]. -- ] (]) 18:41, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
&mdash; 15,479 &ndash; 415,176 &ndash; {{0}}64
* Note that the last question I asked above was why is text (which Melanie is apparently ok with ) at two other articles now a BLP violation when I propose it here. Melanie has now taken me to ANI for ], i.e., asking too many questions. ] (]) 23:55, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
| content =
&mdash; 15,279 &ndash; 404,464 &ndash; 122


&mdash; 15,294 &ndash; 405,370 &ndash; {{0}}80
== <span id="Attempt to link Trump with Saudis in Reagan photo"></span> Photo of Reagans and Trumps with King Fahd ==
]&nbsp;(]) 21:25, 22 May 2020 (UTC)]]
The photo is pretty clearly an attempt to have Trump linked with Saudi royalty through the use of a photo taken at a White House dinner hosted by Reagan, to which Trump was merely attending. In fact he's hardly in the photo, standing awkwardly in the back. A reversal of this photo to the former photo of Trump merely meeting Reagan is appropriate. ] (]) 20:10, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
:Trump is CLEARLY meeting with Fahd in this image. His wife is literally shaking Fahd's hand in the shot. -- ] (]) 20:40, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
::Indeed, Ivana is shaking Fahd's hand, while Donald, Ronald, and Nancy watch on. Where you get the idea that this is {{tq|an attempt to have Trump linked with Saudi royalty}} I don't understand, especially since we have so many other juicy details (first foreign presidential trip, the arms deal Pompeo tried to rush through, etc.). That being said, it is Ivana and Fahd in the foreground with Trump in the background. Shouldn't Trump be more prominently featured in a picture on his page? &ndash;&nbsp;]&nbsp;(]) 21:24, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
:::The {{tq|juicy details}} you are touting are related to Trump's presidency, this is a photo from the mid-1980s. Even discarding that, when Trump's hardly in the photo itself, how is this in anyway a good fit for his biography page? ] (]) 12:31, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
::::{{tq|"Trump's hardly in the photo..."}} - I can clearly see his entire person, and I can clearly see he is involved in the greeting process. I would argue the image is flattering to Trump, as it shows him engaging with world leaders, bolstering his claim of "experience" in such matters. -- ] (]) 12:46, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
:::::Him standing at the back of a meet-and-greet is far from {{tq|bolstering his claim of "experience"}}. Deadpan snark aside, this is a ] violation and needs removal. ] (]) 12:50, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
::::::It's not a BLP violation. Just saying it is does not make it so. Cite the actual part of the policy that backs up your claim or drop the stick. -- ] (]) 13:06, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
:::::::If you're done aggressively dissenting with me and telling me to {{tq|drop the stick}}, take a gander at ] whose concern for an image's potential misuse of out-of-context situations is '''exactly''' the issue I'm taking up here. ] (]) 13:35, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
::::::::Allow me to aggressively dissent with you. What the image portrays (and pardon me for applying life experience here) is Ivana and Donald Trump moving from your right to your left shaking the hands of Ronald, Fahd, and Nancy. The camera shutter happened to be tripped while Ivana was shaking Fahd's hand. Trump, being the gentleman that he is, allowed Ivana to go first, but that hardly puts him "at the back of a meet-and-greet". We're sorry the photographer wasn't on Trump's side of the lineup, but we do the best we can. This is hardly "out-of-context" when the context is Donald Trump's life (the subject of this article). If you honestly think you have a BLP issue here, take it to ], but stop accusing Misplaced Pages editors of deliberately trying to smear Trump or we'll see you at a different noticeboard. Clear enough? &#8213;]&nbsp;] 14:43, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
:::::::::I never accused anyone of deliberately trying to smear Trump, don't puff out your chest and threaten me with action for going against what you personally want this article to be. ] (]) 19:13, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
{{hat|Cool down, folks! — ] <sup>]</sup> 06:06, 24 May 2020 (UTC)}}
::::::::::{{tq|The photo is pretty clearly an attempt to have Trump linked with Saudi royalty}}. As we've seen, that is "pretty clear" to no one but you; in fact every editor who has commented about that so far has indicated that you were completely off base with that. Use whatever word-quibbles you like, but you accused editors of bad faith with no evidence but a photo and little or no knowledge of this article's editors. Doing that repeatedly would certainly be actionable at an article under discretionary sanctions. &#8213;]&nbsp;] 19:34, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
:::::::::::{{tq|As we've seen, that is "pretty clear" to no one but you; in fact every editor who has commented about that so far has indicated that you were completely off base with that.}} How does me expressing a minority viewpoint completely invalidate my argument? Why don't you start your noticeboard to get me banned from here, since you find my mere existence here so heinous from the outset. ] (]) 20:07, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
::::::::::::Yes. Assumption of bad faith is "heinous from the outset", particularly in a heated subject area like Donald Trump. If you really think that was nothing more than "a minority viewpoint", you are clearly tone-deaf as to the meaning of ]. When you haven't a leg to stand on, your best move is to sit down. &#8213;]&nbsp;] 20:14, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
:::::::::::::Maybe you should practice what you preach and not fan the flames of conflict, but by all means do respond with another platitude. ] (]) 22:03, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
{{hab}}
It’s hard for me to figure what this picture - showing barely-visible private citizen Trump and his wife in a receiving line in 1985 - adds to the article. It has nothing to do with the section where it is included, namely “Wealth”. We already have a picture of Trump ''as president'' with the Saudi king in 2017; that’s far more appropriate and relevant, and it shows Trump prominently instead of in the background. I say we delete this one. -- ] (]) 15:35, 23 May 2020 (UTC) P.S. I don't see any BLP issue here. It's just a lousy photo in an article that already has plenty of photos. -- ] (]) 15:38, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
:I assumed it was more about showing Trump with Reagan, rather than Fahd. Honestly, I don't recall who put the picture in there, why it was put in, or when it happened. -- ] (]) 15:37, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
:The article has an abundance of images of Trump as president (many of them largely redundant with others). It needs more images pre-presidency, not less. The Presidency article is that way. &#8213;]&nbsp;] 15:48, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
::This photo wouldn't belong in the Presidency article either. -- ] (]) 15:49, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
:::I didn't mean to imply that it would. The point is that this article places too much emphasis on his presidency, and images are part of that over-emphasis. We certainly don't need to make the problem even worse by eliminating one of the few pre-presidency images simply because it's not a great picture of Trump or because it's poorly placed. &#8213;]&nbsp;] 15:52, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
::::Good point. Then please propose (or simply add) some better pictures of Trump pre-presidency. He was constantly in the public eye, there must be hundreds. Something illustrating his TV show, or his wrestling connection, or yes, a picture with Reagan. -- ] (]) 15:56, 23 May 2020 (UTC) P.S. For your browsing pleasure: -- ] (]) 15:59, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
:::::Is that a requirement for opposing removal of this image? I don't see why they should be linked. &#8213;]&nbsp;] 16:00, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
::::::Would you accept replacing it with ? It shows Trump meeting Reagan in the White House in 1987. Same era, same look, shows how he was prominent and a mover-shaker even then. Look, I'm not against showing him in his pre-presidential days; I'm for it. I just don't think we should have lousy pictures in the article unless they illustrate something vital and there is no other way to illustrate it. -- ] (]) 16:06, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
:::::::I count '''eighteen''' images 2016{{endash}}present. Same (relatively short) era, same look. Why not both? We could do with more variety than two photos of Trump in a tux within 3 years of each other, but that's a separate issue from removal of the image that is the topic of this thread. &#8213;]&nbsp;] 16:15, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
:::::::Replacing? No. It's a (presumably dime-a-dozen) event for , {{tq|President Ronald Reagan Shaking Hands with Donald Trump at a Reception for Members of The "Friends of Art and Preservation in Embassies" Foundation in The Blue Room}}. First time I even heard of the but then I don't have any spare $50,000 steel sculptures cluttering up the house. ] (]) 14:08, 24 May 2020 (UTC) State dinner - that's the pinnacle of social climbing. I enlarged the image slightly and changed the caption. ] (]) 14:45, 24 May 2020 (UTC)


&mdash; 14,863 &ndash; 402,971 &ndash; 190
{{ping|Mandruss|Scjessey}} For those of you bewailing the lack of pre-presidential pictures: so go ahead and add some more already! Here are some possibilities from Commons: , , . We can do so much better than this oh-there-he-is-in-the-background picture. -- ] (]) 16:03, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
:We have a ], no reason to revisit. in 2016. I'll find a place to put Trump-and-Clinton, but Trump-and-Marky-Mark isn't any better than Trump-and-Fahd as an image of Trump (aside from his overweight). Unlike Trump-and-Fahd, half his head is under a cap and the other half is in shadow. &#8213;]&nbsp;] 16:24, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
::Fine. My comment was in August 2016, before he became president and that aspect of his life overwhelmed the article's photos. On the other hand, this was you yesterday: {{tq|It needs more images pre-presidency, not less.}} So I was trying to suggest ways you could deal with what you feel is a lack here. And I was suggesting you could add them as the ADDITIONAL pictures you say you want, not as replacements for this one - which I think should be replaced by the similar-but-better Trump-with-Reagan picture. -- ] (]) 18:01, 24 May 2020 (UTC) P.S. Your argument for removing the Celebrity Golf Tournament article was {{tq|The article contains plenty of other images of a middle-aged Trump.}} What has changed, so that you now feel this Trump-in-the-background receiving line picture is essential? -- ] (]) 18:05, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
:::Points taken, but I'll have to think about whether I want pre-presidency photos badly enough to accept a posed NBA-celebrity photo op and an image where he's entirely unrecognizable. Probably not, I'm guessing. &#8213;]&nbsp;] 18:31, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
:Among the three options, I'd say Trump meeting with Clinton in 2000 is the best if you support including more pre-presidency Trump documentation, particularly since its a pre-president meeting a then-president. ] (]) 19:01, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
*'''Comment'''. WP:MUG for this photo from the Reagan Library is so far-fetched as to be ridiculous. It was "A night for diamonds and gold," according to the Washington Post who conveniently a guest list in alphabetical order. Oh, look, there's Yogi Berra, manager, New York Yankees, and Carmine Berra; the Rev. Norman Vincent Peale and Ruth Peale; Donald J. Trump, chairman, Trump Organization, and Ivana Trump; Rawleigh Warner Jr., chairman, Mobil Oil Corp., and Mary Ann Warner; Sigourney Weaver, actress; Oscar S. Wyatt, chairman, Coastal Gas Corp., and Lynn Wyatt. There don't seem to be a lot of pictures of Trump's earlier career in the public domain. There's nothing wrong with this one, Trump probably had it framed, and why else would he have been invited except for his ] wealth. ] (]) 17:35, 28 May 2020 (UTC)


&mdash; 14,989 &ndash; 409,188 &ndash; 180
===Who is for it and who is against?===
}}
Interesting discussion, but I can't really tell who is arguing to keep this photo and who is arguing to remove it. Let's keep on discussing above, but I can't tell the players without a scorecard. Let's see who is saying what. Who knows, maybe it will turn out we are really all on the same side. -- ] (]) 15:53, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
{{hidden
*<s>'''Remove it'''. -- ] (]) 15:53, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
| headerstyle = text-align:left; font-weight:normal;
</s>
| header =
:*'''Replace''' it with a comparable but better quality picture, like the one I linked above. -- ] (]) 18:05, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
&mdash; 14,681 &ndash; 404,773 &ndash; 187
:::{{u|MelanieN}}: The picture quality (i.e., resolution) is better than that of the one you linked to which seems to be a Russian copy of image. Since I'm being accused of ignoring the points you brought up, please also see and .] (]) 14:57, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
| content =
::::When I described it as a lousy picture (which it is), I was talking about the content, not the resolution, but I will happily accept the one with better resolution. About content: The one you all want to keep shows Trump in a crowd shot, unobtrusive to the rear, looking off to the side with a neutral/disinterested expression while his wife shakes hands with the Saudi king. The one I want to replace it with shows a smiling Trump, front and center, shaking hands with President Reagan. Why in the world wouldn't we prefer the Reagan shot? -- ] (]) 15:43, 24 May 2020 (UTC) P.S. I see it is at Ivana's page. That's a good place for it; she is the one front and center. -- ] (]) 15:51, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
}}
:::::It's a great picture, Nancy Reagan modestly dressed and all covered up so as to not offend the sensibilities of the Saudi king, Ivana Trump flashy in skintight dress showing plenty of cleavage front and back. It doesn't say who took the picture, but kudos to him or her for the social commentary. If you click on the picture, you can see that Trump is looking at Fahd. He had condos to sell, casinos to finance. ] (]) 16:22, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
*'''Keep'''. &#8213;]&nbsp;] 15:54, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
*'''Keep''', at least for now. There aren't many nice alternatives, and I am persuaded by the argument Mandruss made about the need for more such images, rather than less. -- ] (]) 17:36, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
*'''Remove''' I'm with Melanie. It's clearly not a BLP violation to have a picture of Trump with Fahd and the Reagans at the White House in the 1980s. I agree that it's more flattering to Trump than anything else. But, that photo would go better on Fahd's article, or Ivana's. We should be using photos that have more focus on the subject of this article. Also, it's not clear why that photo is in the "Wealth" section. &ndash;&nbsp;]&nbsp;(]) 17:42, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
*'''Keep''' There is no reason to remove it, it does not violate any rules nor is it biased ] (]) 18:49, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
*'''Replace''' with something where he is in the foreground. ] (]) 19:01, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
*'''Replace''' -- ] (]) 19:10, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
* '''Remove or replace''' – It does not focus on Trump, and it's irrelevant to the wealth section. — ] <sup>]</sup> 06:15, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
*'''Keep'''. The image was added—uncontested until now—to the "Wealth" section on , along with a picture of Trump and Dennis Rodman in the "Apprentice" section. It didn't replace a picture of Trump with Reagan, and the hypothesis that it's {{tq|an attempt to have Trump linked with Saudi royalty}} is pure speculation. (Why would we even need such an attempt when we have the "orb" picture in the Foreign policy section?) "Wealth" is as good as any section to show Donald and Ivana Trump in the reception line of the state dinner then-President Reagan hosted for Saudi King Fahd on February 11, 1985. It's a picture from the National Archives, unter the title "State Visit of King Fahd of Saudi Arabia State Dinner Receiving Line with Ivana Trump and Donald Trump in East Room." Trump and wife were guests. The Reagan Library has a video of the dinner on Youtube. At , you can see Ivana Trump (blond hair, bare shoulders, dark dress with sash) seated at a table. If the camera had panned a little further to the right, it would have shown Donald Trump. When was the last time any of us got to attend a state dinner for a visiting head of state - or had a spread of our opulent 1985 featured in the Architectural Digest? The article features pictures of Trump's star on the Walk of Fame and of a bunch of building's that had his name on them at one time or another. Any of them are better candidates for removal. ] (]) 12:38, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
:*This is the definitive argument for keeping the image, at least until a better example can be found. -- ] (]) 13:06, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
{{hat|Discuss the content, not other users. -- ] (]) 19:31, 24 May 2020 (UTC)}}
::*We already know how you stand on this matter ], so I wouldn't call this "definitive" by any stretch of the imagination especially as the argument is tilting in favor of removal/replacement. To claim this photo deserves to stay whilst also saying Trump's Walk of Fame hallmark is a better candidate for removal is tone-deaf to what this article should and shouldn't be documenting, and I'm not assuming bad faith when I say that rather I'm assuming misdirection. What ] is doing is only acknowledging one side of the argument, and ignoring the points brought up by ]. I remain unconvinced. ] (]) 14:21, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
::::Tone-deaf, misdirecting, got it, and thanks. I'll just add that to {{tq|petty scrabble}}s. ] (]) 19:24, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
:::::*Good to know, you can add this to that list too. ] (]) 19:26, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
*I'm going to hat these last comments. I don't know what pre-existing animosity you folks are bringing to this page, but please keep it out of the discussion. -- ] (]) 19:31, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
{{hab}}
*'''Replace:''' This article is about Trump -- thus, the pictures in this article should have Trump in the foreground, not hidden in back. --] (]) 19:30, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
*'''Keep''' - this is an interesting photo because of all participants. Perhaps the legend should be expanded to provide more context. ] (]) 23:54, 28 May 2020 (UTC)


== RfC on describing Trumpism in lead ==
== Category:List of actor-politicians ==
<!-- START PIN -->{{Pin message|}}<!-- ] 10:40, 14 December 2034 (UTC) -->{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil|2049705633}}<!-- END PIN -->
add a category
{{rfc|bio|pol|rfcid=E2D89B1}}
] ] (]) 16:23, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
The current lead contains a simple mention of Trumpism. Should a brief description be added to this mention? A proposed wording for the added text, which is also up for debate here: {{tq|characterized by ], "]" nationalism, and economic ].}} — ] (]) 04:51, 16 December 2024 (UTC)<br> Addendum: A shorter version of the proposed addition could look like {{tq|led to ], a ] movement.}} — ] (]) 18:31, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
:Dubious at best. Perhaps being elected president allows one to be called a politician, but "cameo appearances in eight films and television shows" does not make them an actor. But I'm not familiar with the category; can you show precedent for such liberal use of the word actor in that category?{{pb}}I am converting this from an edit request to a normal discussion, since edit requests are only for uncontroversial changes. In the future please use the "New section" link at the top of this page. &#8213;]&nbsp;] 16:34, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
:{{small|Previous discussion at ]. — ] (]) 04:51, 16 December 2024 (UTC)}}
::From what I can tell it is a list article not a category. So inclusion on the list would have to be done over there. ] (]) 16:38, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
:'''Support'''. The statement "Trump created Trumpism" without further description is meaningless. If there is any single piece of information which a reader should take away from the lead, it is that Trump is America's leading proponent of right-wing populism, and the person who has done to most to reshape the Republican Party along these lines. It was argued by some in the previous discussion that details should be saved for the Trumpism article, but I believe that these words briefly and simply introduce what much of the rest of the lead and article are seeking to explain. Just as ]'s lead describes in broad terms what "]"ism is and ]'s describes what "]" is, so too should Trump's lead briefly describe Trumpism. This is especially relevant after the recent election, as Trump and Trumpism's importance in U.S. political history only continues to grow. — ] (]) 04:51, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
::Wait I found it ], sorry about that. ] (]) 16:39, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
:'''Suppport''': we need to know what Trumpism is about.--] (]) 04:55, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
:::Thanks. Missed that. The same editor added Trump to the list article today, but I'll stay out of that. &#8213;]&nbsp;] 16:46, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
:'''Oppose''' as I believe it is unnecessarily adding to an already excessively large article. The article is not about ] - which is linked in the text for the purpose of providing a shortcut should people wish to know more about what constitutes such, without contributing further to the word count. <span style="border:1px solid#880808">]</span><span style="background:#880808;border:1px solid#880808"><span style="color:white"><sup>]</sup></span></span> 05:05, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
:He's not an "actor", he's a "reality TV personality". Not the same. &ndash;&nbsp;]&nbsp;(]) 16:58, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
:'''Comment''' Further explanation of Trumpism seems relative in the lead, or at least, it likely will be within the next four years. ] (]) 06:13, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
::He is an actor; he's played a character with his name, which is different than his roles where he is credited as "self". Additionally, he has been credited as Waldo's Dad, and VIP patron. Clip of his cameos . Trump is a Screen Actors Guild member. ] (]) 17:15, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
:'''Oppose''' a, this article is already too long, and 2, it might need a lot more explanation then we can give it in the lead, what is Trumpism? ] (]) 14:50, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
:::IMDb, which is not a reliable source btw, seems to have all of the TV show and movie appearances under "actor" and his late night TV appearances as "self". Yet, he's never "played" anyone but himself. Take Home Alone 2, for instance. That's a clear cameo role, that IMDb lists under "actor". &ndash;&nbsp;]&nbsp;(]) 17:27, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
:'''Support''' but it should be limited to one sentence after a more detailed yet brief description is provided in the body. I agree that anyone with a political movement named after them should have some more description about it other than "they created it". I don't have exact wording but something along the lines of its impact on the Republican Party or American politics would be warranted as per Goszei. Any statement would need to be sourced in the body first, however, to avoid OR. Agreeing on a description in the political practice and rhetoric section would be helpful first before adding it to the lead. ] (]) 14:57, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
:::: The only argument against categorizing him as an actor is ], correct? &nbsp;It is irrelevant that most of his acting roles have been playing himself. &nbsp;You know how Bill Murray didn't really die while filming Zombieland? &nbsp;That's because he was acting; it's irrelevant that he was playing himself. "Cameo" does not mean "not acting", unless you can find a source. &nbsp;But Trump wasn't even credited as himself in ''The Little Rascals''; he was credited as "Waldo's Dad". &nbsp;One reason you know''The Little Rascals'' isn't a documentary is that Trump doesn't really have a son named Waldo.. ] (]) 19:18, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
*'''Support''' since Trumpism is mentioned, then it should be explained what it is. A single sentence in the lede, and a brief elaboration somewhere else in the article. The wording in the lede could be as proposed above, or something a bit different. ] (]) 19:18, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
::::: I concur with Koyla. Not categorizing Trump as an actor simply due to most of his roles relating to Trump portraying himself is superficial and irrelevant. ] (]) 19:23, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
:::::: That being said, Trump <s>is not</s> <u>may not be</u> notable as an actor, and figures "not professionally known as actors should not be included" in the category. ] (]) 20:00, 23 May 2020 (UTC)<small>] (]) 20:13, 23 May 2020 (UTC)</small>
:::::::Trump is not an actor. If anything, at best, Trump is a reality tv host. I've not found any reliable source that says playing yourself on a tv show is "acting." I've tried to find reliable sources that describe which of the 5 "acting techniques" Trump uses and came up empty. Trump should not be included. ] (]) 20:10, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
::::::::: Have you found any sources that say playing yourself in a fictional movie ''isn't'' acting? &nbsp;You won't. &nbsp;] (]) 20:15, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
::::::::::: Oh that's a great litmus test! Ya' know, I haven't found any sources that say Trump ''isn't'' a prodigy in mathematics either, but since he can sign his name on checks with numbers on them, should we go ahead & put him in that list too? Lol! ] (]) 22:54, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
::::::::::An odd statement. Have you found any sources that say playing yourself in a fictional movie ''is'' acting? You won't find that either. Read the second paragraph at ] and tell me how closely that describes Trump. &#8213;]&nbsp;] 20:25, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
:::::::::::] ] (]) 20:41, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
::::::::::::]. &#8213;]&nbsp;] 20:43, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
::::::::::::: What would you accept as a source? &nbsp;It would take some effort to find the question directly addressed, but it's so BLUESKY I don't understand the disagreement. &nbsp;I need a source to say that Muhammad Ali was acting in the film of his autobiography? &nbsp;] (]) 21:26, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
:::::{{u|Kolya Butternut}}, Bill Murray in Zombieland was terrific acting. Trump just gave Macaulay Culkin directions. &ndash;&nbsp;]&nbsp;(]) 21:02, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
::::::So...Trump isn't an actor because he's a bad actor? &nbsp;I don't get it. &nbsp;] (]) 21:26, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
:::::::I have changed the oil in my car. To call me an auto mechanic would be an insult to all auto mechanics. Ultimately (in my most humble opinion) readers benefit more from more selective categories than from less selective ones. Besides, what Scjessey said below. This is moot. &#8213;]&nbsp;] 21:32, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
::::::::Bingo. &ndash;&nbsp;]&nbsp;(]) 21:36, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
:::::::::But Misplaced Pages editors who read this discussion will benefit from accuracy. &nbsp;Trump has acted in films; he has performed as an actor; what he has done in films is acting, as supported by RS &nbsp;That he is not skilled or notable as an actor does not change that. ] (]) 22:25, 23 May 2020 (UTC) &nbsp;
:::::::::He does have some notability as an ''award winning actor''. ] (]) 22:42, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
{{od}} All this discussion above is basically moot. Per ], "{{tq|Biographical articles should be categorized by defining characteristics.}}" Trump's status as an "actor" is most certainly ''not'' a defining characteristic; therefore, he should not be categorized as such. -- ] (]) 20:38, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
:{{works for me}} &#8213;]&nbsp;] 20:41, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
:Agreed. I don't think any reliable sources call Trump an "actor", let alone it being a defining characteristic. &ndash;&nbsp;]&nbsp;(]) 21:03, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
:: I think {{u|Muboshgu}} hits the nail on the head here. If we don’t have several secondary sources calling him an actor, then we shouldn’t describe him as such. I’m not opposed to his brief cameos being described a such in the article, but I’m fairly sure those sources don’t exist which describe him as an actor. ] (]) 06:26, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
:::I think we all agree it would be UNDUE to call him an actor, but where we disagree is whether he has acted in films.  ] (]) 07:29, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
::::I think we all agree it would be UNDUE to waste more editing time on this very, very minor issue. I don't care whether or not Trump appears in the list article mentioned at the top of this section (there are plenty of sources supporting his inclusion there), but I ''definitely'' think Trump should not be categorized as an actor. These views are consistent with policy. Little more needs to be said, and I recommend we wrap this up now. -- ] (]) 12:35, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
::::Kolya, would you respond to Scjessey's comment about ]? I'm not clear whether you believe acting is a defining characteristic of Trump, you don't understand the meaning of "defining characteristic", or you don't care about following category guidelines. Trump plays golf, but he is not in any category calling him a golfer. Why? Because golfing is not a defining characteristic of Trump. He is in quite a few categories that he shouldn't be in per COPDEF, but the existence of bad stuff is never an excuse for more bad stuff, and to make it one only results in a snowball-effect proliferation of bad stuff. &#8213;]&nbsp;] 12:45, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
:::::I feel like you haven't been listening to me.  ] (]) 15:54, 24 May 2020 (UTC)


*'''Oppose''' as misplaced for the lead, and per Artem. ] (]) 01:34, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
== Mention of coronavirus in lead, Take 3? Take 4? Take 5? ==
*'''Oppose''' too wordy in an already bloated article. Artem is indeed correct. ] (]) 03:30, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' because “Trumpism” in the lead should be replaced with “MAGA”, which is a much more widely discussed and widespread thing.] (]) 04:01, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
:{{ping|Artem P75|Slatersteven|Nikkimaria|Nemov}} To those opposing the proposed text based on concerns about length, would you support a shorter addition such as {{tq|led to ], a ] movement.}}? — ] (]) 04:03, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' We don't have room for this, and this isn't the Trumpism article, it is the Trump article. Also, this would need to be added to the body first, since the lead follows the body. ] (]) 15:00, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' per Anythingyouwant. I've never heard of Trumpism before. Neither has Britannica, which instead has an article for MAGA movement. -] (]) 18:48, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
*:What the Britannica article describes is exactly what our article at ] describes. The term MAGA movement should probably be added to that article's lead as a synonym. — ] (]) 18:59, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
*::It's a redirect. The said, {{tq|But is there such a thing as Trumpism? Well that might be stretching it.}} -] (]) 23:12, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
*::This article doesn't mention MAGA. Maybe somebody wanted to make something of Trumpism? -] (]) 16:33, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' mainly as {{TQ|it is unnecessarily adding to an already excessively large article}} per Artem, also because ] isn't a ''"a thought-through philosophy, a carefully mapped world view"'' inextricably linked to the man in the way that Marxism or Leninism are. Trumpism is more of a term descibing a series of populist instincts which are not very often used to characterise reactions/policies etc. When/if Trumpism itself becomes more elaborated, and the term more used, WEIGHT might then dictate a brief definition. At present it would be at least unnecessary and potentially confusing.] (]) 07:57, 21 December 2024 (UTC)


:* '''Support''' Very much ] to summarise the key tenets of his political ideology, much more so than discussing specific policies as in the status quo. I’m very confused about the opposes, however the leads of ] and ] only mention their ideologies rather than describe them
A few weeks ago, we had an RfC about how Trump's response to the coronavirus should be mentioned in the lead, and it was closed as aborted, but with zero prejudice against future discussion. In particular, people wanted more options about how to mention it. Can we first a) reaffirm a consensus that coronavirus needs to be mentioned in this article, and then b) Get several (many as many as 10) different options? It's still gobsmacking to me that there's no mention of coronavirus in the lead, even though many less significant elements of his life and presidency are mentioned. <span style="border:1px solid;background:#800080">]]]</span> 00:26, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
:] (]) 10:17, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
*'''Weak oppose''', while it's only a few extra words it's still more to an already-too-big article, and the link to the Trumpism article is there for a reason. — ''']''' <sup>''(])''</sup> 10:37, 24 December 2024 (UTC)


:*'''Weak Oppose''', Agree with same sentiment as @] 's comment above. Seems like redundancy when we have a link that lets readers click on it if they don't understand a concept or definition. This also sets bad precedence to have to define every single political descriptor.
*I believe, the discussion had no consensus, not even that anything was needed. The close was
:] (]) 16:39, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
:{{tq2|No consensus on any of the items listed/the "abort RfC" had a sizable showing. If people want to work towards a more refined list of options through the normal consensus building process and then start a new RfC quickly, that could work. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:18, 22 May 2020 (UTC)}}
*'''Oppose''': Trump's lead is already "huuuge." And considering that ] (which discusses the use of {{tq|"technical terms or terms of art and jargon specific to the subject matter"}}) asks the question, {{tq|"On the other hand, do not treat every “scientific” word as a technical term. Ask the question: Is this the only article or one of a very few where the term might be encountered in Misplaced Pages?"}}, and seeing as there is another page entirely dedicated to discussing the topic, and where we're already pushing ] best practices with the length and depth of Trump's ], let's move on.
:Cheers ] (]) 03:49, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
:As a side note, ] has some handy recommendations for handling formatting of the word "Trumpism" for those interested. ] (]) 17:13, 7 January 2025 (UTC)


*'''Support''' : For me this is almost a mandatory addition for a very simple reason, the lead has zero words used to describe Trump's rise to power. Zero. This is not acceptable. These three very simple and short words describe it very well and are widely sourced. The description should take its place at the end of the second paragraph, in a chronological order, to either describe Trumpism or even more directly his first election campaign. The objection that the lead is not convincing. Other things can go. <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 14:41, 8 January 2025 (UTC)</small>
===Survey: Support some mention of coronavirus in lead===
*'''Oppose.''' Misplaced jargon in the leading section of the article leads to unnecessary confusion. ] (]) 19:46, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
;Support
# <span style="border:1px solid;background:#800080">]]]</span> 00:26, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
#Certainly due in the lead. --] (]) 17:31, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
#Per comment below. This one should be a no brainer and I’m still scratching my head of how people can justify an oppose.<small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 07:17, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
# A genius this is worse than Pearl Harbor or 9/11, therefore it is surely very important. This personally affects Trump, "seems intent on being the public face of the effort against what has become his most serious challenge". This is "Donald Trump's chaotic coronavirus crisis", "world looks on in horror as Trump flails over pandemic". ''']] (])''' 07:36, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
# Some sort of mention is necessary. The virus is the dominant story of 2020, and it's a dominant part of his presidency now. &ndash;&nbsp;]&nbsp;(]) 17:28, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
# No question per WP:WEIGHT. Extremely important.] (]) 15:53, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
;Oppose
# ] (]) 02:39, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
# There is no rush to include things and we can wait. After all, Dr. Fauci said at first the estimates were 2 million now it's well under that, and he praised Trump's shutting down flights from China for that, among other reasons. There is no reason to include it at this point. Everything the media is writing now is conjecture. ] <sup>]</sup> 02:54, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
#. Can't see as this topic is worthy of any mention in the lede of his life story. https://en.wikipedia.org/Boris_Johnson no mention there either, or here https://en.wikipedia.org/Xi_Jinping there are plenty of places his actions regarding corona are well suited but the lede here is clearly not one of them. 18:16, 25 May 2020 (UTC)] (])
# Oppose a carte Blanche for undefined “something”. That’s had bad results before - until specific proposals are developed we just cannot tell whether ‘nothing’ is better. I think the last RFC observed there was no consensus but offered the thought for a more refined list. I’ve added a quote and link to the archive of what RFC I think is being referred to. Cheers ] (]) 03:57, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
*'''Oppose'''. The previous discussion was about how to mention the pandemic '''in the lead'''. It's pretty clear from the previous discussion and the few editors who have commented in this one so far that a consensus will not be reached any time soon. Secondly, we don't need to {{tq|reaffirm a consensus that coronavirus needs to be mentioned in this article}}. That appears to be undisputed, judging by the five paragraphs in the "Coronavirus pandemic" . ] (]) 13:49, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
*'''Oppose'''. There is little lede-worthy that can be said in this article about the Covid-19 crisis. Trump's performance in this regard has been approximately par for the course, with some of his responses lauded as successful and some of his responses derided as failure. It is not inconceivable that further developments could bring about something that is lede-worthy. ] (]) 14:20, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
:*{{tq| some of his responses lauded as successful}} - That would be ''what'' in particular? Source? Please don't cite his own claim that his "China ban" was his great achievement.]] 14:34, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
:*{{tq|Trump's performance in this regard has been approximately par for the course}} {{cn}} ''']] (])''' 14:54, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
:*Really? Trump's "response" has been almost universally vilified, according to around eleventy-billion sources. 100,000 dead Americans isn't "par for the course" in any stretch of the imagination. -- ] (]) 16:46, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
::*This particular pandemic is unprecedented in modern times, Scjessey. Preventing {{tq|"100,000 dead Americans"}} was beyond the abilities of the head of this country. Successes and failures vary by country around the globe but no head of state performed in any way other than "par for the course". This pandemic is unprecedented in modern times. "Preparation" for for the pandemic eclipses the time that Trump has been in office, falling within the auspices of previous presidents and statesmen. But you want to concoct wording for the lede of this article tying {{tq|"100,000 dead Americans"}} to Trump? If so, I oppose that. ] (]) 19:23, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
:::*The ] was unprecedented as well. '''Poof!'''
:::*The article text describes specific actions and lapses that affected the course of the disease in the USA. That's what should be reflected in the lead. ]] 21:43, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' For now as ongoing. I would rather wait until the section in the article is more finished and pared down. Then see if it is fit for the lead. ] (]) 15:00, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
* '''Oppose''' – Still an ongoing story, and not specific to USA or Trump. Pandemic data from various countries shows similar outcomes regardless of specific measures taken. Can't single out Trump's responses from any other world leaders', unless we fall into the usual partisanship. — ] <sup>]</sup> 05:57, 28 May 2020 (UTC)


:'''Support''' since this is a pretty major part of what Trump has done,
===Wording proposals===
:And because just ¨Trump started Trumpism¨ isn't a very good description of that, let alone anything. ] ] ] 21:34, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
# Trump was President during the coronavirus pandemic. <span style="border:1px solid;background:#800080">]]]</span> 00:27, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
*'''Support''' the way things are going the coronavirus may become the defining issue regarding his presidency ] (]) 00:38, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
* '''Support''' no brainer. Biggest crisis of the presidency so how in the world are you NOT going to mention it? <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 03:18, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
::For the record, you guys are putting these !votes in the wrong section. ] (]) 15:37, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
*'''Support''' the proposed wording: would be a good start. Can be refined later as things progress. --] (]) 17:31, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
::Am I a joke to you? ] (]) 17:56, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
:::{{ping|Volunteer Marek|K.e.coffman}} - just for clarity's sake, can you also provide your vote in the section above? Thanks. ''']] (])''' 07:14, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
*'''Oppose'''. That's like saying that FDR was president during the Great Depression and then leaving it at that. Also, past tense is premature. There is a good chance that another president will take over before the pandemic is over. ] (]) 13:46, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
* '''Oppose''' – This says nothing. "Macron was president during the coronavirus pandemic." So what? This line of thought did not gather support in ] (as proposal 2 there). — ] <sup>]</sup> 06:04, 28 May 2020 (UTC)


===Discussion=== == Edit War ==
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.
'''The key points''' are that Trump failed to act on the early warnings from his administration's national intelligence and health officials, concentrating instead on the potential harm to stock market indices if he took bold action against the virus. We now have the Columbia University study that quantifies the results of his having neglected the dire threat. The study estimated that had social distancing been implemented even a single week earlier, 36,000 lives would have been saved.
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. ] (]) 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)


== "]" listed at ] ==
A poll is only effective when there is a small number of alternatives. With, e.g. 10 choices, you'll have 2 !votes for each of them. ]] 01:31, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
]
:Going down the road of including speculation as to whether a decreased death toll would've been seen if action was taken earlier is a bad route powered by hindsight and ultimately ]. ] (]) 02:36, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
The redirect <span class="plainlinks"></span> has been listed at ] to determine whether its use and function meets the ]. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at '''{{slink|Misplaced Pages:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 December 30#Individual 1}}''' until a consensus is reached. <!-- Template:RFDNote --> ] (]) 23:57, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
::{{u|MyPreferredUsernameWasTaken}}, plus, it's up to the states to apply the rules, not the Federal government, as the NPR article even points out, it took several more days after Trump declared an emergency for the states to start implementing social distancing rules. To pin this all on Trump is pure falsehood and spin. ] <sup>]</sup> 02:50, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
:] and ] are also discussed there.<span style="font-family:Segoe Script">]</span><span style="font-size:115%">]</span> 19:44, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
:::"The World Health Organization declared COVID-19 a global pandemic on March 11 — an act that had been widely anticipated. Two days later, President Trump declared a national emergency in the U.S. But it took even longer for dozens of U.S. states to order social distancing and shut down business as usual." That's from the NPR article. I wonder if SPECIFICO is going to ask for Cuomo's lead to include coronavirus considering that most of the US dead is from NY and Cuomo is responsible for not closing down NY on time, or the fact that Pelosi told everyone to come down to Chinatown and enjoy shopping, etc. After all, we don't want to be biased in Misplaced Pages. ] <sup>]</sup> 02:52, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
::::The references to Chinese-American festivals and neighborhoods in connection with the importation of disease physically located in China 6000 miles away is a xenophobic deflection. I realize that you are not the one who originated this hateful and irrelevant nonsense, but please don't repeat it here. ]] 17:16, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
::::Don't bring Pelosi or Cuomo into this. They're not the ones trying to pack churches in the middle of a pandemic. Pelosi went to Chinatown in February to try to stop anti-Asian racism caused by COVID-19. And you want to blame Cuomo for governing the state with JFK? This is Trump's page, stick with discussing Trump, the guy who sets the example by refusing to wear a mask (except in that one photo that most people didn't see). &ndash;&nbsp;]&nbsp;(]) 17:27, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
::::This article is not about Cuomo or Pelosi. Selecting the one sentence in the article that is not critical of the Trump administration's response is cherry-picking. BTW, Trump's repeated tweeted claims about Pelosi's '''February 24''' visit to Chinatown were and found to be false. , What was Trump doing in February and early March? Golfing, tweeting, and entertaining tightly packed crowds at campaign events in , Feb 20; , Feb 21; , S.C., Feb 28; , N.C., March 2 (quote: {{tq|I think it's very }}). ] (]) 13:45, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
:Actually the US was fairly timely in reaction to events. The U.S. was early with travel restrictions. The health screening started 17 January per , and further including a China ban on 31 January. And it is States that control Stay-at-home, as re-emphasised by recent fussing about undoing stay-at-home. Also, this SPECULATION number seems a bit implausible - that between a third and half would not die. Three strikes against this one. Cheers ] (]) 03:31, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
:::What is this "ban" of which you speak? Think you may be referring to what the source describes as action to "bar entry by most foreign nationals who had recently visited China and put some American travelers under a quarantine", thus ensuring a rush of travel from China to the U.S. by other Americans who were liable to bring the virus with them. . . . ], ] 19:02, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
::If social distancing had begun 2 weeks earlier, the study estimates one million cases and 54,000 deaths would have been prevented. In fact, social distancing was widely adopted in the wake of Trump's early March prime time oval office televised address to the nation, in which he made clear that he was not prepared to take decisive action. Reports tell us that the this aroused heightened public concern, especially in the most threatened locations, and that voluntary distancing and closure of businesses quickly followed Trump's disavowal of decisive Federal action. ]] 15:48, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
:::] That’s off the thread topic, because it’s just not a candidate for lead in this article. This just isn’t something President Trump controlled, is not BLP (his life choice or major event to him), plus that is SPECULATION, plus low WEIGHT, plus not a major part of the article so per ] it doesn’t belong in lead. And the U.S was fairly timely so it’s rather unrealistic fantasy. Six strikes against it, not something for this thread. Cheers ] (]) 04:08, 26 May 2020 (UTC)


== Are you kidding with the bias in the introduction? ==
* '''Less than ten words? Zero due to no candidate?''' Seems like a nothing. Just a sidenote that the length of any proposal seems should be nothing or little as DUE from article content seems little or nothing. A ‘Trump was President during’ (such as “addressed the 2019 Covid-19 pandemic”) is about the length justified, but that doesn’t seem like much. And that section of content seems just fragmented collection of separate tiny POV whinges so there’s not a big item obvious as candidate for lead coming from content. Cheers ] (]) 04:46, 26 May 2020 (UTC)


The intro should highlight that he was re-elected by the American people in reaction to the progressive agenda pushed by the current administration, high inflationary periods between 2020-2024, and a desire for better economic performance. This victory was unprecedented given the amount of lawsuits against Trump and the extreme anti-Trump sentiment in the media. ] (]) 05:33, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
{{ping|Govindaharihari}} Don’t know about Xi, but it should definitely be mentioned in BoJo’s article. That’s a problem over there, not sure why we should also make it over here.<small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 07:20, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
:Hi. It is just not something that requires mention in the lede of a political leaders life story, unless it defines them, it clearly doesn't in this or any other political leaders bio https://en.wikipedia.org/Angela_Merkel nothing there either or here https://en.wikipedia.org/Jair_Bolsonaro. Looking, reading all the other political leaders bios there is already a lot of very different style of content in this bios lede, no idea why but I don't support it and I don't support adding more of the same stuff also, as I have said before, there are plenty of places where it would be worthy of reporting but the lede of his bio is not one of them.] (]) 16:33, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
::{{ping|Govindaharihari}} - the pages of other current world leaders might not be updated yet. In contrast we can look at historical U.S. presidents for a change. Some people in high places this crisis is worse on the U.S. than the attack on Pearl Harbour or the 9/11 attack. Thus I looked at ] and ]'s BLP articles, well, the attacks are mentioned. ''']] (])''' 02:52, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
:::Hi there Star. I don't seem to get these ping things but I do sometimes check back. I see, yes other stuff exists I see. I still feel that it does not belong in this lede, that is just my interpretaion of ] for a bio , what a bio lede should include. There are many more interested editors in this so I am sure a good consensus will arise here, regards. ] (]) 13:36, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
::::Regards indeed, {{u|Govindaharihari}}. I hope you get this ping, at least. ''']] (])''' 14:52, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
{{od}} The above "survey" is already a ridiculous mess, so I'm just going to restate what I said in the last discussion. I continue to think this is an appropriate text:
{{tq2|After initially downplaying the ], Trump created a ] to tackle the threat, began giving daily briefings on the American response, and signed the ] rescue package.}}
It accurately summarizes in neutral language what the body of the article says. That's all it needs to do. -- ] (]) 16:51, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
:{{u|Scjessey}} is on the right track: if anything gets mentioned in the lead, it should be a brief summary of any factual actions that Trump took in response to the crisis. No speculation on what he could have/should have done instead. I'd suggest moving this to the "wording proposals" section above. — ] <sup>]</sup> 06:12, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
::That is a straw man. Please review the article text. ]] 06:39, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
:I'm opposed to any inclusion of the coronavirus in Trump's lead as of now, but this proposed one is currently my preferred one if one is to be chosen in the following months. ] (]) 17:32, 28 May 2020 (UTC)


:Misplaced Pages articles are written based off of what reliable sources say, not based on your ] on why he was elected or how "unprecedented" it is. ] (]) 19:36, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
== Religion ==
::The article doesn't seem to give any reason for Trump's victory. I did a quick google search "" and the first thing I found was . In this source there was Anthony Salvanto, CBS News' executive director of elections and surveys, who said that there were three main factors behind voters' support of Trump: the role of the economy, a steady MAGA base, and out-of-touch democrats. ] (]) 21:31, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
:::That seems like it would fit better in the article on the election than in the article on Trump. ] (]) 21:37, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
::::Why is that? This is information that is directly related to his career in politics. ] (]) 23:31, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
::Happy to provide sources of you can confirm that you will make the changes. Not sure who the gatekeeper is for what the world views on Misplaced Pages, but I hope is is not just one person. ] (]) 23:32, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
:::Not how things work here. You suggest a change or addition, which is supported by citation to a source. Discussion will then begin from there on whether or not to include it. ] (]) 00:54, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
:::There isn't exactly a "gatekeeper for worldviews" on this site, you need sources for statements you want to induct into the article and like what other people said, no original research. ] (]) 03:10, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
:That kind of introduction is more fitting for Conservapedia, not Misplaced Pages. ] (]) 12:57, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
::{{Ping|NesserWiki}} ] is extremely ironic, it's not to be taken seriously. On the contrary, what the OP wrote started a discussion that perhaps could be useful (although I don't think it will be useful). ] (]) 01:01, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
:] ] (]) 21:17, 11 January 2025 (UTC)


== Unjustified removal of Operation Warp Speed? ==
I plan to edit the following text in the section about Trump’s religion.


{{u|Space4Time3Continuum2x}} decided to mention of Operation Warp Speed from the page and said that the "last discussion" was "inconclusive". I'm a little confused here, given the ] they cited includes a number of editors agreeing that inclusion of OWS was warranted, but not much discussion about it at all.
Original: Trump is a Presbyterian and as a child was confirmed at the First Presbyterian Church in Jamaica, Queens. In the 1970s, his parents joined the Marble Collegiate Church in Manhattan. The pastor at Marble, Norman Vincent Peale, ministered to Trump's family and mentored him until Peale's death in 1993.


The discussion also seems irrelevant given multiple reliable sources are saying OWS was a trump accomplishment. If it's in an RS and ], I don't think it's sound to wipe stuff because of some vague mentions on an archived talk page?
Revision: When asked, Trump identifies as a Presbyterian, although no evidence has been published that he is now a member of any church. As a teenager he was confirmed at the First Presbyterian Church in Jamaica, Queens. In the 1970s, his parents joined the Marble Collegiate Church in Manhattan, when Trump was in his late twenties. The pastor at Marble, Norman Vincent Peale, ministered to Trump's family and was an influence until Peale's death in 1993.


E.g. according to Vox: : {{tq|"One of the biggest accomplishments of the Trump administration — and yes, there were accomplishments — was Operation Warp Speed, the public-private effort to rapidly develop Covid vaccines"}}
Defense (I write as a former Presbyterian pastor):


Per : {{tq|"Operation Warp Speed, a Trump administration initiative to manufacture COVID-19 vaccines as fast as possible, should be lauded as a successful endeavour in what has otherwise been a poor effort to deal with the coronavirus, experts say"}}
In the original form, “Trump is a Presbyterian” overstates the case. No evidence has been published that he is now a member of any church, Presbyterian or otherwise. All that can accurately be said is that he has a Presbyterian background. My revision limits itself to his responses when asked about religion. https://www.cnn.com/interactive/2017/politics/state/donald-trump-religion/


says OWS was a Trump accomplishment, while also being clear that Trump was an anti-science president who sometimes hindered the pandemic response.
“…as a child was confirmed”: A photo of the event, dated 1959 makes Trump 13. I changed the wording to the more specific “teenager.”
https://www.cnn.com/interactive/2017/politics/state/donald-trump-religion/


It probably deserves a brief mention in the lead as I put .
“In the 1970s, his parents joined the Marble Collegiate Church….” Trump would have been 25 at the youngest. It fills out the picture of his religious influences to state his approximate age.


It would be great if other users could please weigh in.
“The pastor at Marble, Norman Vincent Peale, … mentored him…” The verb “mentored” is too strong. Peale had an influence through his famous “power of positive thinking,” but no evidence has been produced that there was a mentoring relationship. I changed the word to “influence.”


] (]) 14:58, 25 May 2020 (UTC) ] (]) 23:24, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
:Is questioning Trump's religion not akin to questioning his mental state? If he claims to be Presbyterian just say he's Presbyterian. No need to enact a Spanish Inquisition to determine if he's a true believer. ] (]) 15:32, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
::He also claims to be a stable genius, the best president the U.S. has ever seen, and various other things. That doesn't mean we report those things as fact. Spanish Inquisition? Hyperbole anyone? This looks to me like a quite reasonable attempt to improve accuracy, and I'm fine with it. &#8213;]&nbsp;] 16:10, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
:::Does it matter that he was confirmed? Also date and Trump's age both = redundant, etc. Really, is religion a big part of the story of his personal, as opposed to political, life? I don't see much RS support for that. He's not the rhinestone Jimmy Carter of the North. ]] 16:28, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
:::You're being ridiculous to conflate his {{tq|claims a stable genius, the best president the U.S. has ever seen}} with his religious personal life. What benefit is Trump going to see from claiming to be a Presbyterian? Please do tell I'm very curious. ] (]) 18:01, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
::::It doesn't take a ton of objectivity to recognize that religion is very important to a significant segment of the American voting population. Of course he would prefer to allow people to believe he's an avid churchgoer, while being careful not to actually say that. Does that satisfy your curiosity? &#8213;]&nbsp;] 18:26, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
:::::No it doesn't, cause I'm not entirely convinced religion is a big factor in what makes up Trump's appeal to begin with, isn't that why Mike Pence was selected as his running mate in 2016? ] (]) 18:38, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
::::::Somehow I didn't think it would. You asked about benefit, I answered. It doesn't have to be a "big factor" for our purposes here, a minuscule factor will do just fine to counter your argument against accuracy. &#8213;]&nbsp;] 18:48, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
:::::::I can't tell what you're arguing in favor of here. What the proposal suggests is outside the realm of our jurisdiction. We're not going to be the Spanish Inquisition, as I said, passing judgment as to whether Trump is a true Christian or not. He was confirmed as a Presbyterian, and he maintains he still is a Presbyterian. That's all we need. ] (]) 19:21, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
:: He factually has a professed religion, which is all we can really know about anyone’s faith. It’s OR to try and calculate whether one is a true believer - we should just convey the RS reports here. Cheers ] (]) 12:09, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
:Quick high-level reaction: All these versions are more or less following Trump's narrative, which is not representative of the weight of mainstream reporting on Trump/Religion. The central fact about his relationship to religion has been his adoption of various fundamentalist and evangelical Christian themes long used by the Republican party to shore us its support among various white demographics in the US South and elsewhere. ]] 15:35, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
:There are a huge number of people today who self-identify as part of a religion, usually based on their family's religion, but do not attend church or even understand their church's creed. There should be a policy or guideline on this. The closest I could find was ]: "Categories regarding religious beliefs or lack of such beliefs of a living person should not be used unless the subject has publicly self-identified with the belief in question see (]), either through direct speech or through actions like serving in an official clerical position for the religion." I suppose that if sources refer to Trump as Presbyterian, that's what he is. I don't know of any definitive test for determining religion. ] (]) 11:47, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
:Today's changes by Starship.paint are acceptable to me, and sufficient for now. &#8213;]&nbsp;] 12:15, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
::No I don't agree with it, and I reverted it cause obviously there's opposition to it presented on this very discussion. Not to mention Starship hasn't even bothered to contribute to this yet. ] (]) 20:37, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
:::I'm also fine with Starship's revision. ] (]) 22:05, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
::::There was once a point in time we'd discuss controversial edits before implementing them, but it looks as if ] and ] aren't too bothered with such procedures. ] (]) 23:52, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
:::::{{ping|MyPreferredUsernameWasTaken}} - would you educate dear SPECIFICO and myself on what that point in time was? You will have to excuse us, we've only been editing this article from 2016, so we aren't too familiar with the procedures yet. It's good for us that you, having edited this article and talk page from 19 May 2020, are able to use your experience to advise us. Unfortunately, standing on the shoulders of giants, I saw a problem and fixed it, and I will post the paragraph below for posterity, as you want me to contribute. ''']] (])''' 02:45, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
::::::I don't value seniority, so I don't much care how long you've been editing this article. There's no point pursuing this further as you're not very interested in a discussion, rather more so in implementing what you want whilst ignoring the opposition of others, and that goes for others here too. What a state of affairs. ] (]) 13:40, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
:::::::{{ping|MyPreferredUsernameWasTaken}} - I don't value seniority either. I'm just interested to know how an account which started in October 2019, and which arrived at this article for barely over a week, would say: {{tq|There was once a point in time we'd discuss controversial edits before implementing them}}. Your opposition is noted, you're outnumbered 4:1, and I don't believe you have cited policy. ''']] (])''' 14:51, 27 May 2020 (UTC)


:It's probably worth a brief mention in the article body – like a sentence. A fuller treatment of the topic belongs in ], ], and obviously ]. – ] (]&nbsp;<b>·</b> ]) 01:50, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
{{tq2|Trump identifies as ]; as a teenager he was confirmed at the ] in Jamaica, Queens.<ref name="BarronNYT">{{cite news |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/06/nyregion/donald-trump-marble-collegiate-church-norman-vincent-peale.html |title=Overlooked Influences on Donald Trump: A Famous Minister and His Church |work=] |first=James |last=Barron |authorlink=James Barron (journalist) |date=September 5, 2016 |accessdate=October 13, 2016}}</ref> In the 1970s, his parents joined the ] in Manhattan, which was not a Presbyterian church, but belonged to the ] ].<ref name="BarronNYT"/><ref name="WaPo.March.18.17">{{cite news |last=Schwartzman |first=Paul |title=How Trump got religion – and why his legendary minister's son now rejects him |url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/how-trump-got-religion--and-why-his-legendary-ministers-son-now-rejects-him/2016/01/21/37bae16e-bb02-11e5-829c-26ffb874a18d_story.html |accessdate=March 18, 2017 |work=] |date=January 21, 2016}}</ref> The pastor at Marble, ],<ref name="BarronNYT"/> ministered to Trump's family until Peale's death in 1993.<ref name="WaPo.March.18.17" /> Trump has described Peale as a mentor to him.{{sfn|Kranish|Fisher|2017|p=}} In 2015, after Trump said: "I go to Marble Collegiate Church", the church reacted by stating that he "is not an active member" of the church.<ref>{{cite news |last1=Scott |first1=Eugene |title=Church says Donald Trump is not an 'active member' |url=https://edition.cnn.com/2015/08/28/politics/donald-trump-church-member/index.html |accessdate=May 26, 2020 |work=] |date=August 28, 2015}}</ref>}}
::{{tq|"A brief mention – like a sentence"}}? If numerous reliable sources are calling this a major achievement with substantial discussion, a paragraph is more realistic. There are 12 entire paragraphs about COVID, some of it rather trivial in nature – but a single sentence for a multi-billion dollar policy implemented by a US president that has been praised by experts and sources? ] (]) 04:06, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
:CNN seems to have agreed with you. "President Donald Trump finally has something legitimate to take credit for in his coronavirus response: A vaccine that appears poised to reach Americans in record time." ] (]) 01:53, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
::Thanks, that's a good source to use. ] (]) 04:08, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
:::That CNN source, , and , don't support the laudatory text you proposed ({{tq|The program has been characterized as one of Trump's most significant accomplishments by medical experts for enabling the development of effective vaccines in record time}}). They mention the 15 years of research and development of messenger RNA (mRNA) vaccine technology before the pandemic hit, Trump's interference and politicizing of the process, and his promise of many more doses by the end of 2020 than the goals set by the contracts with the vaccine manufacturers. ]] 20:45, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
:I would support a brief, neutrally worded one-sentence mention of Operation Warp Speed. Further detail should be reserved for the respective pages covering that topic. ] (]) 04:27, 2 January 2025 (UTC)


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


:This is more than a mention in the body - it should be shortened. If there is a concern that some of the other COVID-related content is trivial, then condensing that would be a better approach. ] (]) 05:09, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
''']] (])''' 02:45, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
::Two sentences is hardly "more than a mention". The reliable sources describe this as a major achievement of his presidency and a major component of his COVID-19 response. Misplaced Pages reflects the RS. It seems some of the editors chiming in think "consensus" depends on opinion and a vote count. That is false. ] (]) 20:43, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
:::{{tq|That is false.}} Is that a "My arguments are stronger, so I win" argument? &#8213;]&nbsp;] 21:00, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
::::No, consensus building is important. But it is also important that Misplaced Pages editors arguments are based in policy/guidelines/reasoning. Misplaced Pages is supposed to reflect ], and I haven't heard a good argument as to why restriction to a single sentence is appropriate, given the way OWS has been extensively covered in the reliable sources. ] (]) 21:11, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::I'm just being practical, as that's how I roll. Based on my 11 years around here, a large part of it at this article, I'd generously estimate that one in four editors participating at this article actually meets that standard of collaborativeness (my mind doesn't change easily, so I wouldn't count myself as one of them). We can agree on ideals, but we still have to resolve issues. &#8213;]&nbsp;] 21:54, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
:You didn't just reinsert the paragraph after six hours (see "Warning: active arbitration remedies" banner at the top of this talk page), you also added a clause to the lead. I've reverted. The discussion so far supports a brief, e.g., one-sentence mention in the body. Developing an effective vaccine was only part of it; research and development was well under way in several countries by the time of Trump's announcement. <s>Producing and delivering the</s> The production and delivery of a the Trump administration announced on May 15, 2020, was an unrealistic goal and . (Cue .) ]] 12:40, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
::A full delete of the section seems to be more than what Nikkimaria asked for above, maybe to shorten that material which was just deleted by some percentage might be better than the full delete. ] (]) 15:24, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
::{{u|Space4Time3Continuum2x}}, I find this reasoning to restrict it to ''one sentence'' unjustified. Misplaced Pages reflects reliable sources. Consensus is made based upon validity of the argument per editing guidelines, and not because one editor ''thinks'' that this should be restricted to one sentence. Overriding and disputing the reliable sources seems like a major overstep. This is covered in the RS as a major component to the pandemic response, and a major achievement of his presidency.


::And to clarify, I did not “reinsert the paragraph”, I wrote a new one. Second, the part in the lead was in my original . The lead summarizes his response to COVID, and this was a major component of that response.
:I see nothing wrong with "Trump identifies as Presbyterian" and the rest, for the record. ] (]) 16:11, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
* '''Approve''' Starship.Paint's version as a ''bona fide'' refinement of the OP's suggested changes. — ] <sup>]</sup> 06:55, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
:If OP means Original Poster, I am he and I agree. Starship.paint's version does what I suggested. Thanks. ] (]) 13:42, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
* '''Approve''' of Starship.paint's version. It should be reinstated. -- ] (]) 15:07, 28 May 2020 (UTC)


::Can you actually cite me reasoning/guidelines/policy that would favour your interpretation of restricting coverage to a single sentence, given that multiple ] explicitly refer to this as his chief achievement?
* Some wording here seems incorrect and the OR is not desireable. President Trump is a Presbyterian - there seems no RS dispute or doubt of that which would require a distancing "identifies as" - and there are sufficient cites and records mentioned to further support it. The OR of "as a teenager" is plausible, but not allowed as it is just OR. But there is plenty of other things that could be said from cites. You could use cites to say that Trump attended Sunday school and was confirmed at First Presbyterian church in Jamaica <ref>{{cite web |url=https://www.cnn.com/2015/08/28/politics/donald-trump-church-member/ |title=Church says Donald Trump is not an 'active member' }}</ref>. And that "attends different churches since he travels so much." And that he has a bible collection.<ref>{{cite web |url=https://www.worldreligionnews.com/religion-news/judaism/donald-trump-is-a-proud-presbyterian |title=Donald Trump Is A Proud Presbyterian}}</ref>. Or thst Mr. Trump married his first wife, Ivana, at Marble, in a ceremony performed by one of America’s most famous ministers, the Rev. Norman Vincent Peale. His marriage to Ms. Maples was performed by Dr. Peale’s successor, the Rev. Arthur Caliandro, who, like Mr. Trump, was married three times.<ref>{{cite web |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/06/nyregion/donald-trump-marble-collegiate-church-norman-vincent-peale.html |title=Overlooked Influences on Donald Trump: A Famous Minister and His Church}}</ref>. He is known to frequently attend church - he'll attend the Episcopal church near Palm Beach, and occasionally go to an evangelical church. There were a large and varied number of religious speakers at Donald Trump’s inauguration. (NYT) Trump donated to First Presbyterian for renovations. and so on .<ref>{{cite web |url=https://www.uscatholic.org/articles/201701/faith-donald-trump-30910 |title=The faith of Donald Trump}}</ref>. Hope some of those are usable, cheers ] (]) 23:31, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
::] (]) 20:49, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
{{Reflist-talk}}
:::I stand corrected. I hadn't noticed the text in the lead the first time around. Mention in the lead hasn't received any support in this discussion, and the rewritten text is no improvement on the first iteration. It's actually worse. The first sentence is based on a primary source (OWS); second sentence see . ]] 20:58, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
:::{{tq|reasoning/guidelines/policy ... single sentence}} — not a question of guidelines or policy, it's where the consensus seems to be headed. Several editors in this discussion said they prefer a brief, short, or one-sentence mention, also neutral. ]] 21:07, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
::::Regarding your comment above. Just because mRNA technology predates Trump isn't a reason for editors to make their ''own conclusions'' that OWS wasn't really an achievement at all. OWS may well have been imperfect, but multiple ] ''still'' describe it as his chief achievement. E.g. Vox quite recently .
::::It would be appropriate to add a sentence to the end of the two sentence paragraph that I added, clarifying any of the critique of Trump regarding OWS, provided they are in ].
::::In addition to the Vox source, the source did support: {{tq|"Health experts broadly agree that the Trump administration’s national vaccine strategy was a success. The Trump administration was willing to invest in new vaccine technologies, foot the bill for large, expensive clinical studies and simultaneously pay for manufacturing vaccine candidates before it was clear they would prove effective and safe"}} ] (]) 21:08, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::You`re cherry picking a random quote ] (]) 21:23, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::::I highlighted '''multiple''' ] above which are clear that OWS was perhaps his sole accomplishment as president. I'm not going to argue with people who don't understand how Misplaced Pages works. Questioning multiple reliable sources is not appropriate. It's verifiable (]) and in multiple reliable sources. ] (]) 21:39, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::::A handful of random quotes taken out of context ] (]) 21:43, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::Do you have any countervailing evidence, then? I haven't chimed in here because I wanted to see how this developed, but it seems Zenomonoz is arguing for RS and policy…the assertion that this should be arbitrarily restricted to one sentence (and the unhelpful removal in the meantime) doesn't improve the article.
:::::::::<br>
:::::::::How do biographical sources treat OWS? ] (]) 22:59, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::::::That would require an effort on my part..I agree..I believe the reference should be expanded upon regarding trump dragging his feet every moment of the pandemic and is now taking credit for ending it..as did reagan taking credit for the wall coming down ] (]) 00:35, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::::That's good. We should get into the nuances. ] (]) 00:54, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::::{{tq|"I believe the reference should be expanded upon regarding trump dragging his feet every moment of the pandemic"}}, if you actually read the COVID-19 section you would know there is already extensive coverage of trump "dragging his feet". It's frustrating that users are chiming in to say we must restrict mention of a major program he implemented during the pandemic to a single sentence, despite its heavy coverage in multiple reliable sources. No reasoning provided. Quoting multiple RS sources is the opposite of "cherrypicking", by the way. ] (]) 05:57, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::::I would also like to offer my agreement with @Zenomonoz that the listed references indicate notability of the bill itself and is representative of the most notable policy associated with his Presidency. It warrants some mention of inclusion as the references provided do appear to all validate its importance both nationally and with respect to his presidency. ] (]) 05:33, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
*Considering that the major source of the vaccine was Pfizer, which was never a part of Warp Speed, and an immigrant who got the Nobel Prize for ages of research behind the vaccine; but had to leave the country for lack of funds -- a very brief mention somewhere may be OK. But that's all. More than that is an insult to those that spent decades in vaccine efforts -- and Trump's new Health Czar is anti-vaccine. ] (]) 01:21, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
*:{{tq|"More than that is an insult to those that spent decades in vaccine efforts -- and Trump's new Health Czar is anti-vaccine"}} – your reasoning does not seem relevant. Misplaced Pages reflects ], it isn't up to users to be making editorial decisions because they think it's an "insult" to people who worked on vaccines, or because of details surrounding the Pfizer vaccine. OWS funded numerous other vaccines, and scientific experts agree it was largely a success per the ]. A later pending appointment of RFK has zero bearing on OWS and what the sources said about OWS. ] (]) 06:07, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
:The precise quotation from Pfizer is now added to the ] article. ] (]) 01:49, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
::Thanks. An accurate documentation: ] (]) 02:04, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
:::I rewrote one of the added sentences over there per the given source , "Three experts agreed that the U.S. government's conditional advance order 'played an important role in expediting Pfizer’s vaccine development process' and one expert disagreed." As it originally was added with "Experts disagreed", seemed to express more disagreement than the source presented and that there was a larger sample. Thanks. ] (]) 11:55, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
::::I just your rewrite for failing verification. CNN wrote: {{tq|Three experts told CNN that this purchase promise '''may have played''' an important role in expediting Pfizer’s vaccine development process.}} Your text: {{tq|Three experts agreed that the U.S. government's conditional advance order "played an important role in expediting Pfizer’s vaccine development process"}}. I bolded the important words missing from your quote. The CNN article also mentions other uncertainties, such as Pfizer and BioNTech's purchase agreements with other countries. ]] 15:13, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::Here again is my edit , which didn't change the quote that was there. I think what I had should be restored with the extra part "may have”, all of which is supported by the given source. In other words I think it should be like this, "Three experts agreed that the U.S. government's conditional advance order 'may have played an important role in expediting Pfizer’s vaccine development process' and one expert disagreed." Cheers, ] (]) 16:11, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::CNN asked four experts — selected on what basis out of how many? The purchase was contingent on the vaccine's FDA approval, so it was Pfizer/BioNTech taking the risk of paying for development, clinical trials, building the production facilities — seems they were fairly certain that they would succeed. ]] 16:33, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::::Space, we are not going to start questioning the reliability of sources like CNN, nor committing OR. I agree with Bob's proposal, and will insert the amended quote tomorrow. ] (]) 23:53, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::::Yes. A small paragraph about OWS is justified to go back in. It's covered extensively in reliable sources. Space (but mostly other users) have been questioning reliable sources ] and carrying out ] in the comments here. I received stern warnings for that when I was new to Misplaced Pages. This his all boils down to "what do the reliable sources say?". If there's extensive coverage in RS, it can be included. If users want to include RS mention of any criticism of Trump and OWS, that can be included too. Per the sources, OWS is a major part of the Trump admin COVID response. What do the reliable sources say? ] (]) 06:28, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::I agree. I would also suggest that editors look at the rather large section and note what is currently there without OWS. Thanks. ] (]) 10:01, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
Within the context of how trump and his cronies handled the pandemic ] (]) 21:06, 5 January 2025 (UTC)


== New official portrait <span class="anchor" id="When Trump's new potrait is taken during his second term, should that replace the photo of his last Presidential potrait?"></span> ==
*{{re|Markbassett}} - I would be ashamed of introducing original research. Here's what the says: {{purple|... First Presbyterian Church ... Trump was confirmed there in 1959, around the time he turned 13.}} Does that not satisfy {{tq|as a teenager he was confirmed at the First Presbyterian Church}}? When you're around 13, you're a teenager...? ''']] (])''' 08:21, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
*:{{smaller|1=Unless you're {{frac|12|1|2}}. {{smiley}} &#8213;]&nbsp;] 14:21, 29 May 2020 (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)}}
*::{{ping|Mandruss}} - that is irritating indeed. "aged 12 or 13" just sounds weird. Care to suggest an improvement? Markbassett? ''']] (])''' 14:32, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
*:::What we have is fine. &#8213;]&nbsp;] 14:39, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
*::] - just delete ‘teenager’ as OR, and kind of unnecessary and the semicolon looks odd. The other issues that he was possibly 12 (or 11.5) so ‘teenager’ could be wrong, or that ‘teenager’ also means 19 so it’s a vague term is then moot. The age doesn’t seem worth note so much as describing the religious events. Saying he went to Sunday school and was confirmed at the First Presbyterian sticks to facts in cite and seems more informative about his religion. Cheers ] (]) 20:20, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
*:::{{ping|Markbassett}} - in 1959 he would have been anywhere between 12.5 to 13.5. I'll just leave the year in. ''']] (])''' 02:02, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
:::::] a year also avoids the “teenager”, but I’m not seeing that year in text of cites ? Cheers ] (]) 04:20, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
::::::{{ping|Markbassett}} - NYT 'Overlooked' source: {{tq|It describes itself as the oldest continuously worshiping Presbyterian congregation in the country. Mr. Trump was confirmed there in 1959, around the time he turned 13.}} ''']] (])''' 04:28, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
:::::::] ah, and that justifies having the NYT cite which otherwise is lesser/superfluous to CNN. Elsewhere I’d seen June 1959, which wasn’t authoritative and still wouldn’t clear up the age without the day. Cheers ] (]) 14:11, 30 May 2020 (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)
* A further issue with this section, it lists Peale as his minister until 1993, but Marble got a new minister in 1984. Trump and Peale apparently remained friends until Peale died in 1993 but was not their minister. I just did an edit so someone else can take this one or wait till I get around to it. Cheers ] (]) 21:07, 29 May 2020 (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)
{{tq2|Trump identifies as ]. He went to ] and was ] in 1959 at the ] in Jamaica, Queens.<ref name="BarronNYT"/><ref name=inactive>{{cite news |last1=Scott |first1=Eugene |title=Church says Donald Trump is not an 'active member' |url=https://edition.cnn.com/2015/08/28/politics/donald-trump-church-member/index.html |accessdate=May 26, 2020 |work=] |date=August 28, 2015}}</ref> In the 1970s, his parents joined the ] in Manhattan, which belongs to the ].<ref name="BarronNYT"/><ref name="WaPo.March.18.17">{{cite news |last=Schwartzman |first=Paul |title=How Trump got religion – and why his legendary minister's son now rejects him |url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/how-trump-got-religion--and-why-his-legendary-ministers-son-now-rejects-him/2016/01/21/37bae16e-bb02-11e5-829c-26ffb874a18d_story.html |accessdate=March 18, 2017 |work=] |date=January 21, 2016}}</ref> The pastor at Marble, ],<ref name="BarronNYT">{{cite news |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/06/nyregion/donald-trump-marble-collegiate-church-norman-vincent-peale.html |title=Overlooked Influences on Donald Trump: A Famous Minister and His Church |work=] |first=James |last=Barron |authorlink=James Barron (journalist) |date=September 5, 2016 |accessdate=October 13, 2016}}</ref> ministered to Trump's family until Peale's death in 1993.<ref name="WaPo.March.18.17" /> Trump has described Peale as a mentor.{{sfn|Kranish|Fisher|2017|p=}} Trump has highlighted Peale's writing on '']'', and acknowledged that he learned from Peale to "never think of the negative", and that "the mind can overcome any obstacle".<ref name=inactive/>{{sfn|Kranish|Fisher|2017|p=}} In 2015, after Trump said: "I go to Marble Collegiate Church", the church reacted by stating that he "is not an active member" of the church.<ref name=inactive/>}}
:For infoboxes for politicians, Misplaced Pages uses the most recent official portrait. &#8213;]&nbsp;] 13:05, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
:There is a precedent with Barack Obama. We use the most recent, second White House portrait which is closer to how he currently looks (salt-and-pepper rather than his earlier black hair). https://petapixel.com/2013/01/18/a-closer-look-at-obamas-new-official-presidential-portrait/ ] (]) 08:25, 6 January 2025 (UTC)


== Making this article fully protected ==
I thought that since Trump cited Peale as a mentor, one further sentence on what he said he learned from Peale would be appropriate. ''']] (])''' 02:15, 30 May 2020 (UTC)


when he is instated, there will be a wave of people (i think) that will try to edit it, and even bots. i find it necessary to make it fully protected (gold lock) ] (]) 13:46, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
{{sources-talk}} <!-- INSERT NEW COMMENTS ABOVE THIS LINE -->
:Pages are not protected preemptively... - ] (]) 17:32, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
:It's called ] ] (]) 21:13, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
::i know, but i think there will be a large vandalism wave, maybe one we cant actually control. over the next 4 years we will definitely see vandalism, which will be extremely annoying and tedious to defend against. ] (]) 21:15, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
::is there anything that actually is fully protected? ] (]) 21:16, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
:::Not in this life...I would prefer to see the page taken down completely for 24 hours than it freezing due to edit conflict but that`s censorship as well ] (]) 22:03, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
::::ok ] (]) 10:27, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
:The article survived the election with the current protection. It will likewise survive the inauguration. In the absolute worst case, we could always restore a days-old revision. &#8213;]&nbsp;] 00:09, 6 January 2025 (UTC)


== RFC on page creation for Obamagate == == Donald trump is now president. ==


Discussion can be found ].] (]) 16:17, 26 May 2020 (UTC) Change from President-elect to President. ] (]) 18:40, 6 January 2025 (UTC)


:@] you have to wait 14 more days... ] ] 18:42, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
== "Popular vote" canard ==
:has he been inaugurated? ] (]) 18:43, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
:No, he is not. His term will start at noon on the 20th. Just like Biden's started at noon on 20 January 2021. Just like Trump's previous term started at noon on 20 January 2017. --] (]) (]) 19:26, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
:No he's not, wdym???? He'll be the president starting from Jan 20. There's still two weeks left ] (]) 11:43, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
:I find titles for Presidents and other politicians in Misplaced Pages articles to be inconsistent. For example in President Biden’s article, one can see President Barack Obama and former president Donald Trump in the article, and political titles should be used more.
:The Twentieth Amendment uses the term, “President-elect,” as you are using here, yet Misplaced Pages in this article, and in the article, “President-elect,” uses “president-elect,” “President,” is not capitalized.
:The fact is people were more formal when I was younger, a President had the title of President the rest of his life. ] (]) 10:21, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
::He has been referred to as President but in encyclopedic knowledge it makes no sense to refer to Former President as President. This will of course change again in couple of days once he takes the oath for the length of his last presidency. ] (]) 21:15, 11 January 2025 (UTC)


== Reduce number of citations ==
In the lead section, there used to be a footnote explaining what the "popular vote" means in the context of U.S. presidential elections. Was there a discussion to remove the footnote, or was that just a bold edit I missed? I think it's wrong to say "but he lost the popular vote" if we do not explain to readers that the U.S. electoral process for the presidency IS NOT a "popular vote". Given that readers from many countries are indeed more familiar with a ] presidential election, we should EITHER explain the U.S. process OR refrain from mentioning that Trump "lost" some irrelevant count of votes. — ] <sup>]</sup> 06:53, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
: prompted , which prompted ], which wasn't about the footnote specifically. I don't know why I didn't pipe up then, but imo the footnote did more good than harm. &#8213;]&nbsp;] 11:03, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
::I have restored the footnote. — ] <sup>]</sup> 12:46, 31 May 2020 (UTC)


This article, without a doubt, should be reduced its citations. 800+ is too much. There are a very few sentences without 2 or more citations. We don't need thousands of citations to prove something. What we need is a reliable source, that we can absolutely rely on, and I can say we can rely on each citation in this article. Where Trump starts his new presidential term, there would of course be a new section for that term, and there for sure be more than 200 citations at the end of that term, and later his post-presidency. This article is already long enough, which I for sure couldn't read within 5 hours. Too much citations. Plus, Trump is one of the most influential people in the U.S. and the world, which makes no doubt that there won't be any misinformation or what did not happen in this article, I mean we don't need 800+ citations, if not fixed the problem, by October 2025, 900 citations in this article. ] (]) 19:01, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
== <span id="Motion to strike an unnecessarily verbose sentence from the lead section"></span> Motion to strike a sentence from the lead section ==
{{atop|No appetite for change; motion withdrawn. — ] <sup>]</sup> 12:49, 31 May 2020 (UTC)}}
The lead section states, in its paragraph about Trump's political rise:
:{{talkquote| Trump has made ] 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.}}
I move to strike the second sentence, yielding the abridged text:
:{{talkquote| Trump has made ] during his campaign and presidency.}}
We already state as fact, in ], that Trump spews a lot of garbage. It is unnecessary to further justify this characterization by invoking fact-checkers and the media for a whole extra sentence. Curious readers can read the linked dedicated article: ], which would arguably be even more prominent with the single-sentence, straight-to-the-point version. — ] <sup>]</sup> 07:40, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
:This is ] #35. Please review that discussion and say what warrants rehashing this. &#8213;]&nbsp;] 10:42, 28 May 2020 (UTC)


:I could probably get behind that, keep it simple. ] (]) 14:58, 28 May 2020 (UTC) :I do agree that we should delete excess citations, such as where two or three citations are used at the end of a sentence where one will do. &ndash;&nbsp;]&nbsp;(]) 20:54, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
:{{tq| This article is already long enough, which I for sure couldn't read within 5 hours. Too much citations.}} What does number of citations have to do with article length? Would you read every citation?{{pb}}While obvious OVERCITE should be avoided, I have no problem with the current number of citations and I think the hard PEIS limit should be the primary limiter. (See ].) &#8213;]&nbsp;] 21:04, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
:{{blue|Trump spews a lot of garbage}} - Actually we don't state anything so vague and meaningless as those words, which sound derisive and subjective. The text that's in the article is the compact way of stating the significant fact. It should be left as is. Once again, please do not make or propose these significant changes to the meaning of the article on the pretext that they are mere tweaks, copyedits, or "trims". You are of course welcome to propose changes in meaning, but they should be identified as such and in most cases brought to this talk page, regardless of whether they are listed in the Consensus panel.]] 15:13, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
::So, I'm bringing a suggested change to the talk page right here. Your point is? ] <sup>]</sup> 16:03, 28 May 2020 (UTC) ::The article size is daunting also, its over 400Kb in size. If the article were reduced in size, then the number of cites could be significantly reduced as well. ] (]) 01:48, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
:::"Point" is pretty clear from the foregoing. As you may recall, I am not the only editor who's expressed concern over your changes of meaning in edits not identified as such. Please be more careful with language - calling POTUS speech "garbage" is not constructive and your recent change to the Mueller report bit was an example of an unwarranted undiscussed revision in the guise of a "trim". Clarity will only make your views more likely to be accepted. ]] 16:26, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' change to stable text. The second sentence is ''vital'' to an understanding of the extraordinary scale of Trump's mendacity. -- ] (]) 16:48, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' leave it in..it`s relevant ] (]) 19:29, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
*'''Support:''' Info/wording in this article should be as concise as possible, leaving the detail for ]. --] (]) 21:11, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
*'''Supportish, but would have to be specific text and a RFC''' - I'm OK with redoing the wording to shorter, or merging into one line. But I think that changing the lines made by a prior RFC would need to go thru another RFC with the actual proposed text. Perhaps "Fact-checkers and the media have widely described Trump as having made many false or misleading statements during his campaign and presidency." ? Cheers ] (]) 23:54, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
**Actually, you've missed out "academics" in that group, not just "Fact-checkers and the media", {{u|Markbassett}}. There are seven sources in our article (in the mega-reference) describing the academics' comments. For some reason, we never mentioned that in the lead. ''']] (])''' 12:06, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
***] - Exclude “academics” as that’s not so universal and also as the meme is more stereotypically media doing fact-checking vs Trump. While it might be interesting details what other subsets agree or disagree or abstain and which were during campaign or which were later ... such details do not belong in LEAD. Cheers ] (]) 20:31, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
****{{reply|Markbassett}} There's near universal opposition to this proposal, in case you haven't noticed. -- ] (]) 20:35, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
:::::] you need to work on your counting skills. It was 3:2 majority for change with my post, and now is 6:3 against change. Nowhere near “universal”. Cheers ] (]) 21:56, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
:::::; Mark, there is near universal consensus on this matter in the English Misplaced Pages in all topic areas, as well as nearly every one of the hundreds of other Misplaced Pages projects. I’m pretty sure that’s what {{U|Scjessey}} was referring to. ] (]) 22:08, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
::::::] - ???? My curiosity as to how you could possibly believe that “all topic areas” cover this and “hundreds of other Misplaced Pages projects also seems irrelevant as the topic is *this* article. As for “universal”, to quote ] “You Keep Using That Word. I Do Not Think It Means What You Think It Means.” Cheers ] (]) 22:33, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
::::::{{reply|Markbassett}} At the you I replied to, the count was '''''seven''''' oppose votes and ''two'' support votes (excluding your "supportish" vote). Maybe it is ''you'' who needs to work on your counting skills. -- ] (]) 00:27, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
::::::::] well now, that’s better than calling it ‘universal opposition’, though mmm JFG, PackMecEng, 1990sGuy and me sure seems like '''four''' support !votes. And seems eleven against. Scrolling on small screen might have missed something, if you’re inclined to try counting any more. Though nobody seems much in policy or factual points. Cheers ] (]) 01:12, 31 May 2020 (UTC)


== Indictment Dismissal ==
:::::: Because these are foundational policies on Misplaced Pages. I watched a lot of these take form over the years, and it’s what keeps Misplaced Pages a source of generally reliable knowledge. The opinions of academics, experts, and researchers are generally considered the top tier of RS, with only a few exceptions (I.e., fringe). If you want to refute this across the various venues of Misplaced Pages, feel free. ] (]) 22:50, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
* '''Oppose change'''. Nothing has changed to justify changing the firmly established consensus version. If anything, he's gotten much worse, so expanding/sharpening the wording would be justified. -- ] (]) 04:32, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
* '''Comment''' What is the point in this, aside from changing the wording? Or “softening” it, rather? The current wording reflects NPOV. Without question. Like it or not, Trumps’s rhetoric is unprecedented. ] (]) 04:37, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
::] ??? In what way do you think that “reflects” NPOV, the showing of all views in due weight ? This seems only stating a single position, not a mix. Cheers ] (]) 21:46, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
::: Once again, this isn’t an RfC or local consensus issue. NPOV doesn’t mean what you think it does, which while this is something new editors continually struggle with, but you’re a not a new editor. It means reflecting the views of a preponderance or reliable sources in prose. It’s not possible to argue otherwise on Misplaced Pages. And NPOV, by extension, certainly doesn’t mean false balance. The sources are clear on this. People arguing a policy based on what the policy doesn’t even say is ridiculous. ] (]) 22:08, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
:::: Ok, so no description of how this single-view “reflects” NPOV. ] (]) 22:36, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
::::: It’s not a “single view”. They’re nuanced views held across literally thousands of sources in dozens upon dozens of countries. If you want overcite on this, we can go there, but it’s literally gonna be like 15:1000. ] (]) 22:44, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
:::::: The first line presents a single view in one compound phrase, there is no indication of relative prominence of some other contrasting or alternate view. That’s why I asked what in there you meant by “reflect” NPOV. The second line is just a commentary on the first, explicitly tying it to fact-checkers and media. (Although the conjunction as written could be read as independent sentences instead.). Cheers ] (]) 00:01, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
* If there is any change, it should be changing the last sentence to "{{green|academics have described this phenomenon as unprecedented for a U.S. president.}}" 7 sources support this statement.<ref>
* {{cite journal |last=McGranahan |first=Carole |title=An anthropology of lying: Trump and the political sociality of moral outrage |journal=] |date=May 2017 |volume=44 |issue=2 |pages=243–248 |doi=10.1111/amet.12475 |quote=It has long been a truism that politicians lie, but with the entry of Donald Trump into the U.S. political domain, the frequency, degree, and impact of lying in politics are now unprecedented Donald Trump is different. By all metrics and counting schemes, his lies are off the charts. We simply have not seen such an accomplished and effective liar before in U.S. politics.}}
* {{cite news |work=] |date=August 7, 2017 |first=Sheryl Gay |last=Stolberg |authorlink=Sheryl Gay Stolberg |title=Many Politicians Lie. But Trump Has Elevated the Art of Fabrication. |accessdate=March 11, 2019 |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/07/us/politics/lies-trump-obama-mislead.html |quote=President Trump, historians and consultants in both political parties agree, appears to have taken what the writer ] once called 'the conflict between truth and politics' to an entirely new level.}}
* {{cite news |url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2018/12/30/year-unprecedented-deception-trump-averaged-false-claims-day/ |title=A year of unprecedented deception: Trump averaged 15 false claims a day in 2018 |work=] |date=December 30, 2018 |accessdate=February 20, 2019 |first=Glenn |last=Kessler |authorlink=Glenn Kessler (journalist) |quote='When before have we seen a president so indifferent to the distinction between truth and falsehood, or so eager to blur that distinction?' presidential historian ] said of Trump in 2018.}}
* {{cite news |work=] |date=February 6, 2017 |first=Mark Z. |last=Barabak |title=There's a long history of presidential untruths. Here's why Donald Trump is 'in a class by himself' |accessdate=March 11, 2019 |url=https://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-trump-presidential-lies-2017-story.html |quote=White House scholars and other students of government agree there has never been a president like Donald Trump, whose volume of falsehoods, misstatements and serial exaggerations{{snd}}on matters large and wincingly small{{snd}}place him 'in a class by himself', as Texas A&amp;M's ] put it.}}
* {{cite news |work=] |date=December 22, 2017 |first=Daniel |last=Dale |authorlink=Daniel Dale |title=Donald Trump has spent a year lying shamelessly. It hasn't worked |accessdate=March 4, 2019 |url=https://www.thestar.com/news/world/analysis/2017/12/22/donald-trump-has-spent-a-year-lying-shamelessly-it-hasnt-worked.html |quote='We've had presidents that have lied or misled the country, but we've never had a serial liar before. And that's what we're dealing with here,' said ], the prominent Rice University presidential historian.}}
* {{cite web |website=] |date=2017 |first=Heidi Taksdal |last=Skjeseth |title=All the president's lies: Media coverage of lies in the US and France |url=https://reutersinstitute.politics.ox.ac.uk/sites/default/files/2017-10/Taksdal%20Skjeseth%2C%20All%20the%20President%27s%20Lies%20-%20Media%20Coverage%20of%20lies%20in%20the%20US%20and%20France.pdf |quote=Trump is not the first president to be at odds with the press, but the amount of lies he delivers and his aggressive attacks on and constant undermining of the legitimacy of the media, is unprecedented.}}
* {{cite journal |last1=Stern |first1=Donnel |title=Constructivism in the Age of Trump: Truth, Lies, and Knowing the Difference |journal=Psychoanalytic Dialogues |date=May 9, 2019 |volume=29 |issue=2 |pages=189–196 |doi=10.1080/10481885.2019.1587996 |quote=Donald Trump lies so often that some have wondered whether he has ] We expect politicians to stretch the truth. But Trump is a whole different animal. He lies as a policy.}}</ref> ''']] (])''' 09:30, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' at least until a rationale for rehashing this has been given. Nothing relevant has changed as far as I can see, and this seeks to modify the result of an RfC that was open for six weeks. &#8213;]&nbsp;] 13:49, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' The second sentence is necessary to explain why the first is even in the lead. If we don't cite the supporting evidence and the fact that his behavior is unprecedented, we will constantly be asked "Why is this even in the article? All politicians lie." -- ] (]) 14:07, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' - The second sentence establishes important context. - ]] 14:20, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' - Obviously, the subject would strongly disagree that his statements were false. Second phrase is needed to explain what it really means. Saying that, I am looking at , and this should be noted prominently on the page. ] (]) 19:59, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
*'''Oppose'''. The second sentence is needed to back up and give proper context to the first. ] (]) 20:53, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' - I do not support changing the text. ] (]) 10:50, 31 May 2020 (UTC)


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


==The late president's article==
== Trump's executive order ==
Looking at the article for the late ], the Misplaced Pages article for him has a substantial section about his medical history as 'Personal life' and 'Health' which appears at the bottom of the article. The section at the Jimmy Carter article looks comprehensive and respectful. The Trump article, however, seems to put the Personal life section and Health section all the way near the top of the article which seems like an odd place to put this information. When I looked at the article for Washington, then the Personal life section is also put towards the bottom of the article. Should the 'Personal life' section and 'Health' for Trump be moved to the bottom of the article as seems to be the standard practice for Misplaced Pages president articles such as Washington and Carter? ] (]) 16:12, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
{{atop|Closed per OP request. — ] <sup>]</sup> 12:50, 31 May 2020 (UTC)}}
Is there an article on Trump's executive order? For a reaction section this could be added: " ] (]) 17:07, 28 May 2020 (UTC)


:Interesting point, My only input is that it might have to do with the weight the information holds in contrast to the rest of the content in the article? Is there any MOS format that suggests that personal life/health might be better located at the bottom of an article? ] (]) 17:43, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
:Has the EO been formally filed, yet? ] (]) 17:11, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
::Part of the problem maybe that Carter was kind of a notable politician who happened to also be a businessman, whereas Trump was a notable businessman who (or maybe a celebrity) who happened to become a pelican. So the article grew organically. ] (]) 17:46, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
::There is a . ] (]) 18:24, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
:::Autocorrect or some kind of avian easteregg? ] (]) 18:01, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
::. ] (]) 21:48, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
::::One was created from the off as about a politician, one grew into one about a politician. ] (]) 18:05, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::"pelican"? ] (]) 18:20, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::It looks like Slatersteven was trying to type "politician" rather than 'pelikan', which he can edit into his comment if he wants to. I'm also finding that the president's article for ] also has Personal life section which appears near the end of the article, as opposed to the Trump article which for some reason has put it at the top of the article. The Misplaced Pages preference for Washington, Jimmy Carter, and now John Quincy Adams, see to all be placing the Personal life section towards the end of the article. Should the Trump article be consistent with the other president articles on Misplaced Pages and place the Personal life section towards the end of the article? ] (]) 00:34, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::::I don't see why not. Most people probably don't come to this page to read about DJT's schooling. ] (]) 01:33, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
:No. Trump's private life is part of his tabloid persona, and other presidents' articles (e.g., Lincoln and Obama) have long early life sections that go into details about their families. ]] 21:07, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
::That sounds ok for the Marriages part of Personal life, but the Health subsection of Personal life really does not seem to belong at the top of the article. Jimmy Carter, Washington, and JQA all place Private life to the bottom of the article. Is there really much advantage to reading about Trump's golf life at the top of the current article when it could better be located towards the bottom of the Table of Contents. ] (]) 21:31, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
:::Where towards the bottom would you put it? Teetotalism, sleep and exercise habits are also part of his public persona. The "healthiest president ever" claim was part of the 2016 campaign, and the removal of the medical records happened during the first presidency. ]] 13:15, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
::::My thoughts might suggest the best place for that Personal life Health section to be placed right before the Assessments section towards the bottom of the article. His golf life appears significantly less important than reading about his business life and his media life at the top of the article. ] (]) 20:51, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
:The difference here is Trump’s ] politics. Status quo is fine ] (]) 22:05, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
::Actually, Erdogan’s, Orban’s, and Chavez’s articles have Personal life at the bottom, so I’ll support following those ] (]) 22:13, 10 January 2025 (UTC)


== Proposal to supersede consensus #50 <span class="anchor" id="RfC to supersede consensus #50"></span> ==
The suggestion for an article is way premature. Right now this is just one of many controversial executive orders he has made. It may blow up into a notable case, particularly if it sparks notable lawsuits, or it may turn out to be a nothingburger. A sentence in the Presidency article is about all it rates right now. -- ] (]) 14:10, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
{{not a ballot}}
:If this is just one of many controversial executive orders he has made then I propose the creation of an article about the controversial executive orders. ] (]) 02:07, 30 May 2020 (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)
::{{ping|QuackGuru}} - I don't see a need for any collection beyond ]. Either an executive order will become controversial enough to warrant its own article, or it will not. ''']] (])''' 02:18, 30 May 2020 (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)
:::I think this one could become controversial and notable because of the potential for lawsuits and legal challenges. If someone decides to create an article in the future please let me know. This section can be closed and archived. ] (]) 02:27, 30 May 2020 (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"?
{{abot}}
*:—] 16:55, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
*:*Or: "'''Marshall Bruce Mathers III''' (born October 17, 1972), known professionally as '''Eminem''' (stylized as '''EMINƎM'''), is an American rapper, songwriter, record producer, and criminal.—] 16:58, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
*:*:That would be undue, his criminal characterization has not received sustained widespread coverage, unlike the president-elect. ] (]) 17:00, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
*:*::Criminal characterization? What does that mean? —] 17:04, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
*:*:@] Ridiculous and fallacious, as in the slippery slope fallacy, or a ] as you are creating here.
*:*:How many celebrities or even gangster rappers do you know that have been convicted of crimes? More than I can count. So, not notable.
*:*:But what if the crimes themselves are so notable they outweigh the other ] aspects of a public person, as in the case of Harvey Weinstein? Yes, notable.
*:*:Now, how many Presidents in US history can YOU COUNT that have been convicted of multiple felonies, ones that are related to election interference? Only one. And just like it is notable to objectively state as notable fact that Barack Obama is the first black President elected in US history, it is more than relevant to mention (in the opening sentence) that Trump is the first convicted felon/criminal elected to become President of the United States, especially considering that American democracy has as its bedrock the rule of law as enforced by convictions of juries of their peers, with even Trump himself making it his legacy to publicly argue that he is literally (and should be) above the law as President. So there is no other way around this. It is ] on all counts as prescribed by etiquette surrounding ]. ] (]) 21:59, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
*:*::The Obama article doesn't even include "African American" in the first sentence, that's only in the second sentence. —] 22:30, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
*:*:::@] So then include it in the second sentence. That's a good compromise. But you are against that as well it would seem, so why bother with that ]? ] (]) 22:45, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
*:*::::This request for comment (please read ]) is not about the second sentence, it's about the first sentence, as worded in the proposal. This isn't a negotiation for us to come to a compromise. What is being responded to is the proposal, as stated in the question. Editors are, each individually, to the best of their ability, giving arguments for why the proposal should be implemented or not. And, in any case, what would that second sentence be like while reusing the exact language from the proposal: "And, in addition, he is a criminal"? —] 22:51, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
*:*:::::@] I'm sure that as long as it is included in the first of second sentence as either "the first convicted felon" or "the first convicted criminal" to be elected to the office of Presidency, then that is well within the ballpark here.
*:*:::::The larger debate is that now that the highest law in the land from the SCOTUS doesn't think Donald Trump is exceptional here, and now that sentencing has concluded, he is a convicted criminal/felon as a matter of empirical verifiable fact. This isn't about the time he shoplifted a DVD player as 21 year old (joking) about 30+ serious felonies.
*:*:::::I can buy that argument that this is more than relevant and necessary to place this objective factual information as front and center as possible given its newsworthiness and historic importance. Misplaced Pages is first and foremost about both.
*:*:::::I maintain neutrality only because the RFC won't be decided on a vote count, or our arguments here, but arbitrarily by an admin coming in to decide on a whim or which way the wind is blowing it would seem. Fair point on both sides as there is no mechanism for this unprecedented moment. ] (]) 23:00, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
*:*::::::You're in no position to be sure of anything as someone who clearly hasn't dealt with these things for long enough on Misplaced Pages and don't understand how decisions are made. You need to be less sure about what you're telling yourself, and more sure about what people who know what they are talking about are telling you. They are telling you things such as: {{tq|This request for comment (please read ]) is not about the second sentence, it's about the first sentence, as worded in the proposal. This isn't a negotiation for us to come to a compromise. What is being responded to is the proposal, as stated in the question. Editors are, each individually, to the best of their ability, giving arguments for why the proposal should be implemented or not. }} What you claim to be the debate is not the debate here and now in this talk section. The "debate" question is as follows: {{tq|Do you support or oppose the lede sentence to now read: Donald John Trump (born June 14, 1946) is an American politician, media personality, businessman, and criminal who served as the 45th president of the United States from 2017 to 2021.?}} —] 23:28, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
*:The conviction was secured in May 2024. January 10th was sentencing, which has no bearing on conviction. ] (]) 17:56, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
*:BLPCRIME says nothing about ''placement'' of content. It allows ''inclusion'' of content, and the article already does that. Your policy claim is invalid. &#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)
*'''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 wikipedia for other politicians who are convicted criminals. One key example being ] who was Italian PM convicted of multiple crimes including a 4 year sentence for tax fraud which is mentioned in his 4th opening paragraph not the opening sentence. ] (]) 19:55, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' The proposal is for a "crime label" for which there is an essay: ]. As listed by the essay, Misplaced Pages has had vast and lengthy arguments over crime labels, where in countless RFC's such labels are nearly universally unsuccessful. Or at least there has to be an obvious rationale for it. Basically, they are misleading, vague, and poor writing. In the present case, it smacks of simple name calling. Far better to just include a brief description of the criminal instance in the lead. I would, however, be in favor of a new section in the article bringing together all of Trump's sundry criminal and civil episodes; such a section may well then suggest an appropriate label. ] (]) 20:52, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Comment''' - It's beyond relevant..it's the only thing he will be remembered for in the end...a rich criminal who bought his way into power at the bequest of those more sinister than him ] (]) 21:02, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
**{{Ping|Anonymous8206}} Trump became president twice (2016, 2024) democratically (US elections are democratic), to claim otherwise is simply wrong. ] (]) 02:36, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
**: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)
*'''Oppose''' for the time being. I doubt this is what he'll be consistently noted as, but could be proven wrong. ] (]) 21:09, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Strong Support''' This is absolutely first sentence material and possibly one of the most textbook ] pieces of information in wikipedia history as far as the ] goes, according our rules governing it.{{pb}}FACT- Trump was now officially sentenced for multiple felony crimes. That makes him the FIRST convicted felon (by a jury of his peers) to be elected President. Just like in the Obama wikipedia article, it mentions "Obama being the first African-American elected", this is equally notable. This is a first. And even the American Supreme Court allowed for Trump to be sentenced, so there is no question legally of where this stands.{{pb}}Of course, there are politically biased editors making ridiculous arguments against this in violation of etiquette and rules of wikipedia. And many examples listed AGAINST THIS are fueled by fallacious reasoning, or use petty examples that simply don't match here. The only reason to exclude this is because Trump is not only above the law in this country but above our rules apparently for ideological reasoning here.{{pb}}Again, no convicted felon in history was EVER elected President. And this is for multiple notable felony crimes involving a scheme to interfere in the democratic election, which is WHY NY law was able to amplify misdemeanor crimes into a felony crime scheme verdict/finding. Perhaps if the American SCOTUS down the road overturns this we can revisit this.{{pb}}And to be clear, if Biden was ever convicted of a crime or any democratic President then I too would strong support mention of that in the first sentence.{{pb}}However, the idea that if enough biased editors come here to OPPOSE THIS that we will allow for mob rule to override rules of what is ] is a sad day for wikipedia, and proof that our community fails in upholding journalistic standards that we claim we uphold. If enough biased editors set up an RFC vote for a pro flat-earth position or a Holocaust denial position, would be both sides that?! Of course not, as wikipedia is clear on ] thinking, which is what is driving a delay on including this very important notable information per the standards of ].{{pb}}That it is buried in the article is a lame fallacious way around what is at heart here. That we treat all people and biographies the same regardless of political power. A President being convicted of serious crimes is every bit as notable (if not more so) than race or gender as it makes wikipedia come off as more concerned about notability about the color of one's skin that one's choices and behavior. No, this is a test of whether we can truly be objective about the facts and the mission of wikipedia, or if we simply cower in the face of fear of being unpopular. ] (]) 21:06, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
*:See ] and ]. State your case without accusing others of incompetence or bad faith, even if unnamed. &#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 wikipedia precedence. ] (]) 22:15, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
*:::::I know, I'm saying it not being in the first sentence is not censorship. Additionally, what other articles do is not particularly relevant to this article. Other stuff, whataboutism, etc. — ''']''' <sup>''(])''</sup> 22:21, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
*::::::@] Not to butt in, BUT (no pun intended) ''you did mention'' to the OP that it was "included in the body" as YOUR retort about an RFC literally about whether it is worthy to include this pertinent information front and center, not whether or not it should be included period. So that much was clear from the OP and those taking his/her/their position on this.
*::::::And that retort is a popular dodge/red-herring in this debate and the one before it, as fallacies have been mentioned.
*::::::I'm neutral on this row.
*::::::But it does appear you are not IMO. ] (]) 22:49, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
*:::::::Sorry but I'm not quite following your point. My position has always been that it shouldn't be in the opening sentence, but is acceptable later in the lede (as it is currently). So no, I'm not neutral on this.
*:::::::The retort I made isn't a dodge - consensus is decided locally; what's is Obama's lede is apples and oranges. — ''']''' <sup>''(])''</sup> 23:11, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
*::::::::@] How so? lol It IS significant in a country like America where after hundreds of years of elections of white 'lawabiding' men a black man is elected President for the same reason that a convicted criminal with 34+ felony convictions is elected. It is historic, newsworthy, and very much a defining part of his legacy. He literally ran on that distinction.
*::::::::And consensus isn't god when it comes to undeniable history or empirical fact as far as a certain bottom goes even by wikipedia standards. If a local consensus suddenly decided the world was flat, an admin could overrule that as you know consensus be damned. You are not providing a compelling reason not to include it front and center other than you think it somehow is unfair and even disparaging against the subject, and outside the norms. Well, so is a democratic country like America electing its first convicted criminal in its hundreds of years as lawful democracy.
*::::::::Misplaced Pages is not beyond its own flaws, and editors are within their rights to call it out when they they have compelling case to do so. Do with that what you will, but it's not a violation of good faith given the exceptional circumstances here for some to challenge your thinking. That's my neutral point of view in this. Food for thought. ] (]) 23:24, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
*:::::::::{{tq|If a local consensus suddenly decided the world was flat, an admin could overrule that as you know consensus be damned.}} That's actually false. A closer can override the numbers if the minority has a stronger policy basis. There is no Misplaced Pages policy that the world is spherical. But this point is academic since flat-earth arguments would never have a majority and could never have a stronger policy basis. &#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)


* Yes please take users to ANI or their talk page, do not discuss user conduct here. ] (]) 22:08, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
== Implementing the suggestions from the recent Peer Review ==


*'''Support''' Forget about conviction. We've never had a POTUS who was even criminally indicted.] (]) 22:43, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
It has been about a month since I opened the PR of this article, (linked ]) and I did get a few good suggestions on how to improve the article, especially its lead.
*: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)
Some of the issues raised were:
:Why isn't a CONVICTED FELON text on the intro? ] (]) 04:07, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
* Trump's proclamation of Jerusalem as the capital of Israel gets proportionally much more coverage in this lead compared with his presidency article. This is because the presidency article has 5 paragraphs on the subject whereas this article has only a few sentences. Given the low amount of coverage it receives here it could be dropped from the lead.
::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)
* A low amount of coverage in this article as far as deregulation is concerned.
:'''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)
* An incomplete summary in the lead of certain social and immigration issues, given that the lead does not mention the lengthy government shutdown or the border wall.
#
Closeses are based on the strength of policy based argument, and can be challenged, they are not some "whim". ] (]) 23:04, 10 January 2025 (UTC)


*'''Oppose''' per Zaathras' Osama Principle. If the Misplaced Pages cannot even say directly "] was a terrorist," then virtually no article is suitable for a "Subject is a <pejorative>" opener. ] (]) 01:39, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
Your comments or suggestions on which suggestions we should implement and how are most welcome. ] (]) 05:07, 29 May 2020 (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)


*'''Oppose''', I don't understand the users who agree (obviously I don't judge). ] (]) 02:27, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
*{{re|Mgasparin}} - regarding immigration, in the body I've expanded the family separation section, created/expanded the migrant detention section, and created the Trump wall section. ''']] (])''' 11:53, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
::Awesome! Thanks. ] (]) 01:17, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
::{{u|Starship.paint}} What about Jerusalem though? What should we do there? (An RfC may be necessary). ] (]) 05:20, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
:::{{ping|Mgasparin}} - yeah, we should go to an RfC on Jerusalem. At least that will provide a consensus whether or not it should remain. ''']] (])''' 05:28, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
:::{{ping|Mgasparin}} - I've expanded the Trump wall section, the shutdown section, created/expanded the national emergency section. We should be good to go in proposing a change to the lead regarding immigration. ''']] (])''' 12:39, 31 May 2020 (UTC)


*'''Comment''' As President, there is really nothing else that Trump is known for more than his criminal behavior, convictions and evasion of serious penalties for said crimes. JFK was known for the Cuban Missile Crisis. Lincoln for his role in winning the civil war. In Trump's case, what is he most known for as President is his hundred plus indictments. And his criminal conviction. Making him the first ever convicted criminal felon to be elected to the office of the Presidency. It's absurd to suggest that historic first, and his criminal behavior (most of which he has been able to avoid consequences because of his re-election), is not on the top of list of what he is presently known for. It would be like burying Neil Armstrong's moon landing achievement, being the first man to set foot on the moon, deep in the body of an article. If you remove emotion from this, and simply view this through an historic lens, then this is a no brainer. Of the 45 white men that have served the office of Presidency, only one was a black man. Only one was a convicted felon. "It is said on wikipedia that JFK was the youngest person elected president at 43 years." Please put your bias aside, or your dogma about these exceptional circumstances, and let history and newsworthiness decide, not your egos. ] (]) 04:04, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
{{tq2|Trump's strict ] resulted in ] on citizens from several countries and increased policing of the ], including ], ], and expansion of border fencing (]).}}
*: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)
*'''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 wikipedia works.
*{{re|JFG}} - we originally worked on the above. You wrote that {{tq|there is increased policing of the Mexican border.}} Is this already in the body of this article? I did write in the article that the Trump administration is granting less exemptions for migrant detentions, but that's not ''totally'' the same, is it? From what I’ve read, it’s more of ''harsher'' policing. ''']] (])''' 12:45, 31 May 2020 (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.
== 1RR and 24-hr BRD cycle violations ==


:There is too much ]izing going on here in this debate.] (]) 13:48, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
{{ping|Urgal}}: You violated active arbitration remedies, 24-hrd BDR cycle with this edit: and 1RR with this one: . You should have brought your interpretation of consensus 30 to this Talk page before your first revert. Also, on behalf of the editors involved in the discussions to reach consensus, thank you very much for your comment ({{tq| the current version sounds like it was written by a person with trump derangement syndrome}}). ] (]) 10:39, 30 May 2020 (UTC) ] (]) 10:45, 30 May 2020 (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)
:::{{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)
:::::] 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)
:::::::{{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)
::::Thanks! I appreciate it. ] (]) 20:09, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
::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)


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)
{{ping|MrX}} I just noticed that the editor was blocked for a revert in this article. It seems to me that that was the fourth revert in a four-hour period, or is my understanding of 1RR (and 24-hrs BRD) wrong? ] (]) 13:28, 30 May 2020 (UTC) First revert: , second: , third: , fourth:. ] (]) 13:47, 30 May 2020 (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)
If I'm right, could someone please remove the half-sentence the editor added to the lead? ] (]) 13:31, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
*:] 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)
:{{re|Space4Time3Continuum2x}} I would say that's about right. The fact that they ignored both the edit notice and the hidden comment on the page speaks to their lack of respect for our policies. They also violated 1RR at ] . - ]] 14:02, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
:I'm struggling to find grounds to do that. ] #30 says to include {{green|Many of his comments and actions have been characterized as racially charged or racist.}} but it doesn't say you can't BOLDly include something after that. The hidden comment says {{green|DO NOT CHANGE this sentence without prior consensus,}} and extending a sentence is changing it, but hidden comments are informational, not enforceable. So that leaves me with BRD reversion, and I don't feel strongly that the edit wasn't an improvement. The fact that the edit was made by a now-tempblocked disruptive drive-by is irrelevant. Somebody else will have to do this. &#8213;]&nbsp;] 14:11, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
::It also leaves us with the addition having been reverted twice, by different editors. Be bold, ignore revert, be bold again, ignore second revert, be bold a third time - is that a new WP rule? ] (]) 14:37, 30 May 2020 (UTC) There's also WP:OPED, {{tq|possibly unduly calling the validity of the first statement into question while giving undue weight to the credibility of the second}}. Oh well, tomorrow is another day. ] (]) 14:49, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
:::Separate process and content. The two reverts by different editors had the same ''process'' rationale, which, as I said, I believe to be incorrect. No editor has reverted with a content rationale (BRD), although any editor is free to do so within 1RR. &#8213;]&nbsp;] 15:15, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
::::So you're saying the—by my count—third revert is their first one because the first two count as none? Count me as confused. ] (]) 15:38, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
:::::Soft and vague process rules are not a problem of my making, and I strongly oppose that approach{{snd}}precisely because it creates confusing situations like this{{snd}}to mostly deaf ears. We shouldn't have to spend our time in debates like this. But, worst case here is that you will have to wait 16 more hours to revert with a content rationale. Other possibilities are a different editor reverting before then with a content rationale, or a different editor reverting before then because they see things your way on process. Any of those outcomes would not be met by opposition from me. &#8213;]&nbsp;] 16:07, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
::Mandruss, the hidden comment specifically references the Consensus List. It's clarifying what would constitute a violation of that consensus protocol. I'm not aware of any policy or enforcement principle that elevates that consensus list above the comment that points to the list. The addition obviously should be removed pending discussion, and these distinctions on a talk page strike me as being absurd "angels on the head of a pin" digressions. Of course, some friendly observant Admin could step in and do the removal, sparing y'all from further discussion of this fundamentally meaningless distinction. ]] 16:47, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
:::The hidden comments are not considered in the consensus discussions and therefore have no enforceable weight. We do our best, but the fact that an editor added a hidden comment and nobody objected does not have the weight of a talk page consensus (I for one didn't object because I didn't expect the hidden comment to be treated as having the same weight as the list entry). Clearly, the hidden comment here imposes a restriction not imposed in the list entry or, more importantly, the supporting discussions. If the intent of #30 was that the lead should say that ''and nothing more'' about Trump and racism, it should have said so. If you want to propose an amendment to #30, please do so separately. &#8213;]&nbsp;] 17:26, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
:My deaf ears were tingling. On the surface I can't see that consensus 30 prohibits the addition of a denial after the words it says should be included. But I also don't see that the distinction between a process revert and content revert is relevant here. A revert is a revert, and the BRD rule says the user must discuss before reinstating. <span style="font-family:times; text-shadow: 0 0 .2em #7af">~] <small>(])</small></span> 17:05, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
::Since we now know that at least one Admin will use his discretion to enforce page restrictions without regard to the Consensus List and we now have at least one editor denying the effect of an edit-frame comment pointing to the Consensus meaning, we should either remove that Consensus List or establish whether it has any standing in policy, or enforcement principles. If there's not some such constructive goal and outcome then I am afraid this thread will, to me, read like Alice in Wonderland.]] 17:39, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
:::Sure, go ahead and start that discussion. I predict that you will be shot down in spectacular flames, as I believe the overwhelming view is that that list is vital to order, stability, and continuity at this article. And that, consensus, is the overriding Misplaced Pages principle. But you are off topic in this thread, and I will not follow you any further down that path. &#8213;]&nbsp;] 17:51, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
:::Oppose removing the consensus list, not worth even asking. This edit was not violating #30. Admins may enforce things other than the list. The list is not a WP policy or WP guideline and has no standing in those. Gets used anyway. While I have had my own issues with the list, ‘nothing’ seems clearly a worse move. Cheers ] (]) 00:55, 31 May 2020 (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)
== The Honorable ==
*: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)
:::I know he is. It is a good edit. Go at it. ] (]) 16:21, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
::Lol ] (]) 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. ] (]) 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. ] (]) 16:12, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
Would someone please remove "The Honorable" from the top of the infobox? It's ridiculous on many levels, and it has been edit warred into the current revision. Thank you. - ]] 12:10, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
:Not there for other presidents. Removed. ] (]) 12:15, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
::Thank you {{u|Objective3000|O3000}}. That was most honorable. 🙏 - ]] 12:18, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
:::It was my honor. ] (]) 12:18, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
::::I was honored to witness this exchange. -- ] (]) 12:37, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
*In the case this is attempted again, honorific prefixes and suffixes are rarely used in the US, unlike the UK (Sir ] CH CBE). When we have a monarch, that may change. ] (]) 14:00, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
::An optimist, I see. ] (]) 14:40, 30 May 2020 (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.
== Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 30 May 2020 ==
{{atop|1=Further discussion is in the next thread. ''']] (])''' 13:05, 31 May 2020 (UTC)}}
{{edit extended-protected|Donald Trump|answered=yes}}
I looked at George Soros and now Donald Trump. Is clear that liberal writers are writing these pieces. Please remove the comments about Donald Trump being a racist. This is not fact but an opinion. In addition, comments about Soros ending communism in Europe is false. Soros and the Open Society encourages open borders and creates disorder in local and federal government. In addition, it is illegal in the US for not citizens to cross border without proper documentation. ] (]) 17:05, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
:] '''Not done:''' it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a ] if appropriate.<!-- Template:EEp --> – ] (]) 17:44, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
: Agree wholeheartedly. The racism allegations have to disappear from the lede, the article isnt written from a neutral perspective. ] (]) 10:46, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
{{abottom}}


:The biggest disagreement here among the naysayers (and some trolls) seems to be that this "is controversial",
== Remove allegations of racism in lead ==
{{atop|1=The sentence in question represents a ] among editors who have some knowledge of Misplaced Pages policies. Those discussions are linked at ] item 30 for the OP's review, and there is no reason to rehash the issue at this point. The OP may also read the information at ]. &#8213;]&nbsp;] 14:30, 31 May 2020 (UTC)}}
This shouldnt be included in the lead, as its based on opinions rather than facts: "Many of his comments and actions have been characterized as racially charged or racist. "


: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.}}
] states "Value-laden labels—such as calling an organization a cult, an individual a racist may express contentious opinion and are best avoided unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject "
: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".
https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Words_to_watch#Contentious_labels


: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.
it is surely not widely used to describe Trump and the sources are questionable too, therefore its necessary to remove the line. I know you guys hate the guts of this guy but wikipedia articles have to be written from a neutral perspective ] (]) 11:16, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
:{{ping|SmooveMike}} The statement in the ] cites pieces from ], ], ], ], and ].
:There is ], citing the aforementioned sources as well as ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], and many more.
:See ] for where the community has repeatedly affirmed the reliability of these sources. If you think those sources are questionable, you've got the wrong site. If you honestly don't see it being widespread, then your personal ] is so far to the right you wouldn't recognize racism if it quoted a segregationist and called neo-Nazis "very fine people." ] (]) 12:03, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
:: I'm just going to ignore your last couple of sentences, as I'm pretty well aware of which person I'm dealing with, so I'm not gonna bother. The sources are only one thing. What about the "unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject"? I think it's safe to say people don't widely use racism when describing Trump ] (]) 12:11, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
:::I think it's safe to say you've wrong, otherwise we wouldn't have an article with over 300 references. ] (]) 12:20, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
{{ec}}
::::::::::I know this is news to you, but there is a world outside of American liberal media sites. So im sorry to burst your bubble, but not everyone in this world thinks of racism when talking about Trump. ] (]) 12:33, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
:::::::::::{{ping|SmooveMike}} You do know that the BBC and Reuters aren't American, right? Seriously, pull your head out of your echo chamber. ] (]) 12:41, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
::::::::::::stop projecting pal ] (]) 12:43, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
:::::::::::::Stop wasting our time with your ignorance -- cite some ] or go away. No, ]. ] (]) 12:57, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
:::Yeah, they do. The fact that it's one of many terms used to describe him and thus may seem diluted, doesn't make it a less applicable term. As pointed out there is an entire article full of examples, backed up by references and sources.
:::Writing from a neutral perspective means that if a person is reliably described as X, then the article includes X, ''even if it is contentious''.
:::Which sources are you claiming to be questionable? You can't just lay accusations without backing up said accusations - you need to clarify exactly what you think is at fault, not simply by casting aspersions on all sources and claims just because you don't like it. ] (]) 12:30, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
:Welcome to Misplaced Pages. Which ones of the 30 or so sources used in the "Racial views" section, which was the basis for the sentence in the lead, do you think are questionable, and what is your rationale for each one? The sentence was added to the lead in October 2018 after lengthy discussions among numerous editors (I wasn't one of them). consensus, item 30, has the links to the discussions. Surely you do not expect other editors to accept your opinion that something is not widely used over 30 sources that are considered reliable? As for {{tq|I know you guys hate the guts of this guy}}, nice Trump . ] (]) 12:31, 31 May 2020 (UTC) (aka editor reads-a-lot)
::I didnt even know about that quote, and its honestly kind of weird that you do. I'm not American and couldnt give less ***** about Trump, but articles have to be written from a neutral perspective. Like, just read through that entire lead section once. It makes it seem like this guy is the most evil person to ever exist ] (]) 12:40, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
:::The racial problems relating to Trump date from 47 years ago when the U.S. Department of Justice sued him and his father for discrimination against African Americans up until this week. You can hardly expect us to ignore that. ] (]) 12:44, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
::::Ok, but why on the other hand ignore the fact that Trump constantly denies these allegations? Why ommit these infos from the lead? The fact that the article is not editable for new users is kinda telling, too -- ] (]) 12:51, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
:::::Why are you ignoring the fact that he has to regularly make those denials? ]. Now cite some ] (you're gonna need a few hundred because of ]) or stop wasting our time. ] (]) 12:57, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
::::::If you feel like your time is being wasted, then you're free to move on. It is not necessary to add extra sources/citations or whatever, as the info of Trump constantly denying allegations is already mentioned further down the article. The info was just kept out of the lead section for reasons that i cant comprehend. And im pretty sure that no one here has a good reason why it isnt in there ] (]) 13:21, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
:::{{ec|2}} And yet almost all of your edits are to . Only American conservatives and moderates are gullible enough to think that ABC and NBC are anywhere resembling "liberal." You obviously give a shit about Trump, too, because otherwise you wouldn't be doubting the entire journalism industry (providing no counter sources) over how much of the world assesses the man and accusing us of being haters. Now, given the ] and the upcoming ], there's the remote possibility that you're a Russian propaganda agent, but your English sounds a bit too native for that. ] that you're lying in some pathetic attempt to garner credibility (because your first post is proof enough that you are utterly clueless as to how sourcing works here). ] (]) 12:57, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
:::::: .................................. WTF 13:01, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
::::::: muss ich hier erst meinen ausweis hochladen, bevor man mir glaubt, dass ich deutscher bin 13:01, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
] - you're not going to get far on Misplaced Pages saying {{tq|The sources are only one thing}}. Reliable sources are everything here. As for {{tq|articles have to be written from a neutral perspective}}, yes, we must neutrally reflect the POV of the sources, but the end product is not necessarily neutral. That is, if the sources say "happy", we say "happy", we don't say "emotionless". If they say "happy" and we say "emotionless", we have failed to neutrally reflect the sources. ''']] (])''' 12:57, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
:Basically what it boils down to is this: "Ok, but why on the other hand ignore the fact that Trump constantly denies these allegations? Why ommit these infos from the lead?". Can anyone answer this question please? ] (]) 13:11, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
::{{ping|SmooveMike}} - because (1) he denies many things, and (2) our leads have length limits. Trump's denied making false statements. Trump's denied racism. Trump's declared exoneration from the Mueller Report when it didn't happen. ''']] (])''' 13:23, 31 May 2020 (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.
SmooveMike, if you’re going to jump into highly controversial articles on your first day here, you might take some time to read the policies and guidelines and the lengthy talk page discussions detailing the consensus behind the current state of the article. ] (]) 13:04, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
: what other than making a new thread on a talk page do you want me to do?] (]) 13:28, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
::Well, you could accept the fact that after these things have been explained to you, your viewpoint is in the minority, that the current situation is accurate and reliably sourced - and just give it up... ] (]) 13:35, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
{{abot}}


:-->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.
== Book content ==

:-->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 ] otherwise we are basically endorsing a loophole around the ] violation. ] (]) 18:23, 11 January 2025 (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)
*:@] 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)

== "dismissed following his victory in the 2024 election." ==

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

@]: The ] was dismissed July 15, the election was November 5. ] (]) 20:51, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

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

== Convicted felon ==

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

:It's in the third paragraph of the intro, it doesn't really matter where it is just that it's there. ] (]) 00:36, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
::{{Ping|Akechi The Agent Of Chaos}} exactly! It's largely sufficient that it's present somewhere in the lead, yet some users complain that the term isn't written exactly on the line they want; this, in my opinion, is very disappointing behaviour (of course I'm not judging anyone). ] (]) 17:25, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

:I agree should be in introduction after they mention business man ] (]) 04:32, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
:Agreed. ] (]) 06:41, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

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

:I do believe that at this point, with a sentence handed down, calling Trump "the first U.S. president to be convicted of a (felony) crime", if not outright "the first U.S. president to be a convicted felon" within the first three paragraphs is neither incorrect nor undue. We may need a new RfC to handle this. ] (]) 16:55, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

== Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 11 January 2025 ==

{{edit extended-protected|Donald Trump|answered=yes}}
It should say convicted felon in the main article ] (]) 04:26, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
:] '''Not done for now''': please establish a ] for this alteration ''']''' using the {{Tlx|Edit extended-protected}} template.<!-- Template:EEp --> see above RFC ] (]) 08:19, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
:We don't use those exact words, but we do say {{tq|the first U.S. president to be convicted of a crime}} in the lead and explain in the body: {{tq|In March 2023, a New York grand jury indicted Trump on 34 felony counts of falsifying business records to book the hush money payments to Daniels as business expenses, in an attempt to influence the 2016 election. In May, he was convicted on all 34 counts. On January 10, 2025, Trump was sentenced to unconditional discharge which, under New York law, upheld the felony conviction without imposing further punishment.}} ]] 15:24, 11 January 2025 (UTC)


== Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 11 January 2025 (2) ==
See "Trump's first ghostwritten book, The Art of the Deal (1987), was on the New York Times Best Seller list for 48 weeks. According to The New Yorker, "The book expanded Trump's renown far beyond New York City, promoting an image of himself as a successful dealmaker and tycoon." Tony Schwartz, who is credited as co-author, later said he did all the writing, backed by Howard Kaminsky, then-head of Random House, the book's publisher."


{{edit extended-protected|Donald Trump|answered=no}}
The wording is a bit unclear. Did Trump claim he wrote part or most of the book? ] (]) 15:14, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
Add link to Joe Biden's page after "Succeeded by". ] (]) 20:33, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
:I did a copyedit that should clarify the meaning. ]] 15:50, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 22:40, 11 January 2025

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Donald Trump article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
Article policies
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140, 141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 150, 151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159, 160, 161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169, 170, 171, 172, 173, 174, 175, 176, 177, 178, 179, 180, 181, 182, 183, 184, 185, 186, 187Auto-archiving period: 7 days 
The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.
Peace dove with olive branch in its beakPlease stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute.

Before requesting any edits to this protected article, please familiarise yourself with reliable sourcing requirements.

Before posting an edit request on this talk page, please read the reliable sourcing and original research policies. These policies require that information in Misplaced Pages articles be supported by citations from reliable independent sources, and disallow your personal views, observations, interpretations, analyses, or anecdotes from being used.

Only content verified by subject experts and other reliable sources may be included, and uncited material may be removed without notice. If your complaint is about an assertion made in the article, check first to see if your proposed change is supported by reliable sources. If it is not, it is highly unlikely that your request will be granted. Checking the archives for previous discussions may provide more information. Requests which do not provide citations from reliable sources, or rely on unreliable sources, may be subject to closure without any other response.

Warning: active arbitration remedies

The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article is related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing this article:

  • You must follow the bold-revert-discuss cycle if your change is reverted. You may not reinstate your edit until you post a talk page message discussing your edit and have waited 24 hours from the time of this talk page message

Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

Further information
Enforcement procedures:
  • Violations of any of these restrictions should be reported immediately to the arbitration enforcement noticeboard.
  • Editors who are aware of this topic being designated a contentious topic and who violate these restrictions may be sanctioned by any uninvolved administrator, even on a first offense.

The contentious topics procedure can be used against any editor who repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process. Contentious topics sanctions can include blocks, topic-bans, or other restrictions.

If you are unsure if your edit is appropriate, discuss it here on this talk page first. Remember: When in doubt, don't revert!
Want to add new information about Donald Trump?
Please consider choosing the most appropriate article, for example: ... or dozens of other places, as listed in {{Donald Trump series}}. Thanks!
? view · edit Frequently asked questions Q1: This page is biased towards/against Trump because it mentions/doesn't mention x. Why won't you fix it? A1: Having a neutral point of view does not mean giving equal weight to all viewpoints. Rather, it refers to Misplaced Pages's effort to discuss topics and viewpoints in a roughly equal proportion to the degree that they are discussed in reliable sources, which in political articles is mostly mainstream media, although academic works are also sometimes used. For further information, please read Talk:Donald Trump/Response to claims of bias. Q2: A recent request for comment had X votes for support and Y votes for oppose. Why was it closed as no consensus when one position had more support than the other? A2: Misplaced Pages is built on consensus, which means that editors and contributors here debate the merits of adding, subtracting, or rearranging the information. Consensus is not a vote, rather it is a discussion among community members over how best to interpret and apply information within the bounds of our policy and guideline infrastructure. Often, but not always, the community finds itself unable to obtain consensus for changes or inclusions to the article. In other cases, the community may decide that consensus exists to add or modify material based on the strength of the arguments made by members citing relevant policy and guideline related material here. This can create confusion for new comers or those unfamiliar with Misplaced Pages's consensus building processes, especial since consensus can change. While all are welcome to participate in consensus building, keep in mind that the best positions for or against including material are based on policy and guideline pages, so it may be in your best interest to read up on Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines before diving into the debates.
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.This page is about a politician who is running for office or has recently run for office, is in office and campaigning for re-election, or is involved in some current political conflict or controversy. For that reason, this article is at increased risk of biased editing, talk-page trolling, and simple vandalism.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.
This  level-4 vital article is rated B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.
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 High‑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
HighThis article has been rated as High-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 United States PresidentsTemplate: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 137 times. The weeks in which this happened:
Skip to table of contents
              Other talk page banners
    Section sizes
    Section size for Donald Trump (88 sections)
    Section name Byte
    count
    Section
    total
    (Top) 9,332 9,332
    Early life and education 3,028 3,028
    Personal life 19 5,027
    Family 1,323 1,323
    Health 3,685 3,685
    Business career 149 35,770
    Real estate 4,555 15,954
    Manhattan and Chicago developments 6,168 6,168
    Atlantic City casinos 3,610 3,610
    Clubs 1,621 1,621
    Licensing the Trump name 1,364 1,364
    Side ventures 7,323 7,323
    Foundation 5,025 5,025
    Legal affairs and bankruptcies 2,315 2,315
    Wealth 3,640 3,640
    Media career 3,452 5,115
    The Apprentice and The Celebrity Apprentice 1,663 1,663
    Early political aspirations 4,690 4,690
    2016 presidential election 18,469 18,469
    First presidency (2017–2021) 632 176,772
    Early actions 2,743 2,743
    Conflicts of interest 3,367 3,367
    Domestic policy 20,661 20,661
    Race relations 6,411 6,411
    Pardons and commutations 2,574 2,574
    Immigration 3,086 20,394
    Travel ban 4,347 4,347
    Family separation at the border 6,269 6,269
    Mexico–United States border wall and government shutdown 6,692 6,692
    Foreign policy 2,859 35,965
    Trade 2,517 2,517
    Russia 4,221 4,221
    East Asia 21 10,653
    China, Hong Kong, Taiwan 4,914 4,914
    North Korea 5,718 5,718
    Middle East 23 15,715
    Afghanistan 3,042 3,042
    Israel 2,637 2,637
    Saudi Arabia 2,229 2,229
    Syria 3,797 3,797
    Iran 3,987 3,987
    Personnel 8,705 8,705
    Judiciary 4,174 4,174
    COVID-19 pandemic 291 31,456
    Initial response 7,681 7,681
    White House Coronavirus Task Force 5,253 5,253
    World Health Organization 2,673 2,673
    Pressure to abandon pandemic mitigation measures 7,799 7,799
    Political pressure on health agencies 2,690 2,690
    Outbreak at the White House 2,666 2,666
    Effects on the 2020 presidential campaign 2,403 2,403
    Investigations 1,079 26,084
    Financial 3,111 3,111
    Russian election interference 6,491 6,491
    FBI Crossfire Hurricane and 2017 counterintelligence investigations 2,573 2,573
    Mueller investigation 12,830 12,830
    First impeachment 10,208 10,208
    Second impeachment 3,398 3,398
    2020 presidential election 34 23,711
    Loss to Biden 6,907 15,674
    Rejection of results 8,767 8,767
    January 6 Capitol attack 8,003 8,003
    First post-presidency (2021–2025) 5,018 35,763
    Business activities 2,382 2,382
    Investigations, criminal indictments and convictions, civil lawsuits 547 28,363
    FBI investigations 5,703 5,703
    Criminal referral by the House January 6 Committee 693 693
    State criminal indictments 2,969 2,969
    Federal criminal indictments 5,378 5,378
    Criminal conviction in the 2016 campaign fraud case 6,618 6,618
    Civil lawsuits and judgments 6,455 6,455
    2024 presidential election 14,636 14,636
    Political practice and rhetoric 8,359 47,254
    Racial and gender views 9,377 9,377
    Link to hate crimes 3,793 3,793
    Conspiracy theories 3,318 3,318
    Truthfulness 10,483 10,483
    Social media 5,810 5,810
    Relationship with the press 6,114 6,114
    Assessments 18 6,969
    Public image 4,525 4,525
    Scholarly 2,426 2,426
    Notes 136 136
    References 30 30
    Works cited 18 11,664
    Books 3,256 3,256
    Journals 8,390 8,390
    External links 5,431 5,431
    Total 403,797 403,797

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


    Racially charged

    This section is pinned and will not be automatically archived.

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

    Would editors here support removal of "racially charged" until such text is supported in the body? Not this one, per process. We're not going to amend #30 until the body is fixed, then reverse the amendment. "Racially charged" appears to have enough RS support, so just find a way to work it into the body. ―Mandruss  05:54, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
    What does "reverse the amendment" mean? Go back to Consensus 24? Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 06:07, 12 November 2024 (UTC) I understand. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 06:07, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
    I see the grammatical ambiguity. :) ―Mandruss  07:06, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
    This seems backwards. Lead follows body. We shouldn't treat the consensus list as sacrosanct, it's merely there to keep track of RfCs. If the article has moved on, I'd support a new RfC to challenge the previous one. Riposte97 (talk) 07:32, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
    Riposte97 I think an RfC should be avoided if it can be. Do you think you could WP:FIXIT? I'll have a go as well in a bit. If we don't have luck we can look at overturning Consensus #30.
    Given it's an WP:EXCEPTIONAL claim, high-quality sources will be needed. I wouldn't accept journalists being arbitrators of whether his comments were "racially charged", political scientists will have written on it and we shouldn't accept inferior sourcing. This is the standard that was applied for "cult of personality". Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 07:57, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
    Your reasoning seems consistent with WP:NEWSORG. A departure, probably more impactful (disruptive?) than you realize, but maybe ultimately good for the article. No strong opinion provided we adhere to the established consensus process. If that means revisiting #30, I suppose you pass the "significant new argument(s)" test. ―Mandruss  08:37, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
    @Rollinginhisgrave, apologies that I've not had the time to properly devote to this. I'll see what I can add to your page in the coming days. Riposte97 (talk) 10:37, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
    Yep definitely. 92.30.105.204 (talk) 19:45, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

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

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

    SusanLesch Pinging you in case this effort is of interest. Been working mostly on collating books right now as journals are daunting for finding discussion of general scholarly consensus. If you find other useful texts along the way providing a scholarly retrospective assessment on aspects, I'm currently dropping them in User:Rollinginhisgrave/sandbox_2. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 17:17, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
    Will do. Sorry if I'm slow today with journals but I will catch up. On this topic per MOS:LEADNO, not everything in the lead must be repeated in the body of the text, however this statement absolutely should be cited per MOS:CITELEAD. Seems like a good place for a perfectly cited footnote. -SusanLesch (talk) 17:42, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
    Thanks :) Yes the key issue is definitely it being uncited. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 17:48, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
    Support removal. "Racially charged" is nothing but a euphemism for "racist". When you consider that in the same sentence we are saying that Trump's comments and actions have been characterized as outright racist, it makes even less sense to "soften" the characterization with this term. Reading that old discussion, I think the true reason that many editors tended to support the euphemism was because it softens the perception that we are saying he is racist in Wikivoice. "Characterized by some" was rightly rejected by editors as too vague, but perhaps "characterized by critics" could be used to clearly attribute the characterization and prevent reader misunderstanding. — Goszei (talk) 01:34, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
    it needs removing for sure. it's against WP:Biographies_of_living_persons on multiple counts, but specially "Remove contentious material that is unsourced or poorly sourced" ~ Smellymoo 18:29, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
    It's sourced in Donald Trump#Views. A citation should be added to the lead per MOS:LEADCITE. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:44, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
    To be clear, I do not oppose the lead's inclusion of the fact that many characterize Trump as racist. I am only supporting the removal of the term "racially charged", which I feel is redundant. — Goszei (talk) 17:08, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

    Tracking lead size

    Word counts by paragraph and total.

    05 Nov 2024614 = 29 + 101 + 106 + 156 + 101 + 121

    12 Nov 2024657 = 46 + 101 + 116 + 175 + 176 + 43

    19 Nov 2024418 = 62 + 76 + 153 + 127

    26 Nov 2024406 = 56 + 70 + 138 + 142 03 Dec 2024418 = 53 + 64 + 158 + 143

    10 Dec 2024413 = 54 + 62 + 153 + 144

    17 Dec 2024422 = 58 + 57 + 141 + 166

    24 Dec 2024437 = 58 + 57 + 156 + 166

    31 Dec 2024465 = 87 + 60 + 154 + 164 07 Jan 2025438 = 58 + 60 + 156 + 164

    Tracking article size

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

    05 Nov 2024 — 15,818 – 421,592 – 103

    12 Nov 2024 — 15,883 – 427,790 – 046

    19 Nov 2024 — 15,708 – 430,095 – 012

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

    10 Dec 2024 — 15,279 – 404,464 – 122

    17 Dec 2024 — 15,294 – 405,370 – 080

    24 Dec 2024 — 14,863 – 402,971 – 190

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

    RfC on describing Trumpism in lead

    This section is pinned and will not be automatically archived.

    Please consider joining the feedback request service.
    An editor has requested comments from other editors for this discussion. This page has been added to the following lists: When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the lists. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.

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

    Previous discussion at Talk:Donald Trump/Archive 185#Proposal to add brief description of Trumpism in lead. — Goszei (talk) 04:51, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
    Support. The statement "Trump created Trumpism" without further description is meaningless. If there is any single piece of information which a reader should take away from the lead, it is that Trump is America's leading proponent of right-wing populism, and the person who has done to most to reshape the Republican Party along these lines. It was argued by some in the previous discussion that details should be saved for the Trumpism article, but I believe that these words briefly and simply introduce what much of the rest of the lead and article are seeking to explain. Just as FDR's lead describes in broad terms what "New Deal"ism is and Reagan's describes what "Reaganomics" is, so too should Trump's lead briefly describe Trumpism. This is especially relevant after the recent election, as Trump and Trumpism's importance in U.S. political history only continues to grow. — Goszei (talk) 04:51, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
    Suppport: we need to know what Trumpism is about.--Jack Upland (talk) 04:55, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
    Oppose as I believe it is unnecessarily adding to an already excessively large article. The article is not about Trumpism - which is linked in the text for the purpose of providing a shortcut should people wish to know more about what constitutes such, without contributing further to the word count. Artem... 05:05, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
    Comment Further explanation of Trumpism seems relative in the lead, or at least, it likely will be within the next four years. DN (talk) 06:13, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
    Oppose a, this article is already too long, and 2, it might need a lot more explanation then we can give it in the lead, what is Trumpism? Slatersteven (talk) 14:50, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
    Support but it should be limited to one sentence after a more detailed yet brief description is provided in the body. I agree that anyone with a political movement named after them should have some more description about it other than "they created it". I don't have exact wording but something along the lines of its impact on the Republican Party or American politics would be warranted as per Goszei. Any statement would need to be sourced in the body first, however, to avoid OR. Agreeing on a description in the political practice and rhetoric section would be helpful first before adding it to the lead. BootsED (talk) 14:57, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
    • Support since Trumpism is mentioned, then it should be explained what it is. A single sentence in the lede, and a brief elaboration somewhere else in the article. The wording in the lede could be as proposed above, or something a bit different. Ktrimi991 (talk) 19:18, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
    @Artem P75, Slatersteven, Nikkimaria, and Nemov: To those opposing the proposed text based on concerns about length, would you support a shorter addition such as led to Trumpism, a right-wing populist movement.? — Goszei (talk) 04:03, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
    • Oppose We don't have room for this, and this isn't the Trumpism article, it is the Trump article. Also, this would need to be added to the body first, since the lead follows the body. QuicoleJR (talk) 15:00, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
    • Oppose per Anythingyouwant. I've never heard of Trumpism before. Neither has Britannica, which instead has an article for MAGA movement. -SusanLesch (talk) 18:48, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
      What the Britannica article describes is exactly what our article at Trumpism describes. The term MAGA movement should probably be added to that article's lead as a synonym. — Goszei (talk) 18:59, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
      It's a redirect. The BBC said, But is there such a thing as Trumpism? Well that might be stretching it. -SusanLesch (talk) 23:12, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
      This article doesn't mention MAGA. Maybe somebody wanted to make something of Trumpism? -SusanLesch (talk) 16:33, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
    • Oppose mainly as it is unnecessarily adding to an already excessively large article per Artem, also because Trumpism isn't a "a thought-through philosophy, a carefully mapped world view" inextricably linked to the man in the way that Marxism or Leninism are. Trumpism is more of a term descibing a series of populist instincts which are not very often used to characterise reactions/policies etc. When/if Trumpism itself becomes more elaborated, and the term more used, WEIGHT might then dictate a brief definition. At present it would be at least unnecessary and potentially confusing.Pincrete (talk) 07:57, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
    • Support Very much WP:Due to summarise the key tenets of his political ideology, much more so than discussing specific policies as in the status quo. I’m very confused about the opposes, however the leads of Margaret Thatcher and Juan Peron only mention their ideologies rather than describe them
    Kowal2701 (talk) 10:17, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
    • Weak oppose, while it's only a few extra words it's still more to an already-too-big article, and the link to the Trumpism article is there for a reason. — Czello 10:37, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
    • Weak Oppose, Agree with same sentiment as @Czello 's comment above. Seems like redundancy when we have a link that lets readers click on it if they don't understand a concept or definition. This also sets bad precedence to have to define every single political descriptor.
    MaximusEditor (talk) 16:39, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Oppose: Trump's lead is already "huuuge." And considering that WP:TTD (which discusses the use of "technical terms or terms of art and jargon specific to the subject matter") asks the question, "On the other hand, do not treat every “scientific” word as a technical term. Ask the question: Is this the only article or one of a very few where the term might be encountered in Misplaced Pages?", and seeing as there is another page entirely dedicated to discussing the topic, and where we're already pushing WP:LEAD best practices with the length and depth of Trump's BLP, let's move on.
    As a side note, WP:TTD has some handy recommendations for handling formatting of the word "Trumpism" for those interested. Pistongrinder (talk) 17:13, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Support : For me this is almost a mandatory addition for a very simple reason, the lead has zero words used to describe Trump's rise to power. Zero. This is not acceptable. These three very simple and short words describe it very well and are widely sourced. The description should take its place at the end of the second paragraph, in a chronological order, to either describe Trumpism or even more directly his first election campaign. The objection that the lead is not convincing. Other things can go. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cinemaandpolitics (talkcontribs) 14:41, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Oppose. Misplaced jargon in the leading section of the article leads to unnecessary confusion. Onikaburgers (talk) 19:46, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
    Support since this is a pretty major part of what Trump has done,
    And because just ¨Trump started Trumpism¨ isn't a very good description of that, let alone anything. Tenebre_Rosso_Sangue, ULTRAKILLing Vandals! Call for Medic! My Stats! 21:34, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

    Edit War

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


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

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

    The situation is neither uncommon nor illegitimate when there is no clear talk page consensus. See #Time Person of the Year in the body for another example. It has nothing to do with the level of protection. Regardless, the next level after ECP is full protection, which is not going to happen. ―Mandruss  19:32, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
    Well, you see, Edit protection is next, ensuring only experienced people can do it. Look, i'm just saying we have to be really careful around this particular article mainly from the controversies. I have asked an experienced person to assess the situation. 2601:483:400:1CD0:B614:68CF:9223:D88F (talk) 18:38, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
    On January 20, 2025, the title of the section should be changed to "Post-presidency (2021–2025)". If there is a "second post-presidency (2029–)", we can change that to "First post-presidency (2021–2025)". I googled "Inter-presidency" and got a bunch of hits for Inter Milan President Beppe Marotta. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 17:10, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
    "Dormancy (2021–2025)". Or remission. ;) ―Mandruss  17:45, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
    He was not dormant, rather pretty active. False claims rised before he finally conceded. Not to be rude, but this title wouldn't be the best. I'll admit, we do need a clear consensus. 2601:483:400:1CD0:B614:68CF:9223:D88F (talk) 18:55, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
    We thought it was the end of the movie but it was just an intermission. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 21:54, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
    Correct, although after "the end of the movie" he was still active. And "Dormancy" was suggested in 2024 not 2021. Dormancy is described as a non-active state, although his activity between 2021 and now is active. 2601:483:400:1CD0:C42F:4B2A:C28D:A2F (talk) 23:24, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
    I support option 1 as the most accurate of the three. QuicoleJR (talk) 17:21, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
    The word isn't in any dictionary. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 18:07, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

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

    That's pretty much what I'm proposing, except for the "election of 18xx" part (we have the campaign/election sections instead) and not knowing how long Trump's second presidency and post-presidency will last. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 22:02, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
    Legally it has to end in 2028. Slatersteven (talk) 22:04, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
    January 20, 2029. He's 78 — we'll see what happens. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 22:39, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
    Problem, it uses First post-presidency. It is already inaccurate but I will not discuss unrelated articles. 2601:483:400:1CD0:C42F:4B2A:C28D:A2F (talk) 23:25, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
    "§7 First presidency (2017–2021)" could change to "§7 Presidency (2017–2021)"? He only served one term. -SusanLesch (talk) 23:29, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
    This is concerning the following section. And I'm not sure if I should say this but I don't think we should start this on the Grover Cleveland talk page. 2601:483:400:1CD0:C42F:4B2A:C28D:A2F (talk) 23:41, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
    And I was referring to the Cleveland article when I said First post-presidency. Sorry for not pointing it out. 2601:483:400:1CD0:C42F:4B2A:C28D:A2F (talk) 23:42, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

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

    You know, that sounds like a good idea.
    Any objections? 2601:483:400:1CD0:382D:166E:CC23:2B80 (talk) 17:04, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
    Works for me. QuicoleJR (talk) 17:07, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
    Solution in search of a problem, but meh as long as you wait until after the inauguration — just in case lightning strikes or an Acme anvil falls. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 18:14, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
    Thanks. As far as I'm concerned, anyone can make the change after the inauguration on 1-20-2025. Regards, Bob K31416 (talk) 22:38, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
    Well, sounds good to me.
    Ok, what should the next steps be?
    Also, just curious, who pinned this? 2601:483:400:1CD0:45C3:C5FA:5FD8:FA51 (talk) 15:32, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
    who pinned this? Mandruss  16:11, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
    Huh — looks as though BoB K tried to (because I said "meh"??) and then you did? Can't figure out what happened. My suggestion: unpin. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 19:32, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
    I care about how it's pinned. Apathetic on whether it should be pinned. ―Mandruss  20:13, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
    As I mentioned in my edit summary, "added template to prevent archiving of this thread until a week after inauguration". I did that because this discussion was about taking an action after the inauguration. Mandruss changed the time from a week after the inauguration to 10 years and made an announcement in a box at the top of the section. Whatever you want to do is fine with me. Regards, Bob K31416 (talk) 15:10, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
    Well it seems all set. 2601:483:400:1CD0:A1A4:FD62:9508:F4EB (talk) 02:06, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

    "Individual 1" listed at Redirects for discussion

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

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

    Are you kidding with the bias in the introduction?

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

    Misplaced Pages articles are written based off of what reliable sources say, not based on your original research on why he was elected or how "unprecedented" it is. QuicoleJR (talk) 19:36, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
    The article doesn't seem to give any reason for Trump's victory. I did a quick google search "reason for Trump winning election" and the first thing I found was The factors that led to Donald Trump's victory. In this source there was Anthony Salvanto, CBS News' executive director of elections and surveys, who said that there were three main factors behind voters' support of Trump: the role of the economy, a steady MAGA base, and out-of-touch democrats. Bob K31416 (talk) 21:31, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
    That seems like it would fit better in the article on the election than in the article on Trump. QuicoleJR (talk) 21:37, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
    Why is that? This is information that is directly related to his career in politics. 74.105.29.105 (talk) 23:31, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
    Happy to provide sources of you can confirm that you will make the changes. Not sure who the gatekeeper is for what the world views on Misplaced Pages, but I hope is is not just one person. 74.105.29.105 (talk) 23:32, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
    Not how things work here. You suggest a change or addition, which is supported by citation to a source. Discussion will then begin from there on whether or not to include it. Zaathras (talk) 00:54, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
    There isn't exactly a "gatekeeper for worldviews" on this site, you need sources for statements you want to induct into the article and like what other people said, no original research. 108.27.60.251 (talk) 03:10, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
    That kind of introduction is more fitting for Conservapedia, not Misplaced Pages. NesserWiki (talk) 12:57, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
    @NesserWiki: Conservapedia is extremely ironic, it's not to be taken seriously. On the contrary, what the OP wrote started a discussion that perhaps could be useful (although I don't think it will be useful). JacktheBrown (talk) 01:01, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
    WP:NOR Onikaburgers (talk) 21:17, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

    Unjustified removal of Operation Warp Speed?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    It's probably worth a brief mention in the article body – like a sentence. A fuller treatment of the topic belongs in First presidency of Donald Trump, U.S. federal government response to the COVID-19 pandemic, and obviously Operation Warp Speed. – Anne drew (talk · contribs) 01:50, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
    "A brief mention – like a sentence"? If numerous reliable sources are calling this a major achievement with substantial discussion, a paragraph is more realistic. There are 12 entire paragraphs about COVID, some of it rather trivial in nature – but a single sentence for a multi-billion dollar policy implemented by a US president that has been praised by experts and sources? Zenomonoz (talk) 04:06, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
    CNN seems to have agreed with you. "President Donald Trump finally has something legitimate to take credit for in his coronavirus response: A vaccine that appears poised to reach Americans in record time." Bob K31416 (talk) 01:53, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
    Thanks, that's a good source to use. Zenomonoz (talk) 04:08, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
    That CNN source, NPR, and
    I would support a brief, neutrally worded one-sentence mention of Operation Warp Speed. Further detail should be reserved for the respective pages covering that topic. BootsED (talk) 04:27, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

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

    This is more than a mention in the body - it should be shortened. If there is a concern that some of the other COVID-related content is trivial, then condensing that would be a better approach. Nikkimaria (talk) 05:09, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
    Two sentences is hardly "more than a mention". The reliable sources describe this as a major achievement of his presidency and a major component of his COVID-19 response. Misplaced Pages reflects the RS. It seems some of the editors chiming in think "consensus" depends on opinion and a vote count. That is false. Zenomonoz (talk) 20:43, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
    That is false. Is that a "My arguments are stronger, so I win" argument? ―Mandruss  21:00, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
    No, consensus building is important. But it is also important that Misplaced Pages editors arguments are based in policy/guidelines/reasoning. Misplaced Pages is supposed to reflect WP:RS, and I haven't heard a good argument as to why restriction to a single sentence is appropriate, given the way OWS has been extensively covered in the reliable sources. Zenomonoz (talk) 21:11, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
    I'm just being practical, as that's how I roll. Based on my 11 years around here, a large part of it at this article, I'd generously estimate that one in four editors participating at this article actually meets that standard of collaborativeness (my mind doesn't change easily, so I wouldn't count myself as one of them). We can agree on ideals, but we still have to resolve issues. ―Mandruss  21:54, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
    You didn't just reinsert the paragraph after six hours (see "Warning: active arbitration remedies" banner at the top of this talk page), you also added a clause to the lead. I've reverted. The discussion so far supports a brief, e.g., one-sentence mention in the body. Developing an effective vaccine was only part of it; research and development was well under way in several countries by the time of Trump's announcement. Producing and delivering the The production and delivery of a "few hundred million doses of vaccine by the end of 2020" the Trump administration announced on May 15, 2020, was an unrealistic goal and a promise they didn't keep. (Cue Trump's vaccine conspiracy claims.) Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 12:40, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
    A full delete of the section seems to be more than what Nikkimaria asked for above, maybe to shorten that material which was just deleted by some percentage might be better than the full delete. ErnestKrause (talk) 15:24, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
    Space4Time3Continuum2x, I find this reasoning to restrict it to one sentence unjustified. Misplaced Pages reflects reliable sources. Consensus is made based upon validity of the argument per editing guidelines, and not because one editor thinks that this should be restricted to one sentence. Overriding and disputing the reliable sources seems like a major overstep. This is covered in the RS as a major component to the pandemic response, and a major achievement of his presidency.
    And to clarify, I did not “reinsert the paragraph”, I wrote a new one. Second, the part in the lead was in my original edit. The lead summarizes his response to COVID, and this was a major component of that response.
    Can you actually cite me reasoning/guidelines/policy that would favour your interpretation of restricting coverage to a single sentence, given that multiple WP:RS explicitly refer to this as his chief achievement?
    Zenomonoz (talk) 20:49, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
    I stand corrected. I hadn't noticed the text in the lead the first time around. Mention in the lead hasn't received any support in this discussion, and the rewritten text is no improvement on the first iteration. It's actually worse. The first sentence is based on a primary source (OWS); second sentence see my comment above. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 20:58, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
    reasoning/guidelines/policy ... single sentence — not a question of guidelines or policy, it's where the consensus seems to be headed. Several editors in this discussion said they prefer a brief, short, or one-sentence mention, also neutral. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 21:07, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
    Regarding your comment above. Just because mRNA technology predates Trump isn't a reason for editors to make their own conclusions that OWS wasn't really an achievement at all. OWS may well have been imperfect, but multiple WP:RS still describe it as his chief achievement. E.g. Vox quite recently .
    It would be appropriate to add a sentence to the end of the two sentence paragraph that I added, clarifying any of the critique of Trump regarding OWS, provided they are in WP:RS.
    In addition to the Vox source, the CNN source did support: "Health experts broadly agree that the Trump administration’s national vaccine strategy was a success. The Trump administration was willing to invest in new vaccine technologies, foot the bill for large, expensive clinical studies and simultaneously pay for manufacturing vaccine candidates before it was clear they would prove effective and safe" Zenomonoz (talk) 21:08, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
    You`re cherry picking a random quote Anonymous8206 (talk) 21:23, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
    I highlighted multiple WP:RS above which are clear that OWS was perhaps his sole accomplishment as president. I'm not going to argue with people who don't understand how Misplaced Pages works. Questioning multiple reliable sources is not appropriate. It's verifiable (WP:VER) and in multiple reliable sources. Zenomonoz (talk) 21:39, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
    A handful of random quotes taken out of context Anonymous8206 (talk) 21:43, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
    Do you have any countervailing evidence, then? I haven't chimed in here because I wanted to see how this developed, but it seems Zenomonoz is arguing for RS and policy…the assertion that this should be arbitrarily restricted to one sentence (and the unhelpful removal in the meantime) doesn't improve the article.

    How do biographical sources treat OWS? Riposte97 (talk) 22:59, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
    That would require an effort on my part..I agree..I believe the reference should be expanded upon regarding trump dragging his feet every moment of the pandemic and is now taking credit for ending it..as did reagan taking credit for the wall coming down Anonymous8206 (talk) 00:35, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
    That's good. We should get into the nuances. Riposte97 (talk) 00:54, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
    "I believe the reference should be expanded upon regarding trump dragging his feet every moment of the pandemic", if you actually read the COVID-19 section you would know there is already extensive coverage of trump "dragging his feet". It's frustrating that users are chiming in to say we must restrict mention of a major program he implemented during the pandemic to a single sentence, despite its heavy coverage in multiple reliable sources. No reasoning provided. Quoting multiple RS sources is the opposite of "cherrypicking", by the way. Zenomonoz (talk) 05:57, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
    I would also like to offer my agreement with @Zenomonoz that the listed references indicate notability of the bill itself and is representative of the most notable policy associated with his Presidency. It warrants some mention of inclusion as the references provided do appear to all validate its importance both nationally and with respect to his presidency. LosPajaros (talk) 05:33, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Considering that the major source of the vaccine was Pfizer, which was never a part of Warp Speed, and an immigrant who got the Nobel Prize for ages of research behind the vaccine; but had to leave the country for lack of funds -- a very brief mention somewhere may be OK. But that's all. More than that is an insult to those that spent decades in vaccine efforts -- and Trump's new Health Czar is anti-vaccine. O3000, Ret. (talk) 01:21, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
      "More than that is an insult to those that spent decades in vaccine efforts -- and Trump's new Health Czar is anti-vaccine" – your reasoning does not seem relevant. Misplaced Pages reflects WP:RS, it isn't up to users to be making editorial decisions because they think it's an "insult" to people who worked on vaccines, or because of details surrounding the Pfizer vaccine. OWS funded numerous other vaccines, and scientific experts agree it was largely a success per the WP:RS. A later pending appointment of RFK has zero bearing on OWS and what the sources said about OWS. Zenomonoz (talk) 06:07, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
    The precise quotation from Pfizer is now added to the Operation Warp Speed article. ErnestKrause (talk) 01:49, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
    Thanks. An accurate documentation: O3000, Ret. (talk) 02:04, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
    I rewrote one of the added sentences over there per the given source , "Three experts agreed that the U.S. government's conditional advance order 'played an important role in expediting Pfizer’s vaccine development process' and one expert disagreed." As it originally was added with "Experts disagreed", seemed to express more disagreement than the source presented and that there was a larger sample. Thanks. Bob K31416 (talk) 11:55, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
    I just reverted your rewrite for failing verification. CNN wrote: Three experts told CNN that this purchase promise may have played an important role in expediting Pfizer’s vaccine development process. Your text: Three experts agreed that the U.S. government's conditional advance order "played an important role in expediting Pfizer’s vaccine development process". I bolded the important words missing from your quote. The CNN article also mentions other uncertainties, such as Pfizer and BioNTech's purchase agreements with other countries. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 15:13, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
    Here again is my edit , which didn't change the quote that was there. I think what I had should be restored with the extra part "may have”, all of which is supported by the given source. In other words I think it should be like this, "Three experts agreed that the U.S. government's conditional advance order 'may have played an important role in expediting Pfizer’s vaccine development process' and one expert disagreed." Cheers, Bob K31416 (talk) 16:11, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
    CNN asked four experts — selected on what basis out of how many? The purchase was contingent on the vaccine's FDA approval, so it was Pfizer/BioNTech taking the risk of paying for development, clinical trials, building the production facilities — seems they were fairly certain that they would succeed. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 16:33, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
    Space, we are not going to start questioning the reliability of sources like CNN, nor committing OR. I agree with Bob's proposal, and will insert the amended quote tomorrow. Riposte97 (talk) 23:53, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
    Yes. A small paragraph about OWS is justified to go back in. It's covered extensively in reliable sources. Space (but mostly other users) have been questioning reliable sources WP:SOURCEGOODFAITH and carrying out WP:OR in the comments here. I received stern warnings for that when I was new to Misplaced Pages. This his all boils down to "what do the reliable sources say?". If there's extensive coverage in RS, it can be included. If users want to include RS mention of any criticism of Trump and OWS, that can be included too. Per the sources, OWS is a major part of the Trump admin COVID response. What do the reliable sources say? Zenomonoz (talk) 06:28, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
    I agree. I would also suggest that editors look at the rather large section COVID-19 pandemic and note what is currently there without OWS. Thanks. Bob K31416 (talk) 10:01, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

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

    New official portrait

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

    I 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)

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

    For infoboxes for politicians, Misplaced Pages uses the most recent official portrait. ―Mandruss  13:05, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
    There is a precedent with Barack Obama. We use the most recent, second White House portrait which is closer to how he currently looks (salt-and-pepper rather than his earlier black hair). https://petapixel.com/2013/01/18/a-closer-look-at-obamas-new-official-presidential-portrait/ GhulamIslam (talk) 08:25, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

    Making this article fully protected

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

    Pages are not protected preemptively... - Adolphus79 (talk) 17:32, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
    It's called Freedom of speech Anonymous8206 (talk) 21:13, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
    i know, but i think there will be a large vandalism wave, maybe one we cant actually control. over the next 4 years we will definitely see vandalism, which will be extremely annoying and tedious to defend against. thekingpachy (talk) 21:15, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
    is there anything that actually is fully protected? thekingpachy (talk) 21:16, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
    Not in this life...I would prefer to see the page taken down completely for 24 hours than it freezing due to edit conflict but that`s censorship as well Anonymous8206 (talk) 22:03, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
    ok thekingpachy (talk) 10:27, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
    The article survived the election with the current protection. It will likewise survive the inauguration. In the absolute worst case, we could always restore a days-old revision. ―Mandruss  00:09, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

    Donald trump is now president.

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

    @Kegsper you have to wait 14 more days... EvergreenFir (talk) 18:42, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
    has he been inaugurated? Slatersteven (talk) 18:43, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
    No, he is not. His term will start at noon on the 20th. Just like Biden's started at noon on 20 January 2021. Just like Trump's previous term started at noon on 20 January 2017. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 19:26, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
    No he's not, wdym???? He'll be the president starting from Jan 20. There's still two weeks left EarthDude (talk) 11:43, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
    I find titles for Presidents and other politicians in Misplaced Pages articles to be inconsistent. For example in President Biden’s article, one can see President Barack Obama and former president Donald Trump in the article, and political titles should be used more.
    The Twentieth Amendment uses the term, “President-elect,” as you are using here, yet Misplaced Pages in this article, and in the article, “President-elect,” uses “president-elect,” “President,” is not capitalized.
    The fact is people were more formal when I was younger, a President had the title of President the rest of his life. Easeltine (talk) 10:21, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
    He has been referred to as President but in encyclopedic knowledge it makes no sense to refer to Former President as President. This will of course change again in couple of days once he takes the oath for the length of his last presidency. Onikaburgers (talk) 21:15, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

    Reduce number of citations

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

    I do agree that we should delete excess citations, such as where two or three citations are used at the end of a sentence where one will do. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:54, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
    This article is already long enough, which I for sure couldn't read within 5 hours. Too much citations. What does number of citations have to do with article length? Would you read every citation?While obvious OVERCITE should be avoided, I have no problem with the current number of citations and I think the hard PEIS limit should be the primary limiter. (See #Tracking article size.) ―Mandruss  21:04, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
    The article size is daunting also, its over 400Kb in size. If the article were reduced in size, then the number of cites could be significantly reduced as well. ErnestKrause (talk) 01:48, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

    Indictment Dismissal

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

    The late president's article

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

    Interesting point, My only input is that it might have to do with the weight the information holds in contrast to the rest of the content in the article? Is there any MOS format that suggests that personal life/health might be better located at the bottom of an article? MaximusEditor (talk) 17:43, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
    Part of the problem maybe that Carter was kind of a notable politician who happened to also be a businessman, whereas Trump was a notable businessman who (or maybe a celebrity) who happened to become a pelican. So the article grew organically. Slatersteven (talk) 17:46, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
    Autocorrect or some kind of avian easteregg? BusterD (talk) 18:01, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
    One was created from the off as about a politician, one grew into one about a politician. Slatersteven (talk) 18:05, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
    "pelican"? BusterD (talk) 18:20, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
    It looks like Slatersteven was trying to type "politician" rather than 'pelikan', which he can edit into his comment if he wants to. I'm also finding that the president's article for John Quincy Adams also has Personal life section which appears near the end of the article, as opposed to the Trump article which for some reason has put it at the top of the article. The Misplaced Pages preference for Washington, Jimmy Carter, and now John Quincy Adams, see to all be placing the Personal life section towards the end of the article. Should the Trump article be consistent with the other president articles on Misplaced Pages and place the Personal life section towards the end of the article? ErnestKrause (talk) 00:34, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
    I don't see why not. Most people probably don't come to this page to read about DJT's schooling. Riposte97 (talk) 01:33, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
    No. Trump's private life is part of his tabloid persona, and other presidents' articles (e.g., Lincoln and Obama) have long early life sections that go into details about their families. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 21:07, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
    That sounds ok for the Marriages part of Personal life, but the Health subsection of Personal life really does not seem to belong at the top of the article. Jimmy Carter, Washington, and JQA all place Private life to the bottom of the article. Is there really much advantage to reading about Trump's golf life at the top of the current article when it could better be located towards the bottom of the Table of Contents. ErnestKrause (talk) 21:31, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
    Where towards the bottom would you put it? Teetotalism, sleep and exercise habits are also part of his public persona. The "healthiest president ever" claim was part of the 2016 campaign, and the removal of the medical records happened during the first presidency. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 13:15, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
    My thoughts might suggest the best place for that Personal life Health section to be placed right before the Assessments section towards the bottom of the article. His golf life appears significantly less important than reading about his business life and his media life at the top of the article. ErnestKrause (talk) 20:51, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
    The difference here is Trump’s personalist politics. Status quo is fine Kowal2701 (talk) 22:05, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
    Actually, Erdogan’s, Orban’s, and Chavez’s articles have Personal life at the bottom, so I’ll support following those Kowal2701 (talk) 22:13, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

    Proposal to supersede consensus #50

    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)
        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)
    • Support Passes WP:BLPCRIME as stated earlier. However, I would change criminal to "convicted felon". A lot of former discussion against this suggested we wait until his sentence was official. It now is. BootsED (talk) 19:40, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
      Mandruss  19:49, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Comment - Can we please let people have their say, without telling them they are wrong, the closer will judge that, it is not for us to say. Slatersteven (talk) 18:04, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
      I guess it depends on the relevance of morality .. he`s a convicted criminal,,it's got nothing to do with Andrew Johnson or anyone else's impeachment..at least Nixon was smart enough to not get caught...trump is by definition a criminal but you think it's irrelevant...what can a moral or ethical person say to that ? Anonymous8206 (talk) 19:13, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
      It is not moral or ethical to put words in others' mouths during content discussions. Nobody has said it's irrelevant. ―Mandruss  19:35, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Oppose placing it in the first sentence (in the stress position). Please mention in the lead at a later spot. -SusanLesch (talk) 19:24, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Oppose the first sentence. Later in the lead I think is merited as it is a first and very heavily covered by RS. (Likely to stay that way as it is reported he's fund raising on it.) O3000, Ret. (talk) 19:35, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Oppose in the opening sentence as this is not reflected across wikipedia for other politicians who are convicted criminals. One key example being Silvio Berlusconi who was Italian PM convicted of multiple crimes including a 4 year sentence for tax fraud which is mentioned in his 4th opening paragraph not the opening sentence. IrishReader1996 (talk) 19:55, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Oppose The proposal is for a "crime label" for which there is an essay: Misplaced Pages: Crime labels. As listed by the essay, Misplaced Pages has had vast and lengthy arguments over crime labels, where in countless RFC's such labels are nearly universally unsuccessful. Or at least there has to be an obvious rationale for it. Basically, they are misleading, vague, and poor writing. In the present case, it smacks of simple name calling. Far better to just include a brief description of the criminal instance in the lead. I would, however, be in favor of a new section in the article bringing together all of Trump's sundry criminal and civil episodes; such a section may well then suggest an appropriate label. Bdushaw (talk) 20:52, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Comment - It's beyond relevant..it's the only thing he will be remembered for in the end...a rich criminal who bought his way into power at the bequest of those more sinister than him Anonymous8206 (talk) 21:02, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Oppose for the time being. I doubt this is what he'll be consistently noted as, but could be proven wrong. Riposte97 (talk) 21:09, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Strong Support This is absolutely first sentence material and possibly one of the most textbook WP:NOTABLE pieces of information in wikipedia history as far as the WP:LEAD goes, according our rules governing it.FACT- Trump was now officially sentenced for multiple felony crimes. That makes him the FIRST convicted felon (by a jury of his peers) to be elected President. Just like in the Obama wikipedia article, it mentions "Obama being the first African-American elected", this is equally notable. This is a first. And even the American Supreme Court allowed for Trump to be sentenced, so there is no question legally of where this stands.Of course, there are politically biased editors making ridiculous arguments against this in violation of etiquette and rules of wikipedia. And many examples listed AGAINST THIS are fueled by fallacious reasoning, or use petty examples that simply don't match here. The only reason to exclude this is because Trump is not only above the law in this country but above our rules apparently for ideological reasoning here.Again, no convicted felon in history was EVER elected President. And this is for multiple notable felony crimes involving a scheme to interfere in the democratic election, which is WHY NY law was able to amplify misdemeanor crimes into a felony crime scheme verdict/finding. Perhaps if the American SCOTUS down the road overturns this we can revisit this.And to be clear, if Biden was ever convicted of a crime or any democratic President then I too would strong support mention of that in the first sentence.However, the idea that if enough biased editors come here to OPPOSE THIS that we will allow for mob rule to override rules of what is WP:NOTABLE is a sad day for wikipedia, and proof that our community fails in upholding journalistic standards that we claim we uphold. If enough biased editors set up an RFC vote for a pro flat-earth position or a Holocaust denial position, would be both sides that?! Of course not, as wikipedia is clear on WP:FRINGE thinking, which is what is driving a delay on including this very important notable information per the standards of WP:LEAD.That it is buried in the article is a lame fallacious way around what is at heart here. That we treat all people and biographies the same regardless of political power. A President being convicted of serious crimes is every bit as notable (if not more so) than race or gender as it makes wikipedia come off as more concerned about notability about the color of one's skin that one's choices and behavior. No, this is a test of whether we can truly be objective about the facts and the mission of wikipedia, or if we simply cower in the face of fear of being unpopular. 2601:282:8903:B3C0:E03B:9D22:3C30:1A19 (talk) 21:06, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
      See WP:AGF and WP:NPA. State your case without accusing others of incompetence or bad faith, even if unnamed. ―Mandruss  21:19, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
      @Mandruss No, the "unnamed" part is actually important here for it to be WP:NPA, as there are exceptions to the rule when I'm in the right to call a WP:SPADE a spade given the stakes and clear violation of WP:NOTABILITY in an effort (albeit intentional or otherwise) to carve out an exception for a convicted criminal here who is now leading a democratic country.
      This also happens to be that great rare example of WP:AAGF. The AGF guideline recognizes that one can easily misjudge another's intentions or motives, and thus urges caution in that area. Ironically, the very act of citing AGF can suggest an assumption of bad faith, since one is assuming that the other is not also assuming good faith.
      Some disputes are exceptional, whether it is climate-change denial, holocaust denialism, arguing for a flat-earth, or in this case a plain and simple case of being in denial of stating WP:NOTABLE facts in a way that our rules surrounding WP:LEAD demands. The aforementioned reasons I've stated are the only honest empirical reasons for WP:CENSORing this content in the way we are doing now (by burying it and treating a powerful figure like Trump as some exception to the rules). Otherwise, matters of lesser importance (like mentioning Kamala Harris as the first female Vice President, or Obama as the first black President, in the first sentence of an article) should also be removed as we are making a statement as a community (intention or otherwise) about where our priorities lie insofar as what is WP:NOTABLE and what is not.
      Precedence should decide, not the emotion of the moment, and the process regarding Trump's convicted guilt has been allowed to play out long enough here that it is time to do right by the community, and follow our own precedents and rules. 2601:282:8903:B3C0:E03B:9D22:3C30:1A19 (talk) 21:36, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
      Unlike you, I have years-long experience with many of the Opposing editors here, including myself. Unlike you, I happen to know that we are anything but biased in favor of Trump. That kills your whole argument, and clearly shows the need for adherence to WP:AGF. You need to cease this line of argument or risk admin action. ―Mandruss  21:54, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
      @Mandruss Disagreeing with you as forcibly as you are disagreeing with me is not worthy of an WP:ANI, but if you must please go right ahead. As for the record, when reviewing your own history, your "many years of experience" are not spotless when it comes to your own behavior. And you are literally going around this thread making it a point to comment on many others with whom you don't agree (who did not consent to your opinion on the matter, with multiple arguments), trying to convince made-up minds that clearly won't change based upon your emotionally-reasoned attempts. So, what of your bulverism here?!
      At best, we agree to disagree, so nothing is "killed" here. And there is no truly unbiased person politically-speaking in any walks of life. There are countless examples of it on wikipedia, as you already know.
      As for this RFC vote, I've spoken my mind, and made my case, voted, so I plan to move on, and I'm done here. Are you? 2601:282:8903:B3C0:E03B:9D22:3C30:1A19 (talk) 22:05, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
      Disagreeing with you as forcibly as you are disagreeing with me See False equivalence. I am not the one persistently violating accepted principles of talk page behavior here. not spotless when it comes to your own behavior Laughable. Congratulations on ferreting out my one block in 11 years, from 9+1⁄2 years ago. Great detective work. I plan to move on Good call. I'm done here. Are you? I'm done if you are. ―Mandruss  22:14, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
      The content isn't being censored at all, that's a very silly suggestion. It's still included, just not in the literal first sentence.
      And yes, implying people are voting no because of "political bias" is an assumption of bad faith, so cool it. — Czello 22:07, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
      @Czello I stand by my vote, and my reasoning behind it. 2601:282:8903:B3C0:E03B:9D22:3C30:1A19 (talk) 22:11, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
      @Czello P.S. And I'm not talking about whether it should belong in the article or not. I'm talking about whether this is WP:CENSORSHIP by way of suppressing it in the opening sentence insofar as precedence, and etiquette surrounding WP:LEAD and WP:NOTABILITY are concerned. If we are to find Barack Obama's skin color notable enough to mention in the opening sentence of his biography as a first for Presidents, then mentioning "the first convicted criminal/felon to be elected President" is certainly more than notable for the same empirical reasons and as a matter of wikipedia precedence. 2601:282:8903:B3C0:E03B:9D22:3C30:1A19 (talk) 22:15, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
      I know, I'm saying it not being in the first sentence is not censorship. Additionally, what other articles do is not particularly relevant to this article. Other stuff, whataboutism, etc. — Czello 22:21, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
      @Czello Not to butt in, BUT (no pun intended) you did mention to the OP that it was "included in the body" as YOUR retort about an RFC literally about whether it is worthy to include this pertinent information front and center, not whether or not it should be included period. So that much was clear from the OP and those taking his/her/their position on this.
      And that retort is a popular dodge/red-herring in this debate and the one before it, as fallacies have been mentioned.
      I'm neutral on this row.
      But it does appear you are not IMO. 65.153.22.75 (talk) 22:49, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
      Sorry but I'm not quite following your point. My position has always been that it shouldn't be in the opening sentence, but is acceptable later in the lede (as it is currently). So no, I'm not neutral on this.
      The retort I made isn't a dodge - consensus is decided locally; what's is Obama's lede is apples and oranges. — Czello 23:11, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
      @Czello How so? lol It IS significant in a country like America where after hundreds of years of elections of white 'lawabiding' men a black man is elected President for the same reason that a convicted criminal with 34+ felony convictions is elected. It is historic, newsworthy, and very much a defining part of his legacy. He literally ran on that distinction.
      And consensus isn't god when it comes to undeniable history or empirical fact as far as a certain bottom goes even by wikipedia standards. If a local consensus suddenly decided the world was flat, an admin could overrule that as you know consensus be damned. You are not providing a compelling reason not to include it front and center other than you think it somehow is unfair and even disparaging against the subject, and outside the norms. Well, so is a democratic country like America electing its first convicted criminal in its hundreds of years as lawful democracy.
      Misplaced Pages is not beyond its own flaws, and editors are within their rights to call it out when they they have compelling case to do so. Do with that what you will, but it's not a violation of good faith given the exceptional circumstances here for some to challenge your thinking. That's my neutral point of view in this. Food for thought. 65.153.22.75 (talk) 23:24, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
      If a local consensus suddenly decided the world was flat, an admin could overrule that as you know consensus be damned. That's actually false. A closer can override the numbers if the minority has a stronger policy basis. There is no Misplaced Pages policy that the world is spherical. But this point is academic since flat-earth arguments would never have a majority and could never have a stronger policy basis. ―Mandruss  00:03, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
      It's significant enough to go into the lead, which it already is. It's not defining enough to be in the first sentence.
      I never said it shouldn't be included because it's disparaging against the subject. There seems to be an odd trend among some voting 'support' to believe those of us opposing it are sympathetic to Trump (I mean, take a look at this article and try to argue it's pro-Trump, lol). This is what's a violation of good faith.
      As for your views on consensus, Mandruss has very effectively addressed that. — Czello 09:04, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
      @Czello Mandruss has not. And neither of you are admins. So your opinions count as much as anyone other users. Your are flirting with WP:OWN language, so respect the POVs of others, and that includes the OP you are addressing. 2601:282:8903:B3C0:2863:9A38:BE25:70E6 (talk) 13:37, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
      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)

    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 wikipedia that JFK was the youngest person elected president at 43 years." Please put your bias aside, or your dogma about these exceptional circumstances, and let history and newsworthiness decide, not your egos. 2601:282:8903:B3C0:6D3E:8CEC:1108:F7A (talk) 04:04, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
      In the first lines of the lead of the articles of well-known criminals (Hitler, Mussolini, Mao, Stalin, etc.) the term isn't present. Trump isn't remotely comparable to them, yet you (and not only you) would like to add "criminal" to this page; it's very strange. JacktheBrown (talk) 05:05, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
      They were not convicted of a crime, for those convicted see Hermann Göring, Jeffrey Epstein, Harvey Weinstein. Kenneth Kho (talk) 05:42, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
      For relevant political examples see Spiro Agnew and Silvio Berlusconi IrishReader1996 (talk) 12:53, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Oppose having criminal/felon in first sentence. Donald Trump is not primarily known for his criminal convictions. The coverage in the lead is sufficient weight as it is now. There was already no consensus to add this last year, and nearly nothing has changed since then. The formality of the judge sentencing him, to literally no punishment I may add, is not a good reason for rehashing this matter. R. G. Checkers 07:13, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
    • 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 wikipedia works.
    And the consensus in the press, by way of wide coverage through reliable sources, is to the extent that they keep reporting him as the first felon to become president. Whether they like it or not is another story, but there is no doubt about the press acknowledging the notoriety of the President being a convicted criminal. So if the press consensus is leading with this information as WP:NOTABLE then so should we. There are no sources suggesting that this isn't the big deal that it is. The disagreement in the sources is about whether Trump is deserving of his verdict or being persecuted, and that is not for us to weigh in here with how we present such notable historic information.
    There is too much WP:EDITORIALizing going on here in this debate.2601:282:8903:B3C0:2863:9A38:BE25:70E6 (talk) 13:48, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
    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)

    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)
    • 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)

    "dismissed following his victory in the 2024 election."

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

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

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

    Convicted felon

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

    It's in the third paragraph of the intro, it doesn't really matter where it is just that it's there. Akechi The Agent Of Chaos (talk) 00:36, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
    @Akechi The Agent Of Chaos: exactly! It's largely sufficient that it's present somewhere in the lead, yet some users complain that the term isn't written exactly on the line they want; this, in my opinion, is very disappointing behaviour (of course I'm not judging anyone). JacktheBrown (talk) 17:25, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
    I agree should be in introduction after they mention business man 38.95.21.27 (talk) 04:32, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
    Agreed. 2600:1700:5CC0:3060:F899:671:20F3:5EB3 (talk) 06:41, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

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

    See RFC above. Slatersteven (talk) 10:44, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
    I do believe that at this point, with a sentence handed down, calling Trump "the first U.S. president to be convicted of a (felony) crime", if not outright "the first U.S. president to be a convicted felon" within the first three paragraphs is neither incorrect nor undue. We may need a new RfC to handle this. DemocracyDeprivationDisorder (talk) 16:55, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

    Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 11 January 2025

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

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

     Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit extended-protected}} template. see above RFC Cannolis (talk) 08:19, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
    We don't use those exact words, but we do say the first U.S. president to be convicted of a crime in the lead and explain in the body: In March 2023, a New York grand jury indicted Trump on 34 felony counts of falsifying business records to book the hush money payments to Daniels as business expenses, in an attempt to influence the 2016 election. In May, he was convicted on all 34 counts. On January 10, 2025, Trump was sentenced to unconditional discharge which, under New York law, upheld the felony conviction without imposing further punishment. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 15:24, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

    Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 11 January 2025 (2)

    It is requested that an edit be made to the extended-confirmed-protected article at Donald Trump. (edit · history · last · links · protection log)

    This template must be followed by a complete and specific description of the request, that is, specify what text should be removed and a verbatim copy of the text that should replace it. "Please change X" is not acceptable and will be rejected; the request must be of the form "please change X to Y".

    The edit may be made by any extended confirmed user. Remember to change the |answered=no parameter to "yes" when the request has been accepted, rejected or on hold awaiting user input. This is so that inactive or completed requests don't needlessly fill up the edit requests category. You may also wish to use the {{EEp}} template in the response. To request that a page be protected or unprotected, make a protection request.

    Add link to Joe Biden's page after "Succeeded by". 185.140.245.222 (talk) 20:33, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

    Categories: