Talk:Donald Trump: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 16:23, 14 November 2016 view sourceAnythingyouwant (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Template editors91,260 editsm →RFC closure ← Previous edit		Latest revision as of 22:02, 22 January 2025 view source Objective3000 (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers19,092 edits →Continuing discussion on bankruptcy: ReplyTag: Reply
Line 1:		Line 1:
	{{~~Skip to talk~~}}		{{pp-blp}}
	{{Talk header}}		{{Talk header\|hide_find_sources=yes}}
			{{American politics AE\|Consensus required=no\|BRD=yes\|1RR=no}}
	{{Controversial-issues}}
			{{tmbox
	{{2016 US Election AE}}
			\|image = ]
	{{WikiProjectBannerShell\|blp=yes\|1=
			\|text = '''Want to add new information about Donald Trump?'''<br/>Please consider choosing the most appropriate article, for example:
	{{WikiProject Biography\|living=Yes\|class=C\|a&e-work-group=Yes\|a&e-priority=Mid\|politician-work-group=Yes\|politician-priority=Top\|listas=Trump, Donald}}
			{{div col}}
	{{WikiProject Business\|class=C\|importance=Mid}}
	~~{{WikiProject~~ Donald Trump~~\|class=C\|importance=Top}}~~		* ]
			* ]
	{{WikiProject Television\|class=C\|importance=Mid}}
			* ]
	{{WikiProject New York City\|class=C\|importance=High}}
			* ]
	{{WikiProject Florida\|class=C\|importance=Low}}
			{{div col end}}
	{{WikiProject Politics\|class=C\|importance=Top\|American=Yes\|American-importance=Top}}
			... or dozens of other places, as listed in {{t\|Donald Trump series}}. Thanks!
	{{WikiProject Professional wrestling\|class=C\|importance=Low}}
	{{WikiProject Conservatism \|class=C\|importance=Mid}}
	{{WikiProject Alternative Views\|class=C\|importance=low}}
	{{WikiProject United States\|class=C\|importance=High\|USTV=Yes\|USTV-importance=Mid\|USGov=Yes\|USGov-importance=High\|USPE=Yes\|USPE-importance=Top\|USPresidents=Yes\|USPresidents-importance=High}}
	{{WikiProject University of Pennsylvania\|class=c\|importance=Low}}
	{{WP1.0 \|class=C \|importance=High \|v0.7=pass \|category=socsci
	\| b1 <!--Referencing & citations--> = no
	\| b2 <!--Coverage & accuracy --> = yes
	\| b3 <!--Structure --> = no
	\| b4 <!--Grammar & style --> = yes
	\| b5 <!--Supporting materials --> = yes
	\| b6 <!--Accessibility --> = yes}}
	{{dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment \| course = Misplaced Pages:Wiki_Ed/University_of_California,_Berkeley/Civic_Tech_and_the_Social_Media_President_(Fall_2016) }}
	{{dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment \| course = Misplaced Pages:Wiki_Ed/University_of_Oklahoma/History_of_Science_Since_the_17th_Century_(Fall_2016) \| reviewers = ] }}
	\|collapsed=yes
	}}		}}
			{{FAQ\|collapsed=no}}
	{{American English}}
			{{WikiProject banner shell \|class=B \|blp=activepol \|collapsed=yes \|vital=yes \|listas=Trump, Donald \|1=
			{{WikiProject Biography \|a&e-work-group=Yes \|a&e-priority=Mid \|politician-work-group=Yes \|politician-priority=Top}}
			{{WikiProject Business \|importance=Mid}}
			{{WikiProject Climate change\|importance=High}}
			{{WikiProject Conservatism \|importance=High}}
			{{WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography \|importance=Top}}
			{{WikiProject New York City \|importance=High}}
			{{WikiProject Politics \|importance=Top \|American=Yes \|American-importance=Top \|political-parties=yes \|political-parties-importance=High}}
			{{WikiProject Television \|importance=Mid \|american=yes}}
			{{WikiProject United States \|importance=Top \|USTV=Yes \|USTV-importance=Mid \|USGov=Yes \|USGov-importance=High \|USPE=Yes \|USPE-importance=Top}}
			{{WikiProject United States Presidents \|importance=Top \|trump=yes \|trump-importance=top}}
			{{WikiProject University of Pennsylvania \|importance=Low}}
			{{WikiProject 2010s \|importance=Top}}
			}}
			<!-- end wikiproject banner bundle -->
			{{Banner holder \|text= Page history \|collapsed=y \|1=
	{{Article history		{{Article history
	\|action1=GAN		\|action1=GAN
Line 37:		Line 39:
	\|action2=GAN		\|action2=GAN
	\|action2date=17:59, 12 February 2007 (UTC)		\|action2date=17:59, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
	\|action2link=Talk:Donald Trump/Archive 1#GA failed		\|action2link=Talk:Donald Trump/Archive 1#GA failed
	\|action2result=failed		\|action2result=failed
	\|action2oldid=107442121		\|action2oldid=107442121

	\|action3=GAN		\|action3=GAN
	\|action3date=04:35, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
	\|action3link=Talk:Donald Trump/GA1		\|action3link=Talk:Donald Trump/GA1
			\|action3date= 17 September 2016
	\|action3result=failed		\|action3result=failed
	\|action3oldid=739866707		\|action3oldid=739866707

			\|action4=GAN
			\|action4date=03:07, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
			\|action4link=Talk:Donald Trump/GA2
			\|action4result=failed
			\|action4oldid=782109977

			\|action5=GAN
			\|action5date=08:44, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
			\|action5link=Talk:Donald Trump/GA3
			\|action5result=failed
			\|action5oldid=870721866

			\|action6=GAN
			\|action6date=18:23, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
			\|action6link=Talk:Donald Trump/GA4
			\|action6result=failed
			\|action6oldid=906418948

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

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

	\|currentstatus=FGAN		\|currentstatus=FGAN
	\|topic=~~business~~		\|topic=Politics and government
	}}		}}
			{{Afd-merged-from\|Health of Donald Trump\|Health of Donald Trump\|13 June 2019}}
	{{Friendly search suggestions}}
			{{Press \| collapsed=yes
	{{press \| collapsed=yes\|author=Cuozzo, Steve\|date=November 16, 2013\|url=http://nypost.com/2013/11/16/dont-trust-anything-on-wikipedia/ \|title=Don't Trust Anything on Misplaced Pages\|org='']''
			\|org='']'' \|date=November 16, 2013 \|author=Cuozzo, Steve \|title=Don't Trust Anything on Misplaced Pages
	\|url2=http://www.theverge.com/2015/7/22/9014525/someone-just-deleted-donald-trumps-entire-wikipedia-page \|org2='']'' \|date2=July 22, 2015 \|author2=Popper, Ben \|title2=Someone just deleted Donald Trump's entire Misplaced Pages page\|author3=Merrill, Jeremy\|date3=February 1, 2016\|url3=http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/02/us/politics/wikipedia-donald-trump-2016-election.html \|title3=On Misplaced Pages, Donald Trump Reigns and Facts Are Open to Debate\|org3='']'' \|url4=http://www.cracked.com/blog/5-truly-bizarre-sections-otherwise-normal-websites_p2/ \|title4=5 Secretly Bizarre Sections Of Websites You Use Every Day \|author4=Germ, Erik \|org4='']'' \|date4=May 28, 2016\|author5=Guo, Jeff\|date5=October 25, 2016\|title5=Misplaced Pages is fixing one of the Internet’s biggest flaws\|url5=https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/10/25/somethings-terribly-wrong-with-the-internet-and-wikipedia-might-be-able-to-fix-it/\|org5='']''\|title6=The most challenging job of the 2016 race: Editing the candidates’ Misplaced Pages pages\|org6=''The Washington Post''\|url6=https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/politics/2016-election/presidential-wikipedias/?hpid=hp_no-name_graphic-story-b\|date6=October 27, 2016\|author6=Alcantara, Chris}}
			\|url=http://nypost.com/2013/11/16/dont-trust-anything-on-wikipedia/
	{{Top25 \| place = \| week = ]}}
			\|org2='']'' \|date2=July 22, 2015 \|author2=Popper, Ben \|title2=Someone just deleted Donald Trump's entire Misplaced Pages page
	<!--- Auto archiving configured by ] --->
			\|url2=http://www.theverge.com/2015/7/22/9014525/someone-just-deleted-donald-trumps-entire-wikipedia-page
			\|org3='']'' \|date3=February 1, 2016 \|author3=Merrill, Jeremy \|title3=On Misplaced Pages, Donald Trump Reigns and Facts Are Open to Debate
			\|url3=http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/02/us/politics/wikipedia-donald-trump-2016-election.html
			\|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/
			\|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/
			\|org6='']'' \|date6=October 27, 2016\|author6=Alcantara, Chris \|title6=The most challenging job of the 2016 race: Editing the candidates' Misplaced Pages pages
			\|url6=https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/politics/2016-election/presidential-wikipedias/
			\|org7='']'' \|date7=December 21, 2016 \|author7=Staff Writer \|title7=Most-edited Misplaced Pages pages of 2016 revealed
			\|url7=http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-38394685
			\|org8='']'' \|date8=January 20, 2017 \|author8=Gartenberg, Chaim \|title8=Misplaced Pages editors can't decide if Trump is the president yet
			\|url8=http://www.theverge.com/tldr/2017/1/20/14336626/wikipedia-editors-edit-war-president-obama-trump
			\|org9='']'' \|date9=June 5, 2017 \|author9=Wyrich, Andrew \|title9=Someone is trying to get Trump's official portrait deleted from Misplaced Pages
			\|url9=https://www.dailydot.com/layer8/donald-trump-official-portrait-wikipedia-copyright/
			\|org10='']'' \|date10=22 November 2018 \|author10=Warren, Tom\|title10=Siri thinks Donald Trump is a penis\|url10=https://www.theverge.com/tldr/2018/11/22/18108195/apple-siri-iphone-donald-trump-penis-wikipedia-fail-vandalism-editing
			\|org11='']'' \|date11=22 November 2018 \|author11=Blumenthal, Eli\|title11=Misplaced Pages vandalizing causes Siri to show a lewd image when asked about Donald Trump \|url11=https://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/talkingtech/2018/11/22/siri-glitch-shows-male-genitalia-when-asking-questions-trump/2088884002/
			\|org12='']'' \|date12=23 November 2018 \|author12=Griffin, Andrew\|title12=Asking Siri for information about Donald Trump shows explicit image after Misplaced Pages edit\|url12=https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-tech/news/donald-trump-siri-explicit-image-apple-wikipedia-edit-explained-a8648556.html
			\|org13='']'' \|date13=23 November 2018 \|author13=Gander, Kashmira\|title13=Someone hacked Donald Trump's Misplaced Pages page, replaced photo with image of penis\|url13=https://www.newsweek.com/someone-hacked-donald-trumps-wikipedia-page-replaced-photo-image-penis-1228571
			\|org14='']'' \|date14=26 November 2018 \|author14=Martin, Alan\|title14=The Trump penis Misplaced Pages war has kicked off again\|url14=https://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/news/3066986/the-trump-penis-wikipedia-war-has-kicked-off-again
			\|org15='']'' \|date15=December 3, 2018 \|author15=Brandom, Russell\|title15=Misplaced Pages engages the 'nuclear option' after Trump penis hack\|url15=https://www.theverge.com/2018/12/4/18125359/wikipedia-trump-admin-account-security-hack
			\|org16='']'' \|date16=May 28, 2019 \|author16=Mak, Aaron\|title16=Donald Trump's Misplaced Pages Entry Is a War Zone\|url16=https://slate.com/technology/2019/05/donald-trump-wikipedia-page.htm
			\|org17='']'' \|date17=March 7, 2020 \|author17=Pasternack, Alex \|title17=How Misplaced Pages's volunteers became the web's best weapon against misinformation \|url17=https://www.fastcompany.com/90471667/how-wikipedia-volunteers-became-the-webs-best-weapon-against-misinformation
			\|org18='']'' \|date18=May 21, 2020 \|author18=Flood, Brian \|title18=Misplaced Pages co-founder Larry Sanger says online encyclopedia scrapped neutrality, favors lefty politics \|url18=https://www.foxnews.com/media/wikipedia-co-founder-larry-sanger-says-online-dictionary-scrapped-neutrality-favors-lefty-politics
			\|org19='']'' \|date19=November 19, 2020 \|author19=Evon, Dan \|title19=Does Loser.com Redirect to Trump’s Misplaced Pages Page? \|url19=https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/loser-com-trump-wikipedia-page/
			\|org20='']'' \|date20=October 23, 2023 \|author20=Williams, Zoe \|title20=Why is Elon Musk attacking Misplaced Pages? Because its very existence offends him \|url20=https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/oct/23/why-is-elon-musk-attacking-wikipedia-because-its-very-existence-offends-him
			\|org21='']'' \|date21=May 31, 2024 \|author21=Hays, Gabriel \|title21=CNN host suggests Trump conviction not mentioned prominently enough on former president's Misplaced Pages page \|url21=https://www.foxnews.com/media/cnn-host-suggests-trump-conviction-mentioned-prominently-enough-former-presidents-wikipedia-page
			\|org22='']'' \|date22=June 4, 2024 \|author22=Harrison, Stephen \|title22=The Most Heated Debate on Trump’s Felony Conviction Is Happening on ... Misplaced Pages? \|url22=https://slate.com/technology/2024/06/donald-trump-felony-wikipedia-debate.html
			\|org23='']'' \|date23=October 17, 2024 \|author23=Sam Wineburg and Nadav Ziv \|title23=Go ahead and use Misplaced Pages for research \|url23=https://www.bostonglobe.com/2024/10/17/opinion/use-wikipedia-reliable-source/
			}}
			{{All time pageviews\|233}}
			{{Annual report\|], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], and ]}}
			{{Top 25 report\|Jun 14 2015\|Jun 28 2015\|Jul 19 2015\|until\|Sep 27 2015\|Dec 6 2015\|Dec 13 2015\|Jan 3 2016\|until\|Jan 17 2016\|until\|Jun 12 2016\|Jul 3 2016\|until\|Jul 31 2016\|Aug 21 2016\|until\|Dec 18 2016\|Jan 1 2017\|until\|Apr 2 2017\|Apr 23 2017\|May 14 2017\|until\|May 28 2017\|Jun 11 2017\|Jun 25 2017\|Oct 8 2017\|Oct 22 2017\|Nov 26 2017\|Jan 14 2018\|Jun 10 2018\|Sep 30 2018\|Oct 28 2018\|until\|Nov 25 2018\|Dec 9 2018\|Sep 22 2019\|Dec 15 2019\|Jan 5 2020\|Feb 23 2020\|Mar 1 2020\|Apr 12 2020\|May 31 2020\|until\|Jun 28 2020\|Aug 9 2020\|until\|Aug 23 2020\|Sep 27 2020\|until\|Dec 13 2020\|Jan 3 2021\|until\|Jan 31 2021\|Jul 10 2022\|Jun 11 2023\|May 26 2024\|Jun 23 2024\|Jul 14 2024\|Jul 21 2024\|Oct 20 2024\|until\|Nov 24 2024}}
			{{Annual readership\|scale=log}}
			<!-- end page history banner bundle --> }}
			{{Banner holder \|collapsed=yes \|1=
			{{Section sizes}}
			}}

	{{User:MiszaBot/config		{{User:MiszaBot/config
	\|algo = old(~~14d~~)		\|algo = old(7d)
	\|archive = Talk:Donald Trump/Archive %(counter)d		\|archive = Talk:Donald Trump/Archive %(counter)d
	\|counter = 32		\|counter = 187
	\|maxarchivesize = ~~150K~~		\|maxarchivesize = 200K
	\|archiveheader = {{~~tan~~}}		\|archiveheader = {{aan}}
	\|minthreadstoarchive = 1		\|minthreadstoarchive = 1
	\|minthreadsleft = 0		\|minthreadsleft = 3
	}}		}}
	{{auto archiving notice
	\|bot = lowercase sigmabot III
	\|age = 14
	\|small=
	}}
	{\| class=wikitable style="background-color:rgba(0,0,255,0.1); margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"
	! Page views for this article over the last 30 days
	\|-
	\| {{Graph:PageViews}} <BR>
	\|}

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

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


			== Racially charged ==
	Regarding the question about the length of the text in the lead (if the topic is covered in the lead at all), opinions range from one short sentence to a paragraph, but on average consensus seems to tend towards '''one or two short sentences.''' <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 20:54, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
			<!-- START PIN -->{{Pin message\|}}<!-- ] 10:51, 10 November 2034 (UTC) -->{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil\|2046768684}}<!-- END PIN -->
	\| width = 30%\|halign=left}}
			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)
	:''The following discussion is closed. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.''<!-- from Template:Archive top-->
			:{{tq\|Would editors here support removal of "racially charged" until such text is supported in the body?}} Not this one, per process. We're not going to amend #30 until the body is fixed, then reverse the amendment. "Racially charged" appears to have enough RS support, so just find a way to work it into the body. ―] ] 05:54, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
	----
			::<s>What does "reverse the amendment" mean? Go back to Consensus 24? ] (]) 06:07, 12 November 2024 (UTC)</s> I understand. ] (]) 06:07, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
	<!-- ] 09:21, 10 January 2017 (UTC) -->{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil\|1484040113}}
			:::I see the grammatical ambiguity. :) ―] ] 07:06, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
	;Summary of issue
			::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)
	There has been debates, reverts, and contentious editing regarding the lead of this BLP (see the above talk page sections: ], ], ], ], ], ], and ]).
			:::{{u\|Riposte97}} I think an RfC should be avoided if it can be. Do you think you could ]? I'll have a go as well in a bit. If we don't have luck we can look at overturning Consensus #30.
			:::Given it's an ] claim, high-quality sources will be needed. I wouldn't accept journalists being arbitrators of whether his comments were "racially charged", political scientists will have written on it and we shouldn't accept inferior sourcing. This is the standard that was applied for "cult of personality". ] (]) 07:57, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
			::::Your reasoning seems consistent with ]. A departure, probably more impactful (disruptive?) than you realize, but maybe ultimately good for the article. No strong opinion provided we adhere to the established consensus process. If that means revisiting #30, I suppose you pass the "significant new argument(s)" test. ―] ] 08:37, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
			::::@], apologies that I've not had the time to properly devote to this. I'll see what I can add to your page in the coming days. ] (]) 10:37, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
			:Yep definitely. ] (]) 19:45, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

			I have created a page ] as a space for research on this article. I intended to use academic sources in ] as the basis to follow summary style, but extremely disappointingly, only six of the almost 500 sources are academic.
	There are multiple objections and issues raised, but they all center around the inclusion or exclusion of allegations of sexual misconduct, harassment, assault, and crimes by Trump against a number of women. The relevant information in the body of the article can primarily be found at ], which summaries the fuller article ].

			This is collaborative so please help! If this can be pinned to the top of this page for a short while it would be valuable. Remember, for ], we are not merely looking for multiple sources describing him or his comments/actions as racist/racially charged, but for the weighted response of high-quality academic sources to these questions. ] (]) 10:21, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
	So far, the issues raise have been about (1) the existence of any mention in the ] and (2) the length of any such mention. Regarding (2), among those who think it should be included, some have suggested only one or two sentences be added while other suggest a stand-alone paragraph is warranted. Specific policies and guidelines raised in previous discussions include ], ], ], potential ] violations, and adherence to a ].
			:{{u\|SusanLesch}} Pinging you in case this effort is of interest. Been working mostly on collating books right now as journals are daunting for finding discussion of general scholarly consensus. If you find other useful texts along the way providing a scholarly retrospective assessment on aspects, I'm currently dropping them in ]. ] (]) 17:17, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
			::Will do. Sorry if I'm slow today with journals but I will catch up. On this topic per ], {{tq\| not everything in the lead must be repeated in the body of the text}}, however this statement absolutely should be cited per ]. Seems like a good place for a perfectly cited footnote. -] (]) 17:42, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
			:::Thanks :) Yes the key issue is definitely it being uncited. ] (]) 17:48, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
			:'''Support removal'''. "Racially charged" is . When you consider that in the same sentence we are saying that Trump's comments and actions have been characterized as outright racist, it makes even less sense to "soften" the characterization with this term. Reading that old discussion, I think the true reason that many editors tended to support the euphemism was because it softens the perception that we are saying he is racist in ]. "Characterized by some" was rightly rejected by editors as too vague, but perhaps "characterized by critics" could be used to clearly attribute the characterization and prevent reader misunderstanding. — ] (]) 01:34, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
			::it needs removing for sure. it's against ] on multiple counts, but specially "Remove contentious material that is unsourced or poorly sourced" ~ ] 18:29, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::It's sourced in ]. A citation should be added to the lead per ]. – ] (]) 18:44, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::To be clear, I do not oppose the lead's inclusion of the fact that many characterize Trump as racist. I am only supporting the removal of the term "racially charged", which I feel is redundant. — ] (]) 17:08, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
			*Suggest you look up the meaning of "racially charged". Regards, ] (]) 23:40, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
			*:This comment is going over my head. ] (]) 01:19, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

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

			== Tracking lead size ==
	;Need for this RfC
			Word counts by paragraph and '''total'''.
	Current discussions are disjointed, redundant, and contentious. Some attempts at consensus-building and !voting have been relative unfruitful. It is unclear if there is ] for anything. Unlike straw polls and other !votes, an RfC can help bring in new editors to voice their opinions and (hopefully) generate a stronger consensus. Per a request in the above section, I am making a good-faith attempt at creating a neutrally-worded RfC to assess consensus on the aforementioned issues. If you feel I have not adequately or correctly summarized the debate, please feel free to suggest clarification or changes to the background infomation. Because of the complicated nature of the issues and past discussion, please forgive my multi-question RfC. It is the only way I can see any RfC addressing the core issues and making any headway.
			{{hidden
			\| headerstyle = text-align:left; font-weight:normal;
			\| header =
			— '''614''' = 29 + 101 + 106 + 156 + 101 + 121
			\| content =
			— '''657''' = 46 + 101 + 116 + 175 + 176 + 43

			— '''418''' = 62 + 76 + 153 + 127
	;Questions
	#Should the lede of this BLP include any summary of the allegations of sexual misconduct against Trump?
	#If the material is included, to what extent should it be covered in the lead?

			— '''406''' = 56 + 70 + 138 + 142
	Thank you for your time and input. ] ] 23:39, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
			}}
			{{hidden
			\| headerstyle = text-align:left; font-weight:normal;
			\| header =
			— '''418''' = 53 + 64 + 158 + 143
			\| content =
			— '''413''' = 54 + 62 + 153 + 144

			— '''422''' = 58 + 57 + 141 + 166
	====RfC opinions and discussion====
	*'''Note''' - I have left messages on the talk pages of users who !voted in the above closed discussion inviting them to comment on this RfC. ] ] 23:46, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
	* '''1. No; 2. One sentence.''' Our ] says that the lead should be a concise summary of the article's most important contents and as a general rule of thumb should be limited to 4 paragraphs. This article is ''extremely'' dense due to the... hm... richness of Mr. Trump's life, so some unusually extreme vetting must be done to keep the lead manageable. At this point, I have seen no evidence (such as reliable sources) indicating that the recent controversy surrounding allegations of sexual misconduct is any more biographically significant than other major controversies of the last year, including Trump University and the statements about Judge Curiel, which are not mentioned in the lead section. Therefore I oppose any inclusion at this point, and if we do include something, it should be minimal. --] (]) 23:48, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
	*:One sentence could go on forever.] (]) 23:48, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
	*'''No opinion at this time about whether it should go in the lead''' and '''if it is included it should not exceed 15 words'''. As of now, more than 15 words is ] especially given that not even the presidential debates are mentioned in the lead. There is also no justification for putting the word "rape" into the lead, nor for omitting Trump's denial of all the allegations. It can all be done in 15 words or less.] (]) 23:48, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
	*::<s>I would like to add that the lead currently refers to "rape, and child rape". This is '''''truly outrageous crap''''' to have in this lead. After all, the rest of the BLP says nothing about any rape aside from the alleged child rape, for very good reason. The alleged adult rape victims withdrew the charges. For example, {{cite news \|author=Collins, Eliza \|url=http://www.politico.com/story/2015/07/ivana-trump-denies-accusing-donald-trump-rape-daily-beast-120721 \|title=Ivana Trump denies accusing Donald Trump of rape \|work=] \|date=July 28, 2015}} As for the alleged child rape, according to '']'' newspaper, lawsuits by this "Jane Doe" against Trump "appear to have been orchestrated by an eccentric anti-Trump campaigner with a record of making outlandish claims about celebrities," a former producer on the '']''. See {{cite news \|url=https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/jul/07/donald-trump-sexual-assault-lawsuits-norm-lubow\|title=Rape lawsuits against Donald Trump linked to former TV producer; Norm Lubow, formerly a producer on the Jerry Springer show, apparently coordinated lawsuits accusing Donald Trump of raping a child in the 1990s \|first=Jon \|last=Swaine \|date=July 7, 2016 \|website=] \| accessdate=October 17, 2016 }} <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 00:52, 18 October 2016 (UTC)</small></s>
	*'''No''' and '''one short sentence''' - Would you have stuck Monica in Bill Clinton's lead a few days after the story broke? That scandal resulted in the historic impeachment of a president and threatened to force his resignation, and <u>the whole thing</u> gets two sentences and 57 words in the lead. ―] ] 23:50, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
	**Bill Clinton's biography ''does'' include the Lewinsky controversy in the lead. A key difference, of course, is that Bill Clinton is a former President of the United States with a very long track record and impact, whereas Trump is a guy with no political experience who is mainly known around the world for being accused of sexually assaulting women and spewing racist comments. Another difference is that Lewinsky was a consenting adult, and that Clinton has not been accused of (or admitted to!) sexually assaulting an endless list of women over many decades. The comparison with the treatment of the Lewinsky case in Bill Clinton's article indeed ''highlights why this (much more serious) controversy should obviously be included in this article (on a guy whose credentials/public track record is nothing compared to Clinton; hence this controversy is more important for and defining of the topic Donald Trump than Lewinsky is of the topic Bill Clinton)''. --] (]) 01:04, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
	***Here's my counter to the "long track record and impact" argument, and I'll pass on the rest and leave that to the closer.<br />] - file size 186K - readable prose size per ] 65K<br />] - file size 327K - readable prose size 88K<br />I know, I've been here before, we can get into which sub-articles about each person should be included in that comparison, but I'm passing on that too. What's clear is that Trump has had plenty of "impact", just of a different type than Clinton.<br />{{tq\|mainly known around the world for being accused of sexually assaulting women and spewing racist comments.}} No POV in that argument! ―] ] 01:49, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
	****Measuring impact by whether the article is bloated or not seems like an odd idea, and based on which policy/sources exactly? On Misplaced Pages, articles are supposed to be readable prose; it's not like there is a contest to make the longest article. A lot of hard work has probably gone into making the Bill Clinton article sufficiently concise. What you have found out is that Bill Clinton has a well written biography within the recommended range per ], whereas Trump has a bloated biography (not due to the very short mentions in the lead and body of the sexual assault scandal, but due to tons of excessively detailed material on trivial stuff such as "Football, cycling and boxing", which is given far more weight than the much more prominent controversy discussed here) near the "almost certainly should be divided" range per Misplaced Pages:Article size. --] (]) 02:20, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
	*****Look, RfC survey sections are not for extended debates. I concede, you win. ―] ] 03:31, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

			— '''437''' = 58 + 57 + 156 + 166
	* '''<s>Short sentence including denial, no more.</s> No. Short sentence''' Anything else is ]. Editors arguing this is the most covered incident in his public life (or even his campaign) have a responsibility to demonstrate that with evidence. ] (]) 23:51, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
	*'''No''' and '''very short sentence''' - As I mentioned in previous discussions, I feel that any mention in the lead is ''currently'' ] and ]. In the scope of this multi-decade biography, this topic is currently minor. Such discussion in the lead belongs more on the campaign page. ] directs us to summarize the article is a balanced manner. Currently, only a very small portion of the article covers this issue. Given that, it would not seem important enough to cover in the lead at this point. If, and only if, these allegations (1) result in a conviction or (2) are cited as the primary reason for Trump losing the election, then that would make them significant enough for the lead. In the event of the latter case or consensus forms for inclusion, I do agree with James J. Lambden that Trump's denial should be included if they remain allegations (but not if there's a conviction). ] ] 23:57, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

			— '''465''' = 87 + 60 + 154 + 164
	*'''Yesish''' -- A mention should be included in the lead given the extent of claims, the extent of time period, the extent of coverage, and the extent of apparent effect. I added the "ish" as I don't think it can be summarized in the lead. It can be mentioned and the body will include the summarization. I would go for two or three sentences in the lead. ] (]) 00:02, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
			}}
			{{hidden
			\| headerstyle = text-align:left; font-weight:normal;
			\| header =
			— '''438''' = 58 + 60 + 156 + 164
			\| content =
			— '''432''' = 58 + 60 + 145 + 169

			— '''439''' = 46 + 60 + 181 + 152
	*'''Short paragraph''' (ec) of two to four sentences. I have no idea where this "15 words" thing was pulled out of but it's completely arbitrary. This is by far the biggest issue of the campaign and the fact that it is still getting extensive coverage in sources weeks later justifies its inclusion and giving it more than just "15 words". But I'm actually more concerned about what is included rather than how long. Specifically the sentence should not be something along the lines "Trump denied some accusations that were made" and leaving it at that, which is what some of the editors wanted to have. Write it straight - NPOV, no monkey business. What, when, who, where and how. First the allegations and their nature, then the fact that he denied them. Both the Bush tape and the women coming forward should be mentioned. The rape allegation can be left out of the lede.] (]) 00:06, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
			}}
	*'''Yes One Paragraph''' such as the current,
	:::"Trump has been publicly accused by at least twelve women of sexual misconduct—including sexual assault, rape, and child rape—since the 1980s. Several of these allegations preceded Trump's 2016 candidacy for president; many more arose during that campaign, especially after revelation of a 2005 audio recording, in which Trump appeared to brag about committing sexual assault. He has denied the allegations, describing them as part of a wider campaign to smear his candidacy and reputation." ]] 00:21, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
	*'''Yes''', per ] the lead '''{{tq\|"should stand on its own as a concise overview of the article's topic"}}''' and '''{{tq\|"summarize the most important points, ''including any prominent controversies"''}}'''. Donald Trump is mainly known (especially on a global scale) for his presidential candidacy, which is completely dominated by the sexual misconduct controversy. The sexual misconduct controversy has also received more coverage in reliable sources than any other topic related to Trump in his whole life. It is the most prominent issue related to Trump covered in reliable sources, and it is covered both in the article and in ]. The notion that such a prominent controversy should not be included in the lead is simply absurd and contrary to Misplaced Pages policy, such as Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style/Lead section. We should have '''two or three sentences''' (two sentences on the controversy itself with a possible third sentence devoted to Trump's defence/views/denial), as in the current paragraph, because it is impossible to cover this material in a responsible manner in just one sentence, which would also come across as an attempt to unduly downplay the issue. The two or three sentences must however not necessarily constitute a separate paragraph; the reason the three sentences became a separate paragraph in the first place was that this material was placed at the end of an extremely bloated paragraph.--] (]) 00:40, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
	*'''Yes'''. The sources clearly support this. One to two sentences that very briefly describe that allegations have been made, with details covered in the body of the article. ~ ]<sup style="margin-left:-1.0ex;">]</sup> 01:06, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
	*'''Yes''' - The content in the lead should cover Trump's Access Hollywood comments, the ensuing flood of allegations of sexual misconduct, and the impact to his presidential campaign and the GOP. Two to three sentences should be sufficient. Whether it's added to the campaign paragraph or a separate paragraph matters very little. The coverage of this scandal has gone well beyond the 24 hour news cycle. It's being covered in a sustained fashion by major international news agencies, and has even influenced pop culture . - ]] 02:57, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
	*'''Yes'''. Even if it were a single phrase, this should be a separate paragraph. But this must be more than one phrase. Main point here is that all the allegations by different women are very similar and consistent with each other and with something Donald Trump said himself on the widely publicized tape. We must tell also that he blindly denied everything. Three short phrases should be enough. ] (]) 04:12, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
	*'''Note:''' Based on the responses so far, and in the spirit of BLP, I have boldly merged the standalone paragraph into the campaign paragraph. I realize there are a couple of people who have argued for a standalone paragraph (specifically Volunteer Marek, SPECIFICO, and My very best wishes) while some have said it doesn't matter (Tataral, Mrx) and others oppose it (Dr. Fleishmann, Anythingyouwant, Mandruss, James J. Lambden) while others don't specify (saying maybe 2-3 sentences but without specifying where). This isn't meant to be a "close" or a final wording, but a quick course correction on a highly visible BLP. <span style="font-family:times; text-shadow: 0 0 .2em #7af">~] <small>(])</small></span> 06:42, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
	*'''No <s>Yes but make it very limited</s>'''. <s>Ideally just one sentence (and include the denial). The allegations are unproven and made in connection to the presidential campaign so should not be in a separate paragraph but in with the rest of the lede's presidential campaign material.</s> However, lede material just summarizes important body content, so the content that the lede is summarizing is the content that is actually important and the content that should be used as the basis for deciding lede wording. This article is NOT ] and about 80% of the article is NOT about his presidential campaign. And ALL content is subject to BLP policy - the existence of an ongoing AfD is not an excuse for allowing BLP violations. ] (]) 15:46, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
	:::In the light of later no reasons presented, and also after reading the content discussions further down the page, I have changed my opinion to no. Anything but no is giving an open door to endless conflict and the insertion of tabloid like claims simply for effect. ] (]) 02:41, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
	*'''No''' - not in lead ...looking for real info in lead - lead is for summarizing main points of the article ] = best not to mention allegations that are barely covered in the article. Best to keep lead simply say "controversy has surrounded the presidential candidacy." ] -- ] (]) 21:19, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
	*'''No''' for now, but revisit as needed. If it is included, I have no opinion.--] (]) 23:54, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

			== Tracking article size ==
	*'''No''' not in the lead. Largest problem I guess is the ] aspect of the way it's failed to meet ], by the lead having incorrectly presented a felony label, stating it in WP voice as fact rather than a second-party report, and that the article lower down is not saying what the cite said and also edited up the tape transcript. To me though, mostly it is just offtopic -- this is supposed to be a BLP article, and this material belongs to the campaign article or sexual allegations article. Finally -- this is a BLP so anything here should follow the additional bits from ] guidelines such as writing conservatively and avoiding tabloid. Right now this is too much sensationalism, not yet events in hand to gauge the BLP significance -- and edits may be suspect of being COI political motivated until a few weeks from now. ] (]) 00:20, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
			] size in words – Wiki markup size in bytes – Approximate number of additional citations before exceeding the ] limit.
	::How does it violate ] and ]? The lead currently states ''"and multiple women '''alleged''' sexual harassment ... Previous sexual assault '''claims''' ... Trump vigorously denied the '''allegations"''''' -- ] (]) 19:52, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
			{{hidden
	*'''1. Yes.''' 2. As short as possible to specifically state the essential facts: The Washington Post released a 2005 recording of Trump bragging about making sexual advances towards women. Add "Trump denied the allegations," but we don't have to give Trump's full non-defense. That's what I would do, but I realize some editors would give more space to defend Trump. I disagree but would go along for consensus. I also argue that it ''must'' go in the introduction because the charges of sexual advances aren't in the Table of Contents and aren't easy to find in the body. The introduction should say, "This article discusses that incident." If I were writing it, I would put “Grab them by the pussy” in the lede. That will tell readers that it's about that incident, they're in the right place if they're looking for it. I may not get consensus for that, but that would best serve the reader. --] (]) 03:10, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
			\| headerstyle = text-align:left; font-weight:normal;
	*'''Yes'''; the whole "tape, allegations, response, media plot" trail of events, in the lede, with 2 or 3 concise and succinct sentences. It speaks to his character and attitude...to moments in his life. ]<small>]</small> 12:16, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
			\| header =
	*'''No''' - Per ]/] - The lead is meant to summarize the whole life and times of Trump. These recent allegations have make up so little of that life and times that they don't deserve mention. ] (]) 12:51, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
			— 15,818 – 421,592 – 103
	::First, ] is just an essay of the personal opinions of some WP editors, not a guideline or policy. In many cases, it doesn't make sense. When you have an article about a current issue, like an election, ''everything'' is recent. Would you like to delete everything more recent than 1 year from the article? Second, according to ], Trump has been doing this all his adult life, documented by his Howard Stern interviews and the complaints of many women. His sexual advances towards women are a major part of Trump's life and the personna that he himself presented. --] (]) 13:12, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
			\| content =
	:::''His sexual advances towards women are a major part of Trump's life'', you really believe that? Please don't answer, its a rhetorical question. --] (]) 14:30, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
			— 15,883 – 427,790 – {{0}}46
	::::{{reply to\|Nbauman}} - ] is a policy. re "''Trump has been doing this all his adult life''" - I don't really think you have any idea of what Trump has or has not been doing his whole life. Fact is that most of the "allegations" at this point are just that. Allegations. Frankly, I wouldn't be surprised if a lot of them are true, but I'm not so biased to assume they are. Unlike you apparently. ] (]) 14:54, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
	:::::According to many ], his sexual advances towards women are a major part of Trump's life. http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-pol-trump-clinton-allegations-20161019-snap-htmlstory.html http://people.com/politics/every-sexual-assault-accusation-against-donald-trump/ and many more. --] (]) 04:55, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
	::::::{{reply to\|Nbauman}} - You get that there are probably millions of RS's about Trump, right? You understand that a very, very small portion of them specifically cover these sexual allegations? You realize it only seems to you like this issue is important because you have a hard time remembering things which have occurred outside the past week's news cycle? ] (]) 10:37, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
	:::::::{{reply to\|NickCT}} You get that the LAT and People magazine are major news media, right? I don't think there are any major news media covering the election that haven't covered Trump's sexual advances -- even the sober Christian Science Monitor http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/2016/1010/Debate-fact-check-Teasing-the-truth-out-of-Trump-and-Clinton- . You realize that May 14 http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/15/us/politics/donald-trump-women.html is longer than a week ago, right? You realize that I live in New York City and we've been hearing Trump brag about his sexual conquests since his appearances on the Howard Stern show, right? --] (]) 21:35, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
	*''''No''''; These allegations have not been proven and are not a major part of his life. Mentioning them in the lead gives the article an anti-Trump bias. For comparison, the lead of Bill Clinton's article is much more positive and doesn't even mention the allegations about Clinton, other than his impeachment. ] (]) 15:10, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
	*''''No... or at least, not yet.'''' This is why we have ]. The latest political firestorm may or may not end up being a defining characteristic worthy of the lede. We can't jam every accusation into the intro simply because it's today's controversy. Revisit this issue in six months or a year and see where it stands. ] (]) 16:22, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
	*'''Yes''' - 1 or 2 sentences per ]. -- ] (]) 23:02, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
	*'''Absolutely not'''. Completely undue. Defamatory content should not appear in a BLP.] (]) 02:53, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
	*'''Comment'''. This RfC should be properly closed. Please do not change content under discussion during standing RfC. Thank you. ] (]) 04:31, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
	:::While it ''should'' be possible to make a mention in the lede of the allegations without infringing on BLP requirements, ongoing RfCs don't place a hold on BLP obligations. ] (]) 19:27, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
	*'''Yes, absolutely''' - we have a ] on this, which was ] ] at AFD for pete's sake. That article is linked and summarized within this article - and linked in the infobox - so ''of course'' the lede should have at least a few sentences about it. More generally: this is something that is covered in literally hundreds of reliable sources now, there's really no excuse for not giving that coverage due weight in the lede. My suggestion would be 2-3 sentences but the important thing is that it's mentioned. ] (]) 14:13, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
	*'''Support inclusion''', because the introduction should summarise the main points of the article, and the allegations have been a significant element in the election campaign. A couple of sentences will probably suffice, outlining the allegations and that he denies them. ] (]) 16:34, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
	* '''1. No. 2. Short mention of allegations.''' – This affair is nothing but ]ist hyperventilation. If and when such allegations go beyond gossip with actual trials, then let's revisit. Note that even ]'s lead section does not mention sexual impropriety despite abundant mentions in the article itself and on a dedicated page. The lead just states he was impeached and pardoned following the Lewinski scandal. — ] <sup>]</sup> 00:12, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
	*'''Minimal, and only if conjoined'''. The sexual allegations section takes up 2% of the entire 16,000-word article. But the allegations are 12% (57 words) of the lead. So it's a no-brainer, IMO. I'd give the topic max 4-6 words in the lead, which means it could be conjoined with other controversial issues. However, if WP starts selling and relying of advertising, like the MSM, we could go back to 12%, or up to 50%, to remain competitive. --] (]) 18:56, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
	::'''Addendum''': I'm not sure about any specific guidelines about allegations, but it seems totally wrong to include things such as allegations, accusations, hearsay, innuendos, insinuations, or gossip anywhere in a lead. It can turn leads into ]-type leads. I've seen a number of famous people resign over the years to fight off simple allegations, even before a court hearing. For instance, ], head of the IMF, resigned, and there was never even a trial. It was a pure case of "]", which IMO is possibly one of the worst effects of the readership-hungry MSM. --] (]) 01:55, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

			— 15,708 – 430,095 – {{0}}12
	*'''Yes, one sentence'''. The coverage for this instance is ''enormous.'' I frequently examine man news sources outside the US because I use those for Misplaced Pages work: and this incident received global coverage in a big way. Leaving it out is not an option: a paragraph, though, is undue weight. ] (]) 05:29, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
	*1. '''Yes''', 2. Up to the extent needed to adequately reflect it according ]. The current 3 sentences are appropriate according to the current status of findings. --]] 22:28, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
	*'''Yes''' to include in lead, and the current wording and length is fine. Summoned to this by bot, and I commend EvergreenFir for an exceptonally clear and well-drafted RfC. So many RfCs are murky, this one set forth the issue clearly and in a neutral fashion. The coverage, as Vanamonde93 points out, is enormous. It has dominated the election campaign. An easy call. ] (]) 14:01, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
	*'''Yes''' prominent controversies can be covered in the lead per ] and this controversy is definitely prominent enough for inclusion. But we should only have '''1 sentence''' because per ] "The lead section should briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article." Furthermore, anything more than a sentence could give ] to the controversy since it's barely even covered in the article. ] is an essay we could choose to follow if we wanted to, but since it's just an essay- there is no point in following it unless there is a very good reason why we should do so. <small>(Summoned by bot).</small> ] (]) 15:14, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
	*<s>'''Yes, a few sentences.'''</s> '''Yes, one sentence.''' <u>] detailed analysis of the coverage of this topic in mainstream media sources has changed my mind. While I might not argue for exactly 12 words of coverage, I think it should be at least a factor of two away from that ideal. The lead certainly isn't balanced in other areas (though it should be), so aiming for about twenty words should let it be covered accurately enough to avoid misinterpretation. Controversial subjects usually require more precise language, but I don't think that means they're being given undue weight.</u>
	:
	{\| <!-- Template:Collapse --> class="collapsible {{#switch:{{lc:no}}\|uncollapse\|uncollapsed\|expand\|expanded\|yes\|y=uncollapsed\|#default=collapsed}}" style="background-color: transparent; text-align: left; border: 1px solid silver; margin: 0.2em auto auto; width:100%; clear: both; padding: 1px;"
	\|-
	! style="background-color: #F0F2F5; font-size:87%; padding:0.2em 0.3em; text-align: left; " \| <span style="font-size: 115%;">My comment copied from below</span>
	\|-
	\| style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" \|
	<div><u>Sources:</u>

			— 15,376 – 414,196 – {{0}}67
	*The ] says, ''"The lead should stand on its own as a concise overview of the article's topic. It should identify the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any '''prominent controversies.'''"''
			}}
	*] says, ''"Misplaced Pages articles concerning living persons may include material—where relevant, properly weighted, and reliably sourced—about '''controversies or disputes''' in which the article subject has been involved."''
			{{hidden
	*The ] also says, ''"When writing about controversies in the lead of the biography of a living person, notable material should '''neither be suppressed nor allowed to overwhelm:''' always pay scrupulous attention to reliable sources, and make sure the lead correctly reflects the entirety of the article. Write clinically, and let the facts speak for themselves."''</div>
			\| headerstyle = text-align:left; font-weight:normal;
	\|}
			\| header =
	:In my opinion, we shouldn't give too much weight to the fact that the article covers some trivial topics more than important ones right now. It will probably have to be reworked later on, since its readable prose size is 89 kB. ] (]) 18:16, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
			— 15,479 – 415,176 – {{0}}64
	*'''Yes, of course''', with two sentences. It is already clear that this issue amounts to a significant turning point in his presidential campaign, which is obviously the biggest part of his notability. ] (]) 02:39, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
			\| content =
			— 15,279 – 404,464 – 122

			— 15,294 – 405,370 – {{0}}80
	*'''No''' per ], ], ]. Allegations have no place in the lede. Let's also keep in mind this is a separate and different article from ]. A short sentence to the effect of "The campaign has been surrounded by controversy." or something like that should suffice. ] (]) 03:57, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
	::{{u\|Athenean}}, we already have the sentence: ''"Trump's campaign has received unprecedented media coverage and international attention. Many of his statements in interviews, on Twitter, and at campaign rallies have been controversial or false. Several rallies during the primaries were accompanied by protests or riots."'' To clarify, are you suggesting something in addition to this? --] (]) 16:57, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

			— 14,863 – 402,971 – 190
	*'''Yes''' prominent controversies can be covered in the lead per ] and this controversy is definitely prominent enough for inclusion, meets ] and ] and can be written ]. But we should only have '''1 sentence''' because per ] "The lead section should briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article." ]<sup>]</sup> 09:18, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

			— 14,989 – 409,188 – 180
	*'''No''' this man is a 70 year old billionaire, tv guy, etc and page is about his life.. 2 week news story is not why he is famous <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 13:01, 27 October 2016 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
			}}
	:::''"2 week news story is not why he is famous"'' - that's not what this is at all.] (]) 13:35, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
			{{hidden
			\| headerstyle = text-align:left; font-weight:normal;
			\| header =
			— 14,681 – 404,773 – 187
			\| content =
			— 14,756 – 403,398 – 191

			— TBD – 422,683 – {{0}}95
	*'''Yes to include more than one sentence.''' The Access Hollywood tape appears to be an integral part of the narrative of how this election has unfolded, and hence of the narrative of Donald Trump's political career. It is having too many other effects in the election and political landscape to be considered just another controversy. Now, nearly three weeks later, sources report these impacts in other races , the media , and the Republican party . To do it NPOV justice, it should be framed as part of the election and it seems like more than one sentence will be required. It could be either a standalone paragraph or in a campaign paragraph, I think. ] (]) 15:13, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
			}}

			== RfC on describing Trumpism in lead ==
	* <s>Less than 12</s> '''<u>9'''–'''25</u> words''', otherwise '''no''', per MOS:INTRO and WP:UNDUE/BALASP.
			{{atop\|Consensus AGAINST expanding the lead's mention of Trumpism, which is: "Trump's politics led to the Trumpism movement."{{pb}}Uninvolved non-admin closure. Discussion has been open for 36 days. Numbers are 14–8. I gave equal weight to normal and weak; had I given half weight to the three weak opposes, the numbers would have been 12.5–8. There is no clear policy basis for either side, so there is no reason to override the numbers. I'm supposed to summarize the arguments, but ]; this closure is revertable if anyone feels that's a significant problem.{{pb}}Eligible for manual archival after this time tomorrow. ―] ] 05:40, 21 January 2025 (UTC)}}
	: ''Relative emphasis'', ]. The ] holds "for both the lead and the body of the article. If there is a difference in emphasis between the two, editors should seek to resolve the discrepancy."
			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)
	: Calculating emphasis by total readable prose size:
	:: ] = 275 words,
	:: ] = 14,675 words,
	:: 275 words ÷ 14,675 words = 0.019.
	:: ] = 451 words,
	:: 0.019 × 451 words = '''8.5''' words.
	: ''Balancing aspects'', ]. "An article ... should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to the weight of that aspect in the body of reliable sources on the subject."
	: Calculating weight by the number of search results in five of the and news agencies:
	<small>
	:: Search results: = about 5,720 results,
	:: Search results: = about 220,000 results.
	:: 5,720 results ÷ 220,000 results = 0.026,
	:: 0.026 × 451 words = '''11.7''' words.
	:: Search results: = about 1,740 results,
	:: Search results: = about 195,000 results.
	:: 1,740 results ÷ 195,000 results = 0.009,
	:: 0.009 × 451 words = '''4.0''' words.
	:: Search results: : about 60,700 results,
	:: Search results: : about 3,380,000 results.
	:: 60,700 results ÷ 3,380,000 results = 0.0180,
	:: 0.018 × 451 words = '''8.1''' words.
	:: Search results: = about 409 results,
	:: Search results: = about 6,080 results.
	:: 409 results ÷ 6,080 results = 0.0673,
	:: 0.0673 × 451 words = '''30.3''' words.
	:: Search results: = about 169 results,
	:: Search results: = about 5,090 results.
	:: 169 results ÷ 5,090 results = 0.033,
	:: 0.033 × 451 words = '''15.0''' words.</small>
	: Trimmed mean = (8.1 + 11.7 + 15.0)/3 = '''11.6''' words. --] (]) 06:06, 29 October 2016 (UTC) 12:34, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
	::A most beautiful and dispassionate argument; I applaud your research, {{u\|Dervorguilla}}! — ] <sup>]</sup> 09:13, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
	:::I must admit - that's pretty solid. Compressing it into 12 words will be... interesting. This approach, though time-intensive, could be used for balancing the lead in other areas too. For instance, there's a sentence that mentions that his campaigns have often been accompanied by protests and rallies, but as far as I can tell, there is literally just ''one'' corresponding sentence in the article body to back it up. ] (]) 16:08, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
	::::{{re\|JasperTech}} I'll take the challenge: "After lewd comments from 2005 emerged, 15 women accused Trump of unwanted sexual advances." That's 14 words. Add one cite about the tape and one about the accusations; done! — ] <sup>]</sup> 20:14, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
	::::: The earlier RFC made the mistake of counting words and was widely derided/disapproved of. We are writing an article not a spreadsheet and I strongly object to going down the "exactly x words" route. Dervorguilla's analysis does not account for synonyms, for whether a mention of Trump was on "page 1" or on page b7 of a newspaper (or in the classifieds, or about a Trump property, or in a weekly recap of "the apprentice"), etc. Weight simply cannot can't be" calculated" this way. ] (]) 20:53, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
	{{od2}}
	: {{Reply to\|Fyddlestix}} "''Counting words''" is actually ]. "Undue weight can be given in several ways, including ... '''quantity of text''', prominence of placement..." Adding synonyms -- in particular, the word "groping" -- does make sense, though. (So does substituting the phrase "sexual assault" for the words "sexual AND assault".)<small>
	:: Search results: = about 4,970 results,
	:: Search results: = about 242,000 results.
	:: 4,970 Results ÷ 242,000 results = 0.021,
	:: 0.021× 451 Words = '''9.3''' words.
	:: Search results: = about 12,000 results,
	:: Search results: = about 172,000 results.
	:: 12,000 Results ÷ 172,000 results = 0.070,
	:: 0.070 × 451 Words = '''31.5''' words.
	:: Search results: = about 104,000 results,
	:: Search results: = about 3,390,000 results.
	:: 104,000 Results ÷ 3,390,000 results = 0.031,
	:: 0.031 × 451 Words = '''13.8''' words.
	:: Search results: = about 520 results,
	:: Search results: = about 6,230 results,
	:: 520 Results ÷ 6,230 results = 0.081,
	:: 0.081 × 451 Words = '''36.3''' words.
	:: Search results: = about 322 results,
	:: Search results: = about 4,660 results.
	:: 322 Results ÷ 4,660 results = 0.069,
	:: 0.069 × 451 Words = '''31.2''' words.</small>
	: Mean = (9.3 + 31.5 + 13.8 + 36.3 + 31.2)/5 = '''24.4''' words. <small>
	:--] (]) 12:34, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
	*'''No''' See ], another populist politician subject to similar accusations. There is a section on sexual misconduct but nothing in the lede, because it doesn't define who he is. ] (]) 02:21, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

			:'''Support with changes''' It seems odd to not include his major political positions in the lead. I would move those categorisations into a separate sentence explaining his political views, rather than about 'Trumpism' itself. Too much focus on words, not on policy and stances that will bear historical weight. ''']]''' 02:48, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
	*'''No''' This is a ], let's not forget. This is extremely defamatory stuff in the most visited BLP article in Misplaced Pages, and worst of all: it's Donald Trump! This guy is known to have sued many people and institutions of defamatory things like this. Let's not play with fire here. ] (]) 05:37, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

			:{{small\|Previous discussion at ]. — ] (]) 04:51, 16 December 2024 (UTC)}}
	*'''Yes, one sentence'''. The coverage of this is enormous (world-wide), to not mention that this is a key issue would be borderline censorship, there is no need to go through a, (accused), grope-by-grope account, which is dealt with in other articles. ] (]) 16:26, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
			:'''Support'''. The statement "Trump created Trumpism" without further description is meaningless. If there is any single piece of information which a reader should take away from the lead, it is that Trump is America's leading proponent of right-wing populism, and the person who has done to most to reshape the Republican Party along these lines. It was argued by some in the previous discussion that details should be saved for the Trumpism article, but I believe that these words briefly and simply introduce what much of the rest of the lead and article are seeking to explain. Just as ]'s lead describes in broad terms what "]"ism is and ]'s describes what "]" is, so too should Trump's lead briefly describe Trumpism. This is especially relevant after the recent election, as Trump and Trumpism's importance in U.S. political history only continues to grow. — ] (]) 04:51, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
			:'''Suppport''': we need to know what Trumpism is about.--] (]) 04:55, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
			:'''Oppose''' as I believe it is unnecessarily adding to an already excessively large article. The article is not about ] - which is linked in the text for the purpose of providing a shortcut should people wish to know more about what constitutes such, without contributing further to the word count. <span style="border:1px solid#880808">]</span><span style="background:#880808;border:1px solid#880808"><span style="color:white"><sup>]</sup></span></span> 05:05, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
			:'''Comment''' Further explanation of Trumpism seems relative in the lead, or at least, it likely will be within the next four years. ] (]) 06:13, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
			:'''Oppose''' a, this article is already too long, and 2, it might need a lot more explanation then we can give it in the lead, what is Trumpism? ] (]) 14:50, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
			:'''Support''' but it should be limited to one sentence after a more detailed yet brief description is provided in the body. I agree that anyone with a political movement named after them should have some more description about it other than "they created it". I don't have exact wording but something along the lines of its impact on the Republican Party or American politics would be warranted as per Goszei. Any statement would need to be sourced in the body first, however, to avoid OR. Agreeing on a description in the political practice and rhetoric section would be helpful first before adding it to the lead. ] (]) 14:57, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
			*'''Support''' since Trumpism is mentioned, then it should be explained what it is. A single sentence in the lede, and a brief elaboration somewhere else in the article. The wording in the lede could be as proposed above, or something a bit different. ] (]) 19:18, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

			*'''Oppose''' as misplaced for the lead, and per Artem. ] (]) 01:34, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
	{{collapse top\|discussion re editor conduct}}
			*'''Oppose''' too wordy in an already bloated article. Artem is indeed correct. ] (]) 03:30, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
	'''Notice''' Pleace take into account that there is an ] opened by DrFleischman against ] and DrFleischman just wrote to "''My very best wishes''" on his talk page: . I'm really shocked. So as I understand, that AE-case is deliberately used to force content out of this article by trying to force ''one'' user to grant a consensus here. This is in no way acceptable. --]] 15:11, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
			*'''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)
	{{collapse bottom}}
			:{{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
	*'''Comment''' - Probably needs noting that down-page discussions have resulted in a consensus on the wording of a description of the Bush-Trump tape in the lede. See discussion closures and . I'm unclear how those closures impact this RFC - but I would encourage both new commenters and those who have already commented to take a look at the wording and sourcing that is in the lede currently (ie, in of the page). It is a single sentence (+ another discussing Trump's response) that is exceedingly well-sourced, and - after much discussion downpage - the wording of it appears to have consensus. ] (]) 04:07, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
			:] (]) 10:17, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
	::No, it's two sentences, not one, when you include Trump's response, and I don't think there's consensus on the "smear campaign" clause. --] (]) 17:16, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
			*'''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.
	===Addition of sexual misconduct content to lead section while RfC is ongoing===
			:] (]) 16:39, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
	{{u\|Awilley}}, I appreciate to find middle ground, but no consensus seems to be forming around adding two sentences to the lead section about the recent controversy. If we end up with ] then we should remove this content, so could you please remove it until consensus supports otherwise? --] (]) 19:26, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
			*'''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.
	:Let's give it a few days. Headcount is only one aspect of determining consensus. -- ] (]) 23:13, 19 October 2016 (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)
	::{{ping\|User:DrFleischman}} I think you misunderstood my edit. I didn't ''add'' 2 sentences to the lead section, I took an already existing 3-sentence paragraph from the lead section, condensed it into 2 sentences, and merged it into the campaign paragraph. Take a closer look at the diff you linked. I'm sure you'll agree that there is also no consensus forming around having an entire paragraph in the lead. I'm not sure what the status quo was when the RfC was started, but hopefully it will end with something more definitive than "no consensus". <span style="font-family:times; text-shadow: 0 0 .2em #7af">~] <small>(])</small></span> 00:39, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

			*'''Support''' : For me this is almost a mandatory addition for a very simple reason, the lead has zero words used to describe Trump's rise to power. Zero. This is not acceptable. These three very simple and short words describe it very well and are widely sourced. The description should take its place at the end of the second paragraph, in a chronological order, to either describe Trumpism or even more directly his first election campaign. The objection that the lead is not convincing. Other things can go. <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 14:41, 8 January 2025 (UTC)</small>
	{{ping\|Awilley}} A, that edit of yours during the RfC was entirely out of process. There was clearly no consensus for your version, and consensus is required under the circumstances. Please self-revert that and let's continue to resolve via established channels. Bold doesn't mean OK. Thanks. ]] 23:22, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
			*'''Oppose.''' Misplaced jargon in the leading section of the article leads to unnecessary confusion. ] (]) 19:46, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
	::I think what Awilley did was mostly a proper course correction justified by comments thus far at this page. Editors who have commented in this subsection have further tweaked it, for the better I think.] (]) 23:28, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
	:::Well if he doesn't revert himself, I am going to. We don't adjust to whoever comments first. And you know that. ]] 01:27, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
	::::The lead is relatively quiescent now. If there are things about it that you dislike, let's talk about it. I'm against turning the clock back to before Awilley legitimately implemented talk page consensus.] (]) 01:32, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
	:::::You shoulda thoughta that before mounting various RfC's. ]] 01:43, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
	::::::Not sure what you mean.] (]) 01:45, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
	{{od}}, here is my edit summary: "Reverting huge edit to lead. Per WP:BLP, as I have explained and no one has disputed, 'Sexual assault is a broad term that often (if not usually) suggests rape or attempted rape'." My view is that numerous editors have tried during the past week to explicitly put "rape" into this lead, and having failed the next best thing is to insinuate rape in the lead. If that is not the intent, it has surely been the effect. In any event, the purpose of my edit was to revert that.] (]) 03:24, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
	:
	Is there a consensus against using the words "alleged sexual assault?" I can't find it. Also, this language is the direct language used by the consensus in the press. It satisfies ] and ] There is no reason not to use that language.] (]) 16:23, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

			:'''Support''' since this is a pretty major part of what Trump has done,
	:Sorry, I probably read through the Talk page too quickly before writing a summary on my recent . Yes, it seems that since the ] page interchangeably uses "sexual assault" and "sexual harassment," it doesn't matter which one is used. I do think that "assault" sounds more severe than "harassment," which sounds more severe than "misconduct."
			:And because just ¨Trump started Trumpism¨ isn't a very good description of that, let alone anything. ] ] ] 21:34, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

			*'''Oppose''', the ] is sufficient (they were created for a reason), it's not necessary to write the definition on the Trump page. ] (]) 06:46, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
	:EDIT: In my opinion, "assault" makes the most sense, considering that it is used 44 times in the other article (including references), compared to only three times for "harassment" and three times for "misconduct." ] (]) 16:53, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
			*'''Weak Oppose''' The topic is already well described in the Trumpism article, so a simple mention of it with a wikilink will suffice. If consensus ends up supporting inclusion, it should be only a single sentence, this page is long enough. ] (]) 09:28, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
	::Do you think it's appropriate for Misplaced Pages to choose ambiguous terms that suggest Trump may have done a lot worse (rape, attempted rape) than most reliable sources say is being alleged? I don't. Incidentally, this discussion seems scattered all over this page, and it should be consolidated in the "Less obvious BLP violation" subsection, so feel free to move both of our comments there.] (]) 19:43, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
			*:{{+1}}, it's exactly what I wrote (only more expanded). ] (]) 11:55, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
	:::I think it will make the most sense for future readers if we leave these comments here and continue the discussion down there. ] (]) 19:51, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
			{{abot}}

			== Edit War ==
	=== Addition of sexual misconduct content to lead section while RfC is ongoing, take 2 ===
			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.
	So we currently have three sentences in the lead section about the sexual misconduct allegations. '''Please, someone, where is the consensus for this?''' --] (]) 21:08, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
			For some weird reason, these are the choices at hand:
	:I've removed the material from the lead section, which keeps being re-added despite the pending RfC. Reviewing the above RfC, I don't see consensus to keep anything in the lead section about the allegations of sexual misconduct, let alone 3 sentences. '''Please do not re-add this material until there is consensus to do so.''' --] (]) 20:25, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
			--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
	:{{u\|Jeppiz}}, please self-revert your of this material, which lacks consensus, before administrative action becomes necessary. --] (]) 20:32, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
			1. Interpresidency
	:::{{u\|DrFleischman}} I utterly reject your accusations and remind you of ]. All I did was to restore material you deleted (and which I didn't add). For you to call that an edit war is frankly ridiculous. As for consensus, nowhere does it say that consensus or lack of consensus is in favour of leaving material out rather than in. Of course consensus is preferable but rather unlikely in this article. That's not an excuse to impose censorship of any criticism. ] (]) 20:47, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
			2. First post-presidency
	::::This is anything but censorship. The material is in the body of the article, and no one is trying to keep it out, least of all me. The majority of participants in the RfC above agree that 3 sentences in the lead section is ]. As for excluding material when there's no consensus, see ] on the subject. No consensus generally means to revert back to the article before the bold edit(s), and when in doubt, exclude contentious material from BLPs. --] (]) 20:53, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
			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. ―] ] 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. ;) ―] ] 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?}} ―] ] 16:11, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::Huh — looks as though BoB K tried to (because I said "meh"??) and then you did? Can't figure out what happened. My suggestion: unpin. ]] 19:32, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::I care about ''how'' it's pinned. Apathetic on ''whether'' it should be pinned. ―] ] 20:13, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::::As I mentioned in my edit summary, "added template to prevent archiving of this thread until a week after inauguration". I did that because this discussion was about taking an action after the inauguration. Mandruss changed the time from a week after the inauguration to 10 years and made an announcement in a box at the top of the section. Whatever you want to do is fine with me. Regards, ] (]) 15:10, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::::Well it seems all set. ] (]) 02:06, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::::::Looks like you made this change re archiving . ] (]) 07:19, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::::::"Whatever you want to do is fine with me." ] (]) 17:06, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
			=== Making a section heading change ===
			Just a reminder that the inauguration is in a couple of days and the time for taking an action discussed above is coming. It appears that there is consensus to make an edit after the inauguration that is the following section heading change,
			:from '''First post-presidency (2021–2025)'''
			:to '''Between presidential terms (2021–2025)'''.
			It's fine with me if anyone makes the change. I'll leave it to you. Regards, ] (]) 11:14, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

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

			Can we start an RFC? Right now it's at the subject "Between Presidential Terms" which doesn't read right. ] (]) 05:53, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
	:::The RfC should be about how ''much'' content to put in the main paragraph - not whether it should be included at all. The quotations above clearly show that the lead paragraph needs to cover the allegations at least to some extent. ] (]) 21:25, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
			:Use the ] page, as a model. ] (]) 05:54, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
	::::You are free to add your perspective to the RfC above, but ''this'' discussion is about something different. It's about whether we should be re-inserting and re-inserting and re-inserting three sentences into the lead section during a pending RfC when there's no consensus to do so. --] (]) 22:14, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
			:We don't use RfC unless we fail to reach consensus without RfC. I don't think we have attempted the latter as of yet. ―] ] 05:58, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
			:Yeah, although I made the edit per Bob's suggestion ], Interpresidency might be better. ] (]) 11:31, 21 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> ==
	@,&: please refrain from making reverts that could be seen as a "1RR Editwar" towards exclusion of the material that has a long consensus to be included and a RfC that is clearly leaning towards including (17:13), it would be very "Trumpish" to deny this fact. ;) --]] 17:48, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
			{{small\|Original heading: "When Trump's new potrait is taken during his second term, should that replace the photo of his last Presidential potrait?" ―] ] 12:59, 3 January 2025 (UTC)}}
	:{{u\|Schmarrnintelligenz}}, where is this so-called longstanding consensus? Misplaced Pages is ] so we don't go by majority vote, and even if we did, a majority of RfC participants are against including 3 sentences in the lead section. I am in fact about ready to take this to ANI or AE for those who (collectively) repeatedly reinsert controversial material into a BLP without consensus, and those who (collectively) repeatedly falsely cite some mysterious, unwritten consensus. I'm having a hard time seeing this as anything other than pre-election POV pushing and disruption. Please convince me otherwise. --] (]) 18:52, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
	::I agree with DrFleischman's assessment. We are talking about the LEAD here folks, where it was boldly added and reverted and discussion was started and I guess continues?!? There is NO clear consensus for inclusion in the LEAD, full stop, so we should default to the previous versions. Folks can quote WP:LEAD all day, but it comes down to editorial agreement/consensus. --] (]) 19:07, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
	*'''Comment''' I just wanted to interject that while I favor inclusion of the allegations in the lead section, and have opined to that effect in the RfC, my general feeling is that such things should be ''excluded'' pending conclusion of an RfC, per our general attitude toward BLPs. ] (]) 19:55, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
	::Good points. But it's also worth noting that this single RfC about sexual allegations only, is already 6,600 words long, yet it concerns a subsection only 2% of the article body and isn't even in the table of contents. The article has numerous other controversies with much more commentary, all unrelated to sex, but none of which are mentioned in the lead. This obsession with sexual issues appears to be intent on equating Trump with ], whose article was 38% about sexual issues. The implication from this debate is that merely making a public allegation against someone is all it takes to place that allegation in the lead, and thereby undermine the neutrality of a bio with MSM news and ] commentary. Leads are too important in massive articles and should be heavily monitored to comply with ] guidelines, ''not'' those used by ]. --] (]) 20:33, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
	:::Can we please reserve these types of arguments to the RfC above? This section is about what to do in the short term while the RfC is pending. --] (]) 20:38, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
	::::Yes, let's not re-litigate the underlying passage. I was commenting on what to do while this RfC was pending. ] (]) 13:45, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
	*This material should remain out of the lead until the RfC closes, or there is a clear consensus (at least 67% in favor, after discounting !votes that do not cite a policy-based reason. {Currently, I see one !vote on each side of the dispute that would be almost entirely discounted}).- ]] 16:51, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
	*According to the previous section (RfC itself), <u>there is consensus that the content should remain in the lead, although not necessarily as a separate paragraph</u>, or at least this is my reading. ] (]) 19:26, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
	::You are entitled that reading, though others are entitled to the opposite, and I think there's no doubt that consensus is against having three sentences in the lead, as you have during the pendency of the RfC. The whole time you ignored my repeated good faith inquiries in this subsection and the one immediately above. This is known as disruption. --] (]) 19:31, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
	:::I am sorry, but you are mistaken. This is not a BLP violation as something extraordinary well sourced, highly notable and already described below on the page. It is generally accepted that we should ''not'' change version of text under discussion during standing RfC. Repeatedly doing so is indeed disruptive. ] (]) 19:39, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
	::::I don't see any consensus for this third sentence you inserted: "Two sexual assault claims, made against him prior to the campaign, also received increased media attention." This wasn't in the BLP when the RFC began, there's clearly no consensus to have a third sentence in the lead about the general subject, this sentence refers to stuff that has gotten relatively little press coverage, and the allegations discussed in this third sentence were all withdrawn at one time or another, though some of them are subsequently revived.] (]) 19:53, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
	:::::* version of the page which existed at the moment of posting this RfC. Strictly speaking, any modifications of the last paragraph in intro of this version is a violation of the RfC guidelines. But OK, some people improved this last paragraph (according you your suggestions!) and made it more neutral and less visible by placing it in the end of another paragraph. But you demand to remove this completely, even before the official closing of an RfC. This is not the way to go. ] (]) 20:17, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
	::::::::*I haven't demanded that, and have taken no position about removing it completely.] (]) 20:25, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

			: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)
	There is clearly consensus to include this material, as established numerous times over the last two weeks. There may perhaps not be consensus for a separate paragraph, but the current short mention at the end of another paragraph that has been stable over nearly 2 weeks should not be removed without any consensus. Also note that we don't count votes here; what matters is the strength of policy-based arguments. A removal of very well sourced material because it doesn't favour one's preferred candidate in an election is wholly inappropriate. --] (]) 02:21, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
			::Yes I also think it's reasonable to replace the current portrait with the 2025 version once it's available. ] (]) 00:19, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::The 2025 portrait is now available. Hopefully someone can update it. ] (]) 17:41, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::No, it is not. That is a photograph taken by a private individual, not a government portrait. There is no evidence that the photographer of this photograph has or ever will release it under an acceptable free license. It does not suddenly become public domain just because Trump wants to use it. Nobody other than the photographer or someone they sign rights away to, not even the President, can release copyright on an image they did not take. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez \| ] \| ] 18:28, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
			:Photos for both President Trump and Vice President Vance have been listed on the official White House website, is it good to now post them on the wiki page?
			:https://www.whitehouse.gov/administration/donald-j-trump/
			:https://www.whitehouse.gov/administration/jd-vance/ ] (]) 18:11, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
			::The previous image is more suited for his[REDACTED] page, dare I say even worth breaking precedent for. The new image is not suitable for the far future. ] (]) 07:53, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

			I don't believe there is a standard for this exact situation yet on here, given that Trump is only the second person to serve two non-consecutive terms as POTUS. Although, newer potraits tend be used over older ones on pages for other politicians. Overall, I'm curious as to what you all think should happen. ] (]) 12:54, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
	:The added material is clearly undue, as the tag indicates, and has obviously corrupted the lead, IMO. Allowing the addition of a , supported by wikilinking to other articles based on allegations and controversies, violates many ] ]. My own concern is not related to guilt or innocence so much as the corruption of WP guidelines. I also wonder how many, if any, of the editor-voters who insist on keeping the sex topics in the lead, despite the allegations being just 2% of the body, are U.S. editors. There would seem to be more ] in other places than this obsession with a kissing and groping candidate from another nation. --] (]) 16:23, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
			:For infoboxes for politicians, Misplaced Pages uses the most recent official portrait. ―] ] 13:05, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
			::The previous image is more suited for his[REDACTED] page, dare I say even worth breaking precedent for. The new image is not suitable for the far future. ] (]) 07:53, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
			:There is a precedent with Barack Obama. We use the most recent, second White House portrait which is closer to how he currently looks (salt-and-pepper rather than his earlier black hair). https://petapixel.com/2013/01/18/a-closer-look-at-obamas-new-official-presidential-portrait/ ] (]) 08:25, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

			== Making this article fully protected ==
	* '''Please note:''' There is a relevant, pending complaint to enforce arbitration remedies at ]. --] (]) 17:01, 27 October 2016 (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)
	==== Helpful interim edits ====
			: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)
			:::I couldn't really find any actual pages that are full protected but there are some portals I've seen that get full protection such as the current events portal. Though while looking I found it funny that for the Israel-Hamas war page it is on such tight lockdown even the talk page has extended-protection which I honestly find pretty dumb considering the talk page is a place for editors to discuss changes and thus doesn't really need protection but I don't make the rules. For this page in particular I think the level of protection is enough though to deter all but the most determined who attempt to sabotage it so making it full protected seems like overkill. ] (]) 02:07, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::ok, but trump supporters are really dedicated (january 6th attacks)
			::::maybe some people might spread misinformation?
			::::im just worried that some dedicated supporters might try to change information on here ] (]) 12:32, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::We can take care of that through the normal means. Full protection would make it impossible for us regulars to update and improve the article without calling in an admin for help. ] (]) 13:58, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::It is likely there will be some people with enough dedication to try and still vandalize the page even with the level of protection it has now. The best way to counter this though is to remain vigilant ourselves in making sure the article stays as objective and non-biased as possible. The edit history makes it clear what changes are made so it isn't extremely difficult to monitor and with how prevalent this page is I doubt there will be a shortage of people willing to keep checked in on it to make sure no misinformation is allowed to stay here. With his upcoming presidency there is a need for people capable of editing the article as a great amount of new information will undoubtedly need to be added as it progresses so it wouldn't really be feasible right now to lock it down completely. The only real solution left for us is to simply monitor the page constantly and make sure nothing slips through the cracks. ] (]) 02:01, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::all right. still, we can't be constantly vigilant. could we make a backup article, just in case something goes really wrong? ] (]) 22:29, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::::Self-quote from below: {{tq\|In the absolute worst case, we could always restore a days-old revision.}} Every edit creates a new revision, and every revision is a "backup article". I could revert the article to January 15, 2015 with a few clicks. Very little is not easily reversible at Misplaced Pages. ―] ] 22:40, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::::ok, then it wont be necessary to make it fully protected ] (]) 09:54, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
			:The article survived the election with the current protection. It will likewise survive the inauguration. In the absolute worst case, we could always restore a days-old revision. ―] ] 00:09, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

			== Proposal to supersede consensus #50 <span class="anchor" id="RfC to supersede consensus #50"></span> ==
	The ] guidelines do say it's OK to make helpful edits to content under RfC discussion. Question: Does anyone here see this one as ''un''helpful?
			<!-- START PIN -->{{Pin message\|}}<!-- ] 16:59, 16 January 2035 (UTC) -->{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil\|2052579597}}<!-- END PIN -->
			{{small\|1=Uninvolved closure requested. ―] ] 16:59, 18 January 2025 (UTC)}}
			{{not a ballot}}
			Do you support or oppose the lede sentence to now read: {{tq\|Donald John Trump (born June 14, 1946) is an American politician, media personality, businessman, and criminal who served as the 45th ] from 2017 to 2021.}}? ] (]) 16:39, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
			*'''Support''' His sentencing today has met ] requirement that {{tq\|a conviction has been secured for that crime}}, support adding {{tq\|and criminal}} in the lede sentence per consistency with other ] articles.] (]) 16:39, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
			:As in: "'''Mark Robert Michael Wahlberg''' (born June 5, 1971), formerly known by his stage name '''Marky Mark''', is an American actor, former rapper, and criminal"?
			*:—] 16:55, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
			:Or: "'''Marshall Bruce Mathers III''' (born October 17, 1972), known professionally as '''Eminem''' (stylized as '''EMINƎM'''), is an American rapper, songwriter, record producer, and criminal.—] 16:58, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::Eminem "criminal"? Is this a joke? ] (]) 20:53, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::He pleaded guilty to weapons charges for two incidents in 2000, got probation both times. It's mentioned in ]. He wasn't running for president at the time ]. ]] 21:08, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::{{Ping\|Space4Time3Continuum2x}} in the sense: almost all American rappers who started rapping between the early 90s and early 2000s committed criminal actions, so Eminem (like many other rappers) isn't a correct example for this talk page. ] (]) 21:30, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::I think Alalch was just referring to the OP's consistency claim by pointing out that the article on Eminem, who had pleaded guilty to a felony, also doesn't call him a felon or criminal in the first sentence (or anywhere else, AFAIK — I just skimmed the article). WP says we should avoid labels and, instead, describe what happened. ]] 12:59, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
			::That would be undue, his criminal characterization has not received sustained widespread coverage, unlike the president-elect. ] (]) 17:00, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::Criminal characterization? What does that mean? —] 17:04, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
			::@] Ridiculous and fallacious, as in the slippery slope fallacy, or a ] as you are creating here.
			::How many celebrities or even gangster rappers do you know that have been convicted of crimes? More than I can count. So, not notable.
			::But what if the crimes themselves are so notable they outweigh the other ] aspects of a public person, as in the case of Harvey Weinstein? Yes, notable.
			::Now, how many Presidents in US history can YOU COUNT that have been convicted of multiple felonies, ones that are related to election interference? Only one. And just like it is notable to objectively state as notable fact that Barack Obama is the first black President elected in US history, it is more than relevant to mention (in the opening sentence) that Trump is the first convicted felon/criminal elected to become President of the United States, especially considering that American democracy has as its bedrock the rule of law as enforced by convictions of juries of their peers, with even Trump himself making it his legacy to publicly argue that he is literally (and should be) above the law as President. So there is no other way around this. It is ] on all counts as prescribed by etiquette surrounding ]. ] (]) 21:59, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::The Obama article doesn't even include "African American" in the first sentence, that's only in the second sentence. —] 22:30, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::@] So then include it in the second sentence. That's a good compromise. But you are against that as well it would seem, so why bother with that ]? ] (]) 22:45, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::This request for comment (please read ]) is not about the second sentence, it's about the first sentence, as worded in the proposal. This isn't a negotiation for us to come to a compromise. What is being responded to is the proposal, as stated in the question. Editors are, each individually, to the best of their ability, giving arguments for why the proposal should be implemented or not. And, in any case, what would that second sentence be like while reusing the exact language from the proposal: "And, in addition, he is a criminal"? —] 22:51, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::@] I'm sure that as long as it is included in the first of second sentence as either "the first convicted felon" or "the first convicted criminal" to be elected to the office of Presidency, then that is well within the ballpark here.
			::::::The larger debate is that now that the highest law in the land from the SCOTUS doesn't think Donald Trump is exceptional here, and now that sentencing has concluded, he is a convicted criminal/felon as a matter of empirical verifiable fact. This isn't about the time he shoplifted a DVD player as 21 year old (joking) about 30+ serious felonies.
			::::::I can buy that argument that this is more than relevant and necessary to place this objective factual information as front and center as possible given its newsworthiness and historic importance. Misplaced Pages is first and foremost about both.
			::::::I maintain neutrality only because the RFC won't be decided on a vote count, or our arguments here, but arbitrarily by an admin coming in to decide on a whim or which way the wind is blowing it would seem. Fair point on both sides as there is no mechanism for this unprecedented moment. ] (]) 23:00, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::::You're in no position to be sure of anything as someone who clearly hasn't dealt with these things for long enough on Misplaced Pages and don't understand how decisions are made. You need to be less sure about what you're telling yourself, and more sure about what people who know what they are talking about are telling you. They are telling you things such as: {{tq\|This request for comment (please read ]) is not about the second sentence, it's about the first sentence, as worded in the proposal. This isn't a negotiation for us to come to a compromise. What is being responded to is the proposal, as stated in the question. Editors are, each individually, to the best of their ability, giving arguments for why the proposal should be implemented or not. }} What you claim to be the debate is not the debate here and now in this talk section. The "debate" question is as follows: {{tq\|Do you support or oppose the lede sentence to now read: Donald John Trump (born June 14, 1946) is an American politician, media personality, businessman, and criminal who served as the 45th president of the United States from 2017 to 2021.?}} —] 23:28, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:The conviction was secured in May 2024. January 10th was sentencing, which has no bearing on conviction. ] (]) 17:56, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:BLPCRIME says nothing about ''placement'' of content. It allows ''inclusion'' of content, and the article already does that. Your policy claim is invalid. ―] ] 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. – ] (]) 17:42, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:It's first sentence material, as he is now the first convicted felon in US history to be elected president, which in and of itself is noteworthy. ] (]) 17:54, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
			*::Being sentenced to an "unconditional discharge", i.e. literally nothing, is not "first sentence material". – ] (]) 17:59, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:::As the first convicted felon to be elected president, it is first sentence material. ] (]) 18:01, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
			*::::Is not. John Adams was the first president not to own slaves. Not in the first sentence. —] 18:31, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
			*::::] was the first to be impeached. Not in the first sentence. —] 18:41, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:::::Thanks for the counter-examples, but I think it's sufficient to say that {{tq\|As the first convicted felon to be elected president, it is first sentence material.}} lacks policy basis. ―] ] 18:45, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
			*::::::I think being the first convicted felon to be elected president does not mean much, but being extensively covered as such by reliable sources does mean much, especially when he is portrayed as a career criminal with hundreds of felony charges. ] (]) 19:07, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
			*::::::Thanks for the feedback. The examples serve as illustration of editorial practices, for those unaware of what they look like in reality. —] 21:55, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:How about the second? ] (]) 03:53, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
			*'''Oppose''' per Czello, Muboshgu, etc. ―] ] 17:57, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
			*'''Oppose''' The felony conviction is a minor aspect of his career, not important enough for the first sentence. It is already mentioned later in the lead. ] (]) 19:09, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:The first ever president of the United States receiving a felony is a minor aspect of his career? ] (]) 19:45, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
			*::Yes. He is famous for being a controversial president, making inflammatory remarks and having divisive policies. The felony convictions are not the reason he is notable, his presidencies and business career are. The conviction should be mentioned in the lead, but not the first sentence. ] (]) 14:21, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
			*'''Support''' Passes ] as stated earlier. However, I would change criminal to "convicted felon". A lot of former discussion against this suggested we wait until his sentence was official. It now is. ] (]) 19:40, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
			*: ―] ] 19:49, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
			*'''Comment''' - Can we please let people have their say, without telling them they are wrong, the closer will judge that, it is not for us to say. ] (]) 18:04, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
			*: I guess it depends on the relevance of ] .. he`s a convicted criminal,,it's got nothing to do with Andrew Johnson or anyone else's impeachment..at least Nixon was smart enough to not get caught...trump is by definition a criminal but you think it's irrelevant...what can a moral or ethical person say to that ? ] (]) 19:13, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
			*::It is not moral or ethical to put words in others' mouths during content discussions. Nobody has said {{tq\|it's irrelevant}}. ―] ] 19:35, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
			*'''Oppose''' placing it in the first sentence (in the ). Please mention in the lead at a later spot. -] (]) 19:24, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
			*'''Oppose''' the first sentence. Later in the lead I think is merited as it is a first and very heavily covered by RS. (Likely to stay that way as it is reported he's fund raising on it.) ] (]) 19:35, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
			*'''Oppose''' in the opening sentence as this is not reflected across[REDACTED] for other politicians who are convicted criminals. One key example being ] who was Italian PM convicted of multiple crimes including a 4 year sentence for tax fraud which is mentioned in his 4th opening paragraph not the opening sentence. ] (]) 19:55, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
			*'''Oppose''' The proposal is for a "crime label" for which there is an essay: ]. As listed by the essay, Misplaced Pages has had vast and lengthy arguments over crime labels, where in countless RFC's such labels are nearly universally unsuccessful. Or at least there has to be an obvious rationale for it. Basically, they are misleading, vague, and poor writing. In the present case, it smacks of simple name calling. Far better to just include a brief description of the criminal instance in the lead. I would, however, be in favor of a new section in the article bringing together all of Trump's sundry criminal and civil episodes; such a section may well then suggest an appropriate label. ] (]) 20:52, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
			*'''Comment''' - It's beyond relevant..it's the only thing he will be remembered for in the end...a rich criminal who bought his way into power at the bequest of those more sinister than him ] (]) 21:02, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
			**{{Ping\|Anonymous8206}} Trump became president twice (2016, 2024) democratically (US elections are democratic), to claim otherwise is simply wrong. ] (]) 02:36, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
			**:The US is not a true direct democracy...all citizens did not vote all votes were not counted..if that had happened there is no way he would win the popular vote ] (]) 18:54, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
			**::{{Ping\|Anonymous8206}} obviously it also applies to Biden, not just Trump. ] (]) 12:30, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
			*'''Oppose''' for the time being. I doubt this is what he'll be consistently noted as, but could be proven wrong. ] (]) 21:09, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
			*'''Strong Support''' This is absolutely first sentence material and possibly one of the most textbook ] pieces of information in[REDACTED] history as far as the ] goes, according our rules governing it.{{pb}}FACT- Trump was now officially sentenced for multiple felony crimes. That makes him the FIRST convicted felon (by a jury of his peers) to be elected President. Just like in the Obama[REDACTED] article, it mentions "Obama being the first African-American elected", this is equally notable. This is a first. And even the American Supreme Court allowed for Trump to be sentenced, so there is no question legally of where this stands.{{pb}}Of course, there are politically biased editors making ridiculous arguments against this in violation of etiquette and rules of wikipedia. And many examples listed AGAINST THIS are fueled by fallacious reasoning, or use petty examples that simply don't match here. The only reason to exclude this is because Trump is not only above the law in this country but above our rules apparently for ideological reasoning here.{{pb}}Again, no convicted felon in history was EVER elected President. And this is for multiple notable felony crimes involving a scheme to interfere in the democratic election, which is WHY NY law was able to amplify misdemeanor crimes into a felony crime scheme verdict/finding. Perhaps if the American SCOTUS down the road overturns this we can revisit this.{{pb}}And to be clear, if Biden was ever convicted of a crime or any democratic President then I too would strong support mention of that in the first sentence.{{pb}}However, the idea that if enough biased editors come here to OPPOSE THIS that we will allow for mob rule to override rules of what is ] is a sad day for wikipedia, and proof that our community fails in upholding journalistic standards that we claim we uphold. If enough biased editors set up an RFC vote for a pro flat-earth position or a Holocaust denial position, would be both sides that?! Of course not, as[REDACTED] is clear on ] thinking, which is what is driving a delay on including this very important notable information per the standards of ].{{pb}}That it is buried in the article is a lame fallacious way around what is at heart here. That we treat all people and biographies the same regardless of political power. A President being convicted of serious crimes is every bit as notable (if not more so) than race or gender as it makes[REDACTED] come off as more concerned about notability about the color of one's skin that one's choices and behavior. No, this is a test of whether we can truly be objective about the facts and the mission of wikipedia, or if we simply cower in the face of fear of being unpopular. ] (]) 21:06, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:See ] and ]. State your case without accusing others of incompetence or bad faith, even if unnamed. ―] ] 21:19, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
			*::@] No, the "unnamed" part is actually important here for it to be ], as there are exceptions to the rule when I'm in the right to call a ] a spade given the stakes and clear violation of ] in an effort (albeit intentional or otherwise) to carve out an exception for a convicted criminal here who is now leading a democratic country.
			*::This also happens to be that great rare example of ]. The AGF guideline recognizes that one can easily misjudge another's intentions or motives, and thus urges caution in that area. Ironically, the very act of citing AGF can suggest an assumption of bad faith, since one is assuming that the other is not also assuming good faith.
			*::Some disputes are exceptional, whether it is climate-change denial, holocaust denialism, arguing for a flat-earth, or in this case a plain and simple case of being in denial of stating ] facts in a way that our rules surrounding ] demands. The aforementioned reasons I've stated are the only honest empirical reasons for ]ing this content in the way we are doing now (by burying it and treating a powerful figure like Trump as some exception to the rules). Otherwise, matters of lesser importance (like mentioning Kamala Harris as the first female Vice President, or Obama as the first black President, in the first sentence of an article) should also be removed as we are making a statement as a community (intention or otherwise) about where our priorities lie insofar as what is ] and what is not.
			*::Precedence should decide, not the emotion of the moment, and the process regarding Trump's convicted guilt has been allowed to play out long enough here that it is time to do right by the community, and follow our own precedents and rules. ] (]) 21:36, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:::Unlike you, I have years-long experience with many of the Opposing editors here, including myself. Unlike you, I happen to know that we are ''anything but'' biased in favor of Trump. That kills your whole argument, and clearly shows the need for adherence to ]. You need to cease this line of argument or risk admin action. ―] ] 21:54, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
			*::::@] Disagreeing with you as forcibly as you are disagreeing with me is not worthy of an ], but if you must please go right ahead. As for the record, when reviewing your own history, . And you are literally going around this thread making it a point to comment on many others with whom you don't agree (who did not consent to your opinion on the matter, with multiple arguments), trying to convince made-up minds that clearly won't change based upon your emotionally-reasoned attempts. So, what of your bulverism here?!
			*::::At best, we agree to disagree, so nothing is "killed" here. And there is no truly unbiased person politically-speaking in any walks of life. There are countless examples of it on wikipedia, as you already know.
			*::::As for this RFC vote, I've spoken my mind, and made my case, voted, so I plan to move on, and I'm done here. Are you? ] (]) 22:05, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:::::{{tq\|Disagreeing with you as forcibly as you are disagreeing with me}} See ]. I am not the one persistently violating accepted principles of talk page behavior here. {{tq\|not spotless when it comes to your own behavior}} Laughable. Congratulations on ferreting out my one block in 11 years, from {{frac\|9\|1\|2}} years ago. Great detective work. {{tq\|I plan to move on}} Good call. {{tq\|I'm done here. Are you?}} I'm done if you are. ―] ] 22:14, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:::::
			*:::The content isn't being censored at all, that's a very silly suggestion. It's still included, just not in the literal first sentence.
			*:::And yes, implying people are voting no because of "political bias" is an assumption of bad faith, so cool it. — ''']''' <sup>''(])''</sup> 22:07, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
			*::::@] I stand by my vote, and my reasoning behind it. ] (]) 22:11, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
			*::::@] P.S. And I'm not talking about whether it should belong in the article or not. I'm talking about whether this is ] by way of suppressing it in the opening sentence insofar as precedence, and etiquette surrounding ] and ] are concerned. If we are to find Barack Obama's skin color notable enough to mention in the opening sentence of his biography ''as a first for Presidents'', then mentioning "the first convicted criminal/felon to be elected President" is certainly more than notable for the same empirical reasons and as a matter of[REDACTED] precedence. ] (]) 22:15, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:::::I know, I'm saying it not being in the first sentence is not censorship. Additionally, what other articles do is not particularly relevant to this article. Other stuff, whataboutism, etc. — ''']''' <sup>''(])''</sup> 22:21, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
			*::::::@] Not to butt in, BUT (no pun intended) ''you did mention'' to the OP that it was "included in the body" as YOUR retort about an RFC literally about whether it is worthy to include this pertinent information front and center, not whether or not it should be included period. So that much was clear from the OP and those taking his/her/their position on this.
			*::::::And that retort is a popular dodge/red-herring in this debate and the one before it, as fallacies have been mentioned.
			*::::::I'm neutral on this row.
			*::::::But it does appear you are not IMO. ] (]) 22:49, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:::::::Sorry but I'm not quite following your point. My position has always been that it shouldn't be in the opening sentence, but is acceptable later in the lede (as it is currently). So no, I'm not neutral on this.
			*:::::::The retort I made isn't a dodge - consensus is decided locally; what's is Obama's lede is apples and oranges. — ''']''' <sup>''(])''</sup> 23:11, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
			*::::::::@] How so? lol It IS significant in a country like America where after hundreds of years of elections of white 'lawabiding' men a black man is elected President for the same reason that a convicted criminal with 34+ felony convictions is elected. It is historic, newsworthy, and very much a defining part of his legacy. He literally ran on that distinction.
			*::::::::And consensus isn't god when it comes to undeniable history or empirical fact as far as a certain bottom goes even by[REDACTED] standards. If a local consensus suddenly decided the world was flat, an admin could overrule that as you know consensus be damned. You are not providing a compelling reason not to include it front and center other than you think it somehow is unfair and even disparaging against the subject, and outside the norms. Well, so is a democratic country like America electing its first convicted criminal in its hundreds of years as lawful democracy.
			*::::::::Misplaced Pages is not beyond its own flaws, and editors are within their rights to call it out when they they have compelling case to do so. Do with that what you will, but it's not a violation of good faith given the exceptional circumstances here for some to challenge your thinking. That's my neutral point of view in this. Food for thought. ] (]) 23:24, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:::::::::{{tq\|If a local consensus suddenly decided the world was flat, an admin could overrule that as you know consensus be damned.}} That's actually false. A closer can override the numbers if the minority has a stronger policy basis. There is no Misplaced Pages policy that the world is spherical. But this point is academic since flat-earth arguments would never have a majority and could never have a stronger policy basis. ―] ] 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. ―] ] 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)
	:: 'Trump bragged about...' -> 'Trump jokingly bragged about...'<ref>{{cite news \|last1=Fahrenthold \|first1=David \|title=Trump Recorded Having Extremely Lewd Conversation about Women in 2005 \|url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-recorded-having-extremely-lewd-conversation-about-women-in-2005/2016/10/07/3b9ce776-8cb4-11e6-bf8a-3d26847eeed4_story.html \|work=The Washington Post \|date=October 8, 2016 \|quote=‘This was locker-room banter...’ Trump said in a statement.}}</ref>

			*'''Support''' Forget about conviction. We've never had a POTUS who was even criminally indicted.] (]) 22:43, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
	{{Reflist-talk}}
			*: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)
	The word ''banter'' means "animated joking back and forth." (''Merriam-Webster Unabridged''.) So "jokingly bragged" is a reasonable paraphrase of "bragged as part of this banter". Alternative wording:
			:Why isn't a CONVICTED FELON text on the intro? ] (]) 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. — ''']''' <sup>''(])''</sup> 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. ] (]) 19:53, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
			:'''Oppose''' - it is true, but doesn't warrant first sentence status as it's not at all what he is most notable for. I would support adding something about his being the first president to be convicted of a felony somewhere in the first paragraph. Being a felon isn't notable enough, but being the first president/felon is arguable noteworthy enough for first paragraph status. Separate from that I'd oppose calling him a criminal even if we did include his conviction in the first sentence as 'criminal' is too generic a term that could be interpreted in many ways. "Convicted Felon" seems more specific and more in keeping with other articles that referencing well known criminals ] (]) 20:00, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
			:''Oppose'' It's certainly relevant enough to have farther down in the lead, but it's not one of the primary reasons he's notable. I'd be against removing it entirely as reliable sources do talk about his felony convictions regularly, but first sentence is way too aggressive given that his level of notability wasn't affected by the felony conviction. ] (]) 15:55, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
			#
			Closeses are based on the strength of policy based argument, and can be challenged, they are not some "whim". ] (]) 23:04, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

			*'''Oppose''' per Zaathras' Osama Principle. If the Misplaced Pages cannot even say directly "] was a terrorist," then virtually no article is suitable for a "Subject is a <pejorative>" opener. ] (]) 01:39, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
	:: 'Trump jocularly bragged about...'
			*:{{Ping\|Zaathras}} your comment is one of the most useful, I largely agree with you. ] (]) 05:20, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:Terrorist is value-laden and he was never duly convicted in a court of law. Criminal is a legal term when a citizen is duly convicted in a court of law and not a pejorative. ] (]) 07:41, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
			*::I was convicted in a court of law, once, decades ago (actually I pled guilty, a distinction without a difference). According to , I'm a criminal. I'll wear that as part of my sentence. If you called me a criminal as one of my handful of defining attributes, I would likely take offense. I won't apply a different standard to Trump; I love Misplaced Pages more than I hate Trump. ―] ] 11:50, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:While I am opposed as well I disagree with your argument. have numerous articles that do mention someone's conviction in their first paragraph so there is plenty of president for declaring someone a convicted felon already. ] (]) 20:02, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
			*'''Strongly oppose''', I don't understand the users who agree (obviously I don't judge). ] (]) 02:27, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

			*'''Comment''' As President, there is really nothing else that Trump is known for more than his criminal behavior, convictions and evasion of serious penalties for said crimes. JFK was known for the Cuban Missile Crisis. Lincoln for his role in winning the civil war. In Trump's case, what is he most known for as President is his hundred plus indictments. And his criminal conviction. Making him the first ever convicted criminal felon to be elected to the office of the Presidency. It's absurd to suggest that historic first, and his criminal behavior (most of which he has been able to avoid consequences because of his re-election), is not on the top of list of what he is presently known for. It would be like burying Neil Armstrong's moon landing achievement, being the first man to set foot on the moon, deep in the body of an article. If you remove emotion from this, and simply view this through an historic lens, then this is a no brainer. Of the 45 white men that have served the office of Presidency, only one was a black man. Only one was a convicted felon. "It is said on[REDACTED] that JFK was the youngest person elected president at 43 years." Please put your bias aside, or your dogma about these exceptional circumstances, and let history and newsworthiness decide, not your egos. ] (]) 04:04, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
	The subject made the clarification about "banter" in an authoritative press release and was quoted by the ''Washington Post'' in its breaking story; to me, this looks like it would meet all the ] criteria. --] (]) 13:22, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
			*:In the first lines of the lead of the articles of well-known criminals (Hitler, Mussolini, Mao, Stalin, etc.) the term isn't present. Trump isn't remotely comparable to them, yet you (and not only you) would like to add "criminal" to this page; it's very strange. ] (]) 05:05, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
			*::They were not convicted of a crime, for those convicted see ], ], ]. ] (]) 05:42, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:::For relevant political examples see ] and ] ] (]) 12:53, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:I'd say Trump is most famous for his inflammatory rhetoric, immigration policies, and January 6. The hush money conviction is not in the top 5. ] (]) 20:03, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
			*'''Oppose''' having criminal/felon in first sentence. Donald Trump is not primarily known for his criminal convictions. The coverage in the lead is sufficient weight as it is now. There was already no consensus to add this last year, and nearly nothing has changed since then. The formality of the judge sentencing him, to literally no punishment I may add, is not a good reason for rehashing this matter. ]<sup>]</sup> 07:13, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
			*'''Comment''' This is a textbook example of information that has ]weight in the ]. As others have pointed out, we don't get to determine whether a no-penalty sentence is due or not, the press does.

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

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

			:There is too much ]izing going on here in this debate.] (]) 13:48, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
	:This is not helpful, and discussion of the language used if we do include something is already ongoing below in the section entitled "Language in lead section about sexual misconduct." --] (]) 17:26, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
			{{cot\|{{small\|1=Off-topic about IP addresses, ], resolution of a double !vote, etc. Ok to continue within the collapse. ―] ] 06:11, 12 January 2025 (UTC)}}}}
			::Are you the same IP as above {{ip\|2601:282:8903:b3c0:e03b:9d22:3c30:1a19}} that voted support? Because they geolocate to the came place and ISP. ALso looks like {{ip\|65.153.22.75}}. ] (]) 17:21, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::{{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. ―] ] 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?? ―] ] 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—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. ―] ] 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)
			{{cob}}
			::You can't really cite the coverage in the press as "consensus" as that's heavily subject to ]. — ''']''' <sup>''(])''</sup> 19:04, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::@] This is actually the opposite of RECENTISM, as the verdict was many moons ago, been debated to death here, and given the thoughtfulness of the American legal system in its methodological approach (especially in the drawn out fashion under Biden and with all the delays) this has been given MORE than enough time for us to be able to call it. A convicted criminal being sentenced after a serious trial is literally the closure of said dragged out process. This is a dodge, and ] recent, and is ] our job to avoid reporting harsh truths when it becomes necessary to do so. ] (]) 23:38, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::This 2601:282:8903:B3C0 IP is engaged in ridiculous Wikilawyering all throughout this section. Sentencing was yesterday, hence RECENTISM. WP:NOT is not at all related to anything here. Nor are the other essays raised, such as SPADE. – ] (]) 00:03, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::@] No, but you are flirting with trying ] the system here by misrepresenting others here. And engaging in a borderline personal attack.
			:::::This isn't a game, and the sentencing is the conclusion of Trump's verdict from MONTHS ago. What is "ridiculous" is the suggestion that this is somehow RECENT news. '''Trump was a convicted criminal MONTHS ago, remember??''' And the American legal system doesn't say that a conviction doesn't count UNTIL you are sentenced. The sentence is simply the punishment. The conviction is the important part.
			:::::The only reason why sentencing is even relevant now in this 'second-look-of-sorts' at including information about Trump's criminal behavior in the opening is because there was a chance the Judge may have reversed himself and dismissed the case. Between the SCOTUS giving its blessing on Trump's sentencing and the Judge doubling down, this old news about Trump's verdict now has proper closure. And we can easily report on it more directly.
			:::::The only ] is see here is you trying to find some fancy way around reporting obvious factual pertinent information for whatever personal agenda you have to bury it in the lead. Re-read ] It clearly says that in the lead, {{tq\|"It should identify the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, INCLUDING any prominent controversies.}} There is nothing recent about Trump's verdict, it is literally one of the most controversy and notable things about him, as he is the only American President in all of world history to be a convicted felon. And he's been a convicted felon for a while now, nothing recent about it. ] (]) 01:28, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::{{tq\|whatever personal agenda you have to bury it in the lead.}} You did it again. Consider this fair warning: One more and I'll see you at ], unless someone sees fit to do it now. {{small\|(To those such as Slatersteven who would scold me for for saying this here instead of your UTP, I would respond that that doesn't work for some IPv4 editors and most IPv6 editors. The UTP disappears into the ether every time the IP address changes, which is quite frequently, so it's rarely worth one's time to post on it. You yourself have posted in this discussion under seven different IP addresses, one IPv4 and six IPv6, each with its own UTP.)}} ―] ] 01:48, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::Like I said, Wikilawyering. And yes, also failing to AGF. A closing admin will take it into account. – ] (]) 01:42, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::The previous debates resulted in no consensus to include in the lead. It hasn't been persistently a presence in the press or something he's ''primarily'' known for since the initial conviction. It's back in the press now, hence recentism. — ''']''' <sup>''(])''</sup> 08:15, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

			Please note, it is already in the lead, the RFC is about the first sentence only, no one has suggested removing it from the lead in this RFC. ] (]) 13:55, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
	=== Addition of sexual misconduct content to lead section while RfC is ongoing, take 3 ===
	We currently have two sentences in the lead section about sexual assault. I don't see consensus for this. Can someone please point me to it? Or do I have to list each and every editor who has violated active arbitration remedies by restoring content without consensus? --] (]) 17:06, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
	:Do you think an early close to the RfC would help? It's been running for over 2 weeks now, and could provide some sort of guidance. <span style="font-family:times; text-shadow: 0 0 .2em #7af">~] <small>(])</small></span> 18:04, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
	::Yes, I think that would be helpful. The last time I requested an early close I got slapped, so I'm not going to do it myself. --] (]) 21:29, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
	:::Yes an early close would be very helpful, or at least an evaluation of the consensus so far, by an involved editor.- ]] 22:20, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
	::::I think you mean UNinvolved... --] (]) 22:43, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
	:::::Sorry, yes! MrX is distracted as usual.- ]] 23:08, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
	::The RfC process '''appears to have stagnated''', in spite of ''some'' consensus on ''some'' questions seemingly being reached. The process as of November 6 has become protracted, unduly cumbersome and -- disturbingly -- convoluted in labyrinthine nuance variously attracting especial degrees of ongoing and exceedingly superfluous analysis; the situation is in my view potentially obstructing realization of the consensus the RfC was designed to achieve i.e. it is arguable RfC at present is self-defeating to some extent and/or, at the least, self-serving insofar as a '''consensus does not appear any closer to being represented in the article proper'''.

			*'''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)
	::Good faith edits with reference to ] are increasingly reverted on account of extant RfC processes alone. Contentious content in the lede -- arguably though not necessarily representing a somewhat extreme end of the very spectrum from which consensus (that is to say the interim results of '''another RfC''') is or has previously been drawn -- remains ''in situ'' '''in the lede''' while circular arbitration in the guise of '''this''' RfC paradoxically "guarantees" it remain there, and this is an altogether troubling state of affairs. Artifacts of these RfCs interacting with eachother appear then to contravene neutrality-in-general, for it would be preferable (surely) to exclude from the lede material that is subject to arbitration/RfC if the latter and unresolved RfC pertains to inclusion within that section - regardless of whether or not the content itself reflects consensus(!)
			*:] served time in prison, was fined, and lost his law license because of the campaign finance laws violations on behalf of Trump. Cohen wasn't running for office when he was punished. It appears more logical to say that Trump got away because he was running for the presidency. ] (]) 15:47, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

			*'''Strong support''' On Misplaced Pages, I think there are systemic issues with the handling of political articles. It is best that readers be made aware, as soon as possible, that this is not the place to go for balanced coverage of topics involving political ideology. Calling Trump a "criminal" in the very first sentence would telegraph that to readers quite marvelously. By all means, have at it. ] (]) 15:48, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
	::Clearly a tension exists, for notwithstanding the RfC vis- the content itself reflected, at least for a time, a consensus toward including the content verbatim in the article at all, the current RfC even in its present quasi-"non exhaustive" state appears to reflect a growing consensus that aforementioned content be '''excluded from the lede'''. Whomever is responsible for producing a remedy to this circumstance ought be circumspect of this tension, for it is potentially biasing, and '''a fortiori''' an excellent reason to at the very least '''suspend the content's appearance in the lede''' until a degree of consensus is reached and endorsed by an adjudicator in the form of making a binding or partially-binding edit. For these reasons I contend '''analysis by a team of administrators vis- prevailing consensus be executed as a matter of priority.'''
			*: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)
	::If that can not be achieved because "RfC is not a vote" then it '''ought be put to a vote instead.''' (and I apologise in advance if in so making this suggestion I open a Pandora's Box, but in my defense the status quo has no inferior, not that I can see...) I concur with the sentiment the RfC process vis-a-vis the "controversies in lede" has exceeded due tenure and indeed that practical inertia and a problematic (at times invidious) editorial predicament arising thereof are both real and extant phenomena which '''require to be addressed as soon as practicably possible.''' I will attempt to escalate awareness of this "Elephant in the Room" without, I should hope, invoking an RfC '''of''' an RfC which in furtherance to causing tedium would ironically defeat such a veritable attempt to break the cycle of circularness now inherent in these proceedings. ''']''' 05:15, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
	::*I do not quite understand what you are trying to say, though I did see that your (wordy) edits to what I think was well-established text were reverted. ] (]) 05:30, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

			:-->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.
	== Proposal re: "groping"==

			:-->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.
	As editors we need to reflect the content of Reliable Sources. I propose the following:

			:-->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.
	"Trump was, in 2005, caught on audio tape claiming that, because he was a "star", women allowed him to kiss them and also would allow him, if he chose to, to grab their "pussy"'.

			: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.
	That is an accurate reflection of what he said. What we have now in the lead is an inaccurate and exaggerated reflection. ] (]) 02:41, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
	:That is not an accurate reflection of what he said. He never said "if he chose to" and he never said "grab their pussy"{{emdash}}he said "grab them ''by'' their pussy".- ]] 03:10, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
	::"I don't even wait. And when you're a star, they let you do it, you can do anything ... grab them by the pussy." does not translate into "Trump bragged about '''forcibly''' kissing and groping women,", I can not accept that many editors really believe that the word "forcibly" belongs in there which is why I think we have a real neutrality issue. ] (]) 03:51, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
	:::If the sources say "forcibly" then we use "forcibly".] (]) 05:00, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
	::::The word "grab" certainly implies "forcibly" - without the consent of the woman. If she consented, he wouldn't "grab" it, he could feel or caress or (whatever term you want that implies consensuality). Look up the definitions of "grab": ''"grasp or seize suddenly and roughly"; "to seize suddenly or quickly; snatch; clutch".'' That's forcible by any interpretation. Also, adding "if he chose to" is putting words in his mouth; his language was a lot more straightforward than that. This kind of change has been discussed above, but the argument that "he SAID he could do it but didn't mean to imply that he actually DID it" has not proven to be convincing. --] (]) 06:48, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
	:::::There's actually 3 possibilities: (a) he was bragging only that he could do it, (b) he was bragging that he did do it but actually he didn't, or (c) he was bragging about something that he actually did. The conversation doesn't make much sense if you think it's (a).--] (]) 07:15, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
	::::::Exactly. "I don't even wait" --> he does (has done) the things he is bragging about. ] (]) 08:07, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
	:::::::He clearly stated that he DOES kiss women right away, as soon as he meets them. In the very next sentence he said women "let you" grab them by the pussy if you are a star. The notion that he switched in mid-brag from talking about things he admittedly DOES do, to talking about things he THINKS HE MIGHT be able to do, stretches credibility to the limit. --] (]) 20:39, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

			:For those letting possible political bias interfere with their duties as an editor, my ask is please keep it simple and lets not treat one controversial subject differently than any other. This isn't about whether Trump deserves his conviction. It's about its notoriety, notability and whether the consensus in the press reflects as much. And we must reflect the press per ] otherwise we are basically endorsing a loophole around the ] violation. ] (]) 18:23, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
	Clear your heads. He never confessed to grabbing anything. He boasted he could do so if he wanted to, based on his star status. ] (]) 09:12, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
			::A few things, pretty much no one is saying it should not be in the lead. What they are discussing, and what this RFC is about, is if it should be in the first sentence. So that kind of undercuts all of your points. Next do not accuse people disagreeing with you of being trolls or that it must be political bias. That is not helpful to discussions here. ] (]) 02:34, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
	:Would you mind producing a couple of reliable sources that support such an interpretation? Thanks.- ]] 12:12, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
			:::From my experience, the editors who complain about other people editing based on their "political bias" are usually the ones whose editing is most influenced by their political biases. – ] (]) 02:16, 13 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)
			*'''Comment''' — See the lead sentence of the Misplaced Pages article ]. Regards, ] (]) 02:50, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:I think we can safely assume you're an Opposer without a !vote to date. The "other side" has already been , correctly in my opinion. Trump is neither Obama (Supporters) nor Cohen (Opposers). He is a whole new animal, so we should not look to precedents either way (especially cherry-picked precedents). ―] ] 03:30, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
			*::{{Ping\|Mandruss}} why "animal"? ] (]) 03:39, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:::, noun sense 5. ―] ] 03:42, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
			*::::Thank you, it's always nice to learn new things. ] (]) 03:48, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
			*::I put it out there so that editors could chew on the lead sentence of an article about someone convicted of crimes and involved in the 34 felony counts of Trump. Another one involved and having a Misplaced Pages article is ]. As far as I'm concerned, either way works: without "criminal" is more appropriate as far as writing a Misplaced Pages article, whereas with "criminal" in the lead sentence it puts up front the tone of the article that follows. Regards, ] (]) 08:11, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
			* '''Comment''' Although I voted support, I think calling him a "criminal" is too non-specific and is a loaded term. The fact that ]'s racial identity as "the first African-American president in U.S. history" is worthy enough to be included in the first paragraph of the lead; but Trump's 34 felony convictions and being the first acting and former president in U.S. history to be a convicted felon is not worthy of being included in the first paragraph of the lead, is a double standard. I think a separate RfC to simply debate whether this unique status should be included in the first paragraph of the lead may be warranted, irrespective of the exact wording. ] (]) 22:36, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:Have we had a separate discussion about first paragraph as opposed to first sentence? I may have missed it, or my memory may be starting to fail in my somewhat-old age. If so, can someone provide an archive link? If not, we don't go to RfC unless we fail to reach consensus without RfC. Assuming no political motivations per ], there isn't any particular rush to get this resolved in this biography; four months would not be excessive for something so significant. ―] ] 23:17, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
			*::Separate - no. It came up during about adding "convicted felon" to the first sentence. There was also and two brief ones ( and ) that didn't get much traction. When this discussion has been closed, we should start a separate one about mentioning the felony conviction in the first paragraph. It was major headline news, including Trump's extensive efforts all the way up to the Supreme Court to get the case dismissed. (And now he can't buy or own a gun but next week he'll be able to deploy nuclear missiles {{Oldsmiley\|roll}}.) ]] 16:44, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:I see you and Bob K31416 believe that "criminal" is too non-specific, loaded, and set the tone for the article that follows. I thought the complete opposite when I started this RfC, and still do. I don't like the term "convicted felon" in previous RfC, and I'm not a fan of an entire sentence for how he is the first convicted president in U.S. history. I intended "criminal" to dispassionately mean he was convicted of a crime without specificity, and that it simply mentions in passing one of his many other titles such as the unspecific politician, businessman, media personality titles, such that no tone is set for the rest of the lede at all. A person who has no idea who he is and stumble upon the four titles would think this is probably interesting, and it gets super interesting when the person reads "who became 45th (and 47th) ...", the same way I found it interesting when I first read "politician and humanitarian" in ]. ] (]) 15:41, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
			*::Should this article really be geared towards a hypothetical reader who doesn't know who Trump is? Does such a person even exist? ] (]) 20:25, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:::...Yes, since that's the entire long-term point of something like an encyclopedia. We should be writing articles so that people can read them in 100 years and come away feeling like they've been informed in a broad way, not like they've read a contemporary news article about the subject. That's why ] exists. ] (]) 22:05, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
			*::::{{Ping\|Big Thumpus}} I agree with you, but it's also true that in 100 years there will probably be other virtual encyclopedias, and perhaps Misplaced Pages will be replaced with something even better and much more automated. ] (]) 22:15, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:::::Venturing even further off topic, a future Misplaced Pages will be written mostly by AI bots (maybe that's what you meant by "automated"). If done correctly, that will largely eliminate editor bias. ―] ] 22:32, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
			*::::::{{Ping\|Mandruss}} "...will be written mostly by AI bots (maybe that's what you meant by "automated")." Yes. ] (]) 22:40, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:::::::Yeah, I spoke in haste. And countless humans will be forced to find new hobbies. ―] ] 22:42, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
			*'''Oppose''' Being convicted of any offense for which not punishment inflicted doesn't make someone notable. Also, there are plenty of politicians and others who have been convicted of crimes who are not described as criminals and lots of criminals (probably including U.S. presidents) who have never been convicted of anything. Anyway, it would just make the article look absurd and discredit it in the eyes of readers. ] (]) 23:36, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
			*'''Comment''' — I briefly tried to find sources that describe Trump as a "criminal", i.e. using that word, and I was unsuccessful. Maybe someone else can find such sources. Thanks. ] (]) 16:48, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:How about the court? ] (]) 16:58, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
			*::{{emoji\|1F44D}} ]] 17:24, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
			*::Thanks but is that referring to the type of court or the defendant? ] (]) 18:01, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
			*::: {{sert\|1}} ]] 18:09, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:::Not sure what difference it makes as he was convicted in a criminal court. As said below, a convicted felon is by definition a criminal. Nonetheless, I !voted Oppose. ] (]) 18:21, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

			A convicted felon is by definition a criminal ] (]) 16:56, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
	:: I suggest we rely on the full transcript on the tape itself and not on "interpretations" from sources which themselves are clearly biased exaggerations of Trump's literal words, indicating what they think Trump meant. This is a major BLP issue and we need to be very careful to not unfairly malign Trump or participate in a sort of pile-on along with politically-hostile media sources. Trump's literal words amount to an admission that he would spontaneously kiss women without asking their permission -- a fair wording is nonconsensually, but not forcibly. He also stated that women "let" stars or celebrities "grab" their genitals. He did not explicitly refer to himself in first person terms on that. In any event, we can find many uses of the word "grab" occurring in sexual contexts that clearly do not refer to forcible or nonconsensual sex. An aside: I am writing from France and understand well that US media is monopolized and in this election displays a bias against Donald Trump. That said: Repeating subjective interpretations of the tape's content rather than the literal content of the tape itself does poor service to readers of this site.
			:'''Donald John Trump''' (born June 14, 1946) is an American politician, media personality, businessman, criminal, native New Yorker, father, husband, and amateur golfer who served as the 45th ] from 2017 to 2021.{{pb}}All of which is eminently ] and amply supported by RS. That does not mean it should be in the first sentence or even the first paragraph. Please stop with the arguments. ―] ] 23:10, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
	:: According to WP:BLP:
			::I totally, completely agree with ]. ] (]) 21:00, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
	::: Biographies of living persons ("BLPs") must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy. Misplaced Pages is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Misplaced Pages's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives; the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment. This policy applies to any living person mentioned in a BLP, whether or not that person is the subject of the article, and to material about living persons in other articles and on other pages, including talk pages. '''''The burden of evidence rests with the editor who adds or restores material.'''''
			::+1 ] (]) 21:01, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
	:: The strictest caution must be applied to this article and I feel editors with political bias against Donald Trump are not exercising that level of care here. ] (]) 15:54, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
			:::It's a statement of fact...if you had to sum him up in one sentence that pretty much covers it..this is exactly what the first sentence is supposed to do ] (]) 23:59, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
	:::Actually, interpretation of the tape are what we should be using, almost exclusively. See ] and ]. Policy: Misplaced Pages articles usually rely on material from reliable secondary sources. Articles may make an analytic, evaluative, interpretive, or synthetic claim only if that has been published by a reliable secondary source.- ]] 16:15, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
			::::Which entirely misses my point. Done trying to communicate with you on this issue. ―] ] 00:11, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
	::::From WP:NOR
			*'''Support'''. His conviction got a huge amount of attention, and sources have pointed out that he is notable as the first US president who is also a convicted criminal. It's at minimum as notable as "media personality". ] (]) 13:32, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
	:::::Secondary or tertiary sources are needed to establish the topic's notability and to avoid novel interpretations of primary sources.
	:~~:::The~~ ~~present~~ ~~wording~~ in ~~the~~ ~~article's~~ ~~lead~~ is an ~~improvement~~ ~~but~~ ~~still~~ ~~insinuates~~ a ~~subjective~~ ~~interpretation~~ of ~~the~~ ~~primary~~ ~~source.~~ ~~And~~ ~~secondary~~ ~~sources~~ ~~have~~ ~~reprinted~~ ~~the~~ ~~primary~~ ~~full~~ ~~transcript~~ of the ~~tape~~ ~~outright~~. ] (]) 20:48, 29 ~~October~~ ~~2016~~ (UTC)		*:I wouldn't mind removing "media personality" TBH. He is notable for being president twice and for being a businessman. He is not notable for his felony convictions. They should be in the lead, but not the first sentence. ] (]) 14:17, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::The fact of the matter he is not a media personality he's a former media personality..if being a convicted felon is less significant than that what would be ? It belongs in the first sentence..it is relevant if for no other reason there are a lot of people who look at Misplaced Pages articles and never get past the first sentence...I generally don`t get past the first paragraph..I was taught in school to get to the point in the first sentence..that the first sentence should support the first paragraph and the first paragraph should support the body of the work..I support wording it as convicted felon rather than criminal as it is more descriptive and accurate ] (]) 18:59, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
	:::::The only way we could use the primary source (the transcript) is to quote the entire transcript which is not practical, especially in the lead. The content in the lead should be based on a few impeccable sources and should include their analysis. Here are a few: . Common themes in these sources: lewd, vulgar, bragged, groped, kissed, etc..- ]] 21:29, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
			::::BTW, what's the meaning of the term "media personality"? Thanks, ] (]) 20:36, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::It sounds better than "reality television host". BTW without hosting "The Apprentice", Trump likely never becomes president or charged with any crimes, so note the ] in saying he isn't notable for it. – ] (]) 20:43, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::Do you have a source that explicitly states that Trump wouldn't be a president or convicted criminal without having been a TV host? ] (]) 21:16, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::::Can I prove a negative? Of course not. I said "likely" and that is my opinion. – ] (]) 21:25, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::See ]. He was a media presence (radio and TV talk shows, cameos in movies and on TV shows, source for tabloids and society pages of NY Times and other papers) before, during, and after the Apprentice, not to mention his Twitter activities. See also the first discussion for this consensus which had 10 options to choose from. Examples for definitions: (''Media personalities, encompassing TV hosts, news anchors, and social media celebrities, are individuals known for their presence in various media platforms''), (''A modern term for the carefully formulated and overtly fake publicly displayed personality used by ‘celebrities’ who lack natural presentation talent''). ]] 21:23, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::Do you expect me to take your arguments serious when you are citing Urban Dictionary? ] (]) 08:11, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
			::{{Ping\|Cortador}} I don't agree with you at all, because it would probably be the only article in the entire encyclopedia to contain this term in the initial part of the lead; some users are very angry with Donald, but no valid reason has been presented for the inclusion of the (pejorative) term "criminal" only on the Trump page. ] (]) 23:01, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::"Other articles don't do X" is not and has never been a valid argument here. Also, I recommend you don't edit based your personal feelings, but on how sources report on the subject of an article. ] (]) 09:59, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
			*'''Strongly oppose''' He's not known for being a criminal ''qua'' criminal. Trump's crimes are inextricably linked to his career in either business or politics. They were business-related/political in their very nature. It more than suffices to mention the convictions further down the line, but to insert "criminal" in the very first sentence is manifestly undue. ] ] 12:18, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:{{+1}}. ] (]) 18:23, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
			*'''Statistics''': Although this is not a vote, at the present time there are 22 Oppose opinions expressed, and 8 Support opinions being expressed; along with these there are nearly a dozen Comments which have been added sometimes neutral and sometimes of explicit viewpoints. ] (]) 00:38, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:Thanks. Despite protestations to the contrary, there is no clear policy basis for either side; it's all "editorial judgment". So a closer would have no reason to override the numbers. If I were on the Support side, I'd concede to save everybody a lot of time, but I know better than to hope for that. ―] ] 00:47, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

	:The ~~tape would appear to indicate~~ that he ~~'''thinks'''~~ ~~women~~ ~~allow~~ ~~him~~ to do ~~this.~~ In no ~~way~~ ~~can~~ we ~~suggest~~ ~~that~~ ~~women~~ ~~actually~~ ~~are~~ ~~okay~~ ~~with~~ ~~this.~~ ] (]) 12:24, 29 ~~October~~ ~~2016~~ (UTC)		] The fact that trump is a convicted felon is extremely relevant and should be in the first sentence of the article for obvious reasons ] (]) 17:30, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
			:We heard you the first time. And the second time, and the third time, and the fourth time, and the fifth time, and the sixth time... I've lost count. Endless repetition does not strengthen one's argument, it just makes one look silly and annoys people. ―] ] 17:54, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
	::No. But we can certainly indicate that he SAID women are okay with this. Because he did, explicitly. "They let you, because you're a star." --] (]) 20:44, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
	:::Here's what happens when you try to insert "controversial" BLP stuff{{diff\|Hillary Clinton\|746694594\|746694415}}. "Nope". That the "GTBTP" thing is in the ''lede'' of this BLP article speaks to the tremendously biased and unencyclopedic editing here. Very sad. ] ] 12:24, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
	:::: Go make that argument at ] if you like, but I recommend keeping your theories about bias and injustice to yourself, lest you become sadder by the realization that over-the-top rhetoric is rarely persuasive..- ]] 17:48, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

	:I ~~think~~ we ~~should~~ be ~~focusing~~ on ~~what~~ ] he ~~said,~~ and ]. --] (]) 20:27, 31 ~~October~~ ~~2016~~ (UTC)		:The first sentence is supposed to explain why the subject is notable. Trump is notable for his business career and his two presidencies, not the hush money payments. It should be in the lead, but it is undue for the first sentence. ] (]) 17:34, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

			The fact that trump is the only us president to be a convicted felon is more important than his business career..he specifically as a us president had crossed the line with regard to the law morality and ethics ] (]) 18:29, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
	:: ] When that presents only a single position, or states it in WP-voice as a fact rather than as second-person POV, it fails ] "representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all of the significant views". See also the ] guidance, including the ] quore above about conservative language and not being a tabloid, or see ] and ] examples that would lead one to avoid the "messy" words and be careful to say "alleged" and to also report any denials. ] (]) 00:09, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
	:~~::Tell~~ ~~me, then, what are all of the significant views--as supported by reliable secondary sources?~~ --] (]) 17:32, 1 ~~November~~ ~~2016~~ (UTC)		:Seventh time. ] (]) 18:43, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

			*'''Oppose''' - This fact appears to be fading as his inauguration approaches. Per ], it just doesn't belong in the intro. ] (]) 05:54, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
	It seems to me like there wouldn't be any disputes over neutrality if such sentences were taken from reliable sources and not tweaked around to fit an agenda. Although, unless such allegations have been verifiably proven, while such information could certainly remain in the article, perhaps it may not be entirely suited for the article's introduction. –''''']</span>''''' - <span style="font-size:80%">(])</span> 21:21, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

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

			It is time for everyone who has posted here to shut up, Nothing new is being added, and just let oterh have their say. ] (]) 14:52, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
	{{cot\|sources supporting "being able to"}}
			:It's about ripe for a closure request, I think, unless the Supporters concede. I'll submit the request soon. Then we wait for probably 4–8 weeks for a closer. Discussion can continue during the wait, but I agree that little of use is being added lately and we don't need more pointless clutter. ―] ] 04:22, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
	"Trump said he tried to 'fuck' a married woman and bragged about being able to grope women because of his 'star' status."

			::You get the last word as always and that`s just the it is right ? ] (]) 16:12, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
	Diamond, Jeremy. , ] (October 8, 2016).
			:::Didn't you know? I have been anointed by God. ―] ] 16:37, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

			I have now asked for this to be closed, enough is enough. ] (]) 16:47, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
	".... comments Trump made in a 2005 'Access Hollywood,' where he bragged about being able to force himself on women against their will because of his celebrity."
			:{{Ping\|Slatersteven}} "...enough is enough." Exactly, this RfC is a waste of time. ] (]) 18:02, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
			"Criminal" in the lead ''sentence'' is a bit tough, but there is precedent to describe him as the first felon to be president in the lead ''paragraph''. These ''firsts'' can be seen in ], ], ], ], ], etc. ] (]) 23:45, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

			== 2nd Term time ==
	DelReal, Jose and Johnson, Jenna. [https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2016/10/22/trump-threatening-nearly-one-dozen-sexual-assault-accusers-vows-to-sue/

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

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

			'''Comment'''. It's a photo the Trump transition team published on their X account, i.e., it's not in the public domain. is the deletion request on Wikimedia Commons. We'll replace the 2017 official portrait if and when the new administration releases an updated official portrait. <small>What was TeamTrump, whoever they are, thinking when they published the pictures, Trump with a droopy eyelid and Vance looking like a tired, bearded hamster.</small> ]] 15:08, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
	Diaz, Daniella. , ] (October 19, 2016).

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

			===Duplicate edit requests/discussions===
	Diamond, Jeremy. , ] (October 26, 2016).

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

			Alternatively, if people prefer letting them get archived still, would anyone disagree with archiving them 12 hours after answered so the talk page does not get cluttered up? I am open to shorter timescales as well in either case, but would recommend a couple hours at least. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez \| ] \| ] 02:26, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
	Diaz, Daniella. [http://www.cnn.com/2016/10/28/politics/joe-biden-anthony-weiner-emails-hillary-clinton/

			:@] make an request to ] to semi-protect the talk page. It's mostly IP editors doing this. <span style="text-shadow: #E9967A 0em 0em 1em;">]]</span> 02:28, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
	"Biden on Weiner: 'I'm not a big fan'"], ] (October 29, 2016).
			::Talk pages are generally not protected if it can be avoided... but if an administrator agrees that is viable here (for at least the next week or so), then I would support waiting on this to see if they die down (and letting auto archiver take over the ones that are already here for now) with that. Going to make that request now, thanks. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez \| ] \| ] 02:31, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::And requested: {{slink\|WP:Requests for page protection/Increase\|Talk:Donald Trump}}. Comments there are welcome, and if another solution is thought up here, please feel free to go contest that request. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez \| ] \| ] 02:39, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
			:They're gone after 24 hours per consensus 13. It's not like we have to live with them for the standard seven days. And it's a temporary problem that doesn't come up very often. I don't think they "clog up" the archive, as nobody browses archive pages top to bottom, and they don't create a lot of false positives in archive searches (in my experience). ―] ] 02:57, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
			::Ah, I missed consensus 13's allowance for manually archiving after 24 hours. I agree that the "clogging" of the archives is the ''least'' significant issue. The clogging of ''this page'' however.. hopefully if an admin agrees temporary semi protection is warranted that will suffice, but if not (or if it's still a problem) I still think 24 hours may be too long if they continue increasing. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez \| ] \| ] 03:02, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::I wouldn't oppose semi, but some competent IPs might. In my view, avoidance of that is just one of the benefits of registration. ―] ] 03:07, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
			:Presuming the proposed image, isn't a White House image. Recommend we stick with the 2017 image, for now. ] (]) 06:37, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
			::Does the image’s publishing on whitehouse.gov make it public domain? ] (]) 18:49, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::Normally yes, we would be able to assume that anything posted on whitehouse.gov that isn't identified as copyrighted is free to use (either public domain or CC-BY license).
			:::However, Trump's White House has a history of trying to "steal" images that look good to him. In 2017 he directed his White House staff to do the same thing - take his copyrighted photos that were taken of him by a private photographer for his inauguration materials and post them on WH.gov without a copyright notice. The private photographer had no idea Trump was planning to do so, and while the photographer was okay with Trump using them on the White House website, he did not wish them to be freely licensed/public domain.
			:::So in this case, given the historical wanton theft of copyright, it is prudent to assume they are not until the private photographer makes an irrevocable statement that they have done so. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez \| ] \| ] 18:58, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::This should be determined at Commons, not here. A deletion request was recently closed rejecting that argument and keeping the photo: ] -- ] (]) 19:16, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::The closer said {{tq\|this is freely licensed now (20 January)}}. What does "freely licensed" mean? I'm not convinced that that is a proper closing. ]] 19:30, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::It's not a proper closing. While Commons does have different policies, they do have a policy akin to SUPERVOTE on Misplaced Pages, where an administrator should not close a discussion without summarizing the arguments made and explaining why they discounted some of them if it's not obvious. I'm shocked that the admin engaged in such blatant license laundering. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez \| ] \| ] 19:37, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::::Then deal with it using Commons policy and procedure. I realize you are doing that, but we don't have to preemptively remove it from WP in the meantime. For now, we have an image on Commons and if we think it's the best image we should use it. -- ] (]) 19:43, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::::There was no license laundering. You are making assumptions without providing any tangible proof or evidence. The photo is published on the White House website under a Creative Commons license (as we already know it wasn't the work of a federal employee). That's it. ] (]) 00:59, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::::::The White House cannot license a photo they do not own. I'm not sure how many times you have to be told that ]. You've already been told by at least one other commons admin that you were wrong, as well as multiple other commons users opining that you were wrong. Following me to enwiki to harass me here over it is not appropriate. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez \| ] \| ] 01:07, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::::::I'm not harassing you. I'm just responding the very unfortunate accusations you have made against me without daring to mention me! ] (]) 01:16, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::::::Gotta ask, how do you know Trump doesn't own it and thus releases it by CC 3.0? Yeh, why are we all on Enwiki now? <span style="text-shadow: #E9967A 0em 0em 1em;">]]</span> 01:17, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::::::::The onus is on the users arguing for keeping it to '''prove''' that Trump owns it and can release it under that license. Not on the users arguing for deletion. See ]. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez \| ] \| ] 01:18, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::::::::And how are you to prove that Torok owns it? He just took the thing, as he worked for Trump Inaugural Committee. I say it's likely they own it, and the White House published with CC 3.0.
			::::::::::::Lo, the ]. <span style="text-shadow: #E9967A 0em 0em 1em;">]]</span> 01:24, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::::::::::The presumption is that the photographer owns the copyright, unless and until it is proven otherwise. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez \| ] \| ] 01:30, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::No, it doesn't. See . The website doesn't say whether individual photos were "government-produced" or "third-party content on this site ... licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License". The photo was taken before Trump's inauguration, so it's not government-produced. The licensing statement at ] is wrong. ]] 19:27, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
			:{{ping\|Pantarch}} You are in violation of the BRD enforcement - that edit was reverted and you have reinstated it. Please self-revert until the discussion here has come to a conclusion. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez \| ] \| ] 19:43, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
			::The conclusion was reached on ]. I don't understand what you want to discuss here; you are needlessly discussing an alleged copyright infringement that should be discussed elsewhere. ] (]) 19:54, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
			:Has anybody noticed that this is in the wrong subsection? I'm not in a mood to fix it. ―] ] 20:01, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
			::Instead, have you noticed that there are so many duplicates on Wikimedia Commons, many with the wrong license – the correct one is CC BY 3.0 US. ] (]) 20:03, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

			===Commons deletion request closed as keep===
	"The leak of a 2005 hot-mic video two days before the second debate in which Trump bragged about being able to grope women led to Clinton’s biggest single-day gain of the past four weeks."
			Me, I'd call that a supervote by the closer. And the closure rationale exists nowhere but in the page history? But what do I know. As I said above, Misplaced Pages copyright policy is an arcane science not meant for mere mortals. ―] ] 19:52, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
			:It is a supervote, it's now at ] as a blatant supervote and ]. The files have also already been renominated for deletion (if the admin refuses to vacate their close, that's the only way to discuss further unless another admin comes around and wheel wars them to reopen it - they don't have a deletion review for keep closures).{{pb}}We should not rush to change the image until it is fully resolved. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez \| ] \| ] 19:55, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
			::My bad, I failed to read existing discussion. Overdue for bed. ―] ] 20:02, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
			::What determines the matter to be resolved? The discussion is closed. ] (]) 20:05, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::All duplicates should be deleted, and the correct license, i.e., {{cc-by-3.0-us}}, should be inserted on the remaining ones. ] (]) 20:09, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::That doesn't change the fact that you've violated the BRD restriction on this page, {{yo\|Pantarch}}. You are in violation of an arbitration enforcement remedy on this page and I strongly encourage you to self revert before it ends up at AE for violating BRD. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez \| ] \| ] 20:14, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::I didn't violate the ] restriction because my edit wasn't reverted:
			:::::"You must follow the bold-revert-discuss cycle '''if your change is reverted'''. You may not reinstate your edit until you post a talk page message discussing your edit and have waited 24 hours from the time of this talk page message" ] (]) 20:45, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

			== "]" listed at ] ==
	Tartar, Andre and Tioruririne, Adam. "Trump, Clinton Double Down on Their Strategies: Final Debate By the Numbers", ] (October 20, 2016).
			]
			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/2025 January 16#America's Hitler}}''' until a consensus is reached. <!-- Template:RFDNote --> <span style="text-shadow: #E9967A 0em 0em 1em;">]]</span> 22:34, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

			== Challenge consensus item 44 ==
	"remarks Trump made in a leaked 2005 conversation, in which he bragged about being able to grope women because of his fame."

			I would like to '''challenge''' consensus at ], item 44.
	, ] (October 18, 2016).
			:The lead section should mention North Korea, focusing on Trump's meetings with Kim and some degree of clarification that they haven't produced clear results. (])
			I do not believe that Trump and ] having talks about denuclearisation is necessary to impart general knowledge of Trump to the reader. It is not notable to try to "convince the ] not to ], and the fox then ] with you about it". Trump has done things far more directly notable than try to convince Kim to get rid of nukes, and those subjects will need to be expressed in the lede more than this, per ]. Things have been historically crowded at the lede, and I figure this ought to be discussed. <span style="text-shadow: #E9967A 0em 0em 1em;">]]</span> 01:19, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
			:This made worldwide news at the time and was part of Trump's agenda for months, including several meetings with Kim and other stakeholders. It was a distinct break with the policy of other sitting presidents. It should be featured in the intro.--] (]) 01:53, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
			:Meeting with Kim Jong Un was a major bullet point in his presidency with regard to foreign policy. I do not believe the progress—or lack thereof—on denuclearisation is worth noting in the lead, however. Especially given North Korea ]. To me, the unclear results are considerably less notable than the summits themselves. ''']]''' 02:38, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
			:Trump meeting Kim is one of the big highlights of his first presidency. The first thought that a person reading this, not catching up with news everyday, could have is if it had any consequences, any result. So clarifying that it didn't change much things/ or changed few things is, what I feel, essential. --{{User:ExclusiveEditor/Signature}} 14:41, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

			== "He became a millionaire at age 8" ==
	"last week’s release of a 2005 video in which he bragged about being able to exploit women sexually."

			{{u\|Mandruss}}: You are . Before people started "improving" what used to be the "Personal life" section (early life and education, family, health, and wealth) and messing with the cites, we had AND the actual sources for the information, two New York Times articles. Buettner/Craig p.30/31 mentions the trusts Fred T set up for his children by putting apartment complexes in their names and paying them rent, but it's not the source for "millionaire by age 8" (or for "became a millionaire at age 8":). NYT: {{tq\|By age 3, he was earning $200,000 a year in today’s dollars from his father’s empire. He was a millionaire by age 8. In his 40s and 50s, he was receiving more than $5 million a year.}}<ref>{{cite news\|last1=Barstow\|first1=David\|author-link1=David Barstow\|last2=Craig\|first2=Susanne\|author-link2=Susanne Craig\|last3=Buettner\|first3=Russ\|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/02/us/politics/donald-trump-wealth-fred-trump.html\|title=11 Takeaways From The Times's Investigation into Trump's Wealth\|work=]\|date=October 2, 2018\|access-date=October 3, 2018}}</ref> I've given up trying to correct the cites or anything else in that section.
	Langley, Monica. [http://www.wsj.com/articles/trump-angrily-denies-allegations-of-groping-points-finger-at-media-and-clinton-campaign-1476384833
			{{reftalk}} ]] 12:08, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
			:When you start giving up, I start getting worried. Looks like a job for {{u\|SusanLesch}}. ―] ] 13:09, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
			::It sometimes feels like the incoming tide and me with a bucket on the mudflats. ]] 14:18, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::Ut oh, possible beginning of burnout. Been there, done that, semi-retired. ―] ] 14:25, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::Is "semi-retired" like the Walking Dead? You're editing just like me (undue? - puhleaze:). I'm more "when the going gets tough", although now I take a deep breath before I get going. ]] 17:16, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::Looks like you spend about 95% of your time here, like me. Unlike me, you do a lot of heavy lifting, "real editor work". I'm mainly a gnome and a janitor. {{small\|"puhleaze" is undue:).}} ―] ] 17:24, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
			:'''Comment'''. Our former source, the NYT article, was written by the same duo who wrote the book we're citing. I dare assume a book has even better fact-checking. -] (]) 14:59, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
			:How is this not puffery? ] (]) 13:22, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
			::? Does it resemble anything at ]? ―] ] 14:05, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::Well do we attribute the claim? ] (]) 14:09, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::Also ] can be linked to this, is there really a major part of his life and success? ] (]) 14:10, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::The context was a bit clearer when the sentence was part of the Wealth section and the Wealth section, in turn, was part of the erstwhile Personal life section. The context is the NYT refuting Trump's claim of being a self-made millionaire/billionaire. ]] 14:15, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::So then it should, not have been moved, or the context altred. ] (]) 14:17, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::You're preaching to the choir. ]] 14:19, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::::Agree with Space. This sentence is needed to refute Trump's narrative. I cited the footnote and have no problem with the current wording. -] (]) 14:51, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::::Yeah, fight the power! ] (]) 17:06, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::Did Trump make much more money on his own than what he got from his father? Thanks, ] (]) 15:43, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::Maybe, and . But the point here was his claim that he started from a loan of a mere million and that he had to pay it back. ]] 17:22, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

			==Large subsections in the First Presidency section==
	"Donald Trump Prepares New Attack on Media, Clinton"], ] (October 13, 2016).
			As a regular rule of thumb, Wikipiedia presidency articles limit the size of subsections to 2-3 paragraphs or less whenever there is a main article for the material being covered. This is done to avoid the reduplication of the same material around Misplaced Pages as opposed to keeping everything in one place and not covering the same material in different articles. The current Trump article in the First Presidency section seems to bypass this approach in at least two of the sections: the one on Foreign Policy, and the other on COVID which itself appears to have 7 further subsections. Both COVID and Trump Foreign Policy have their own fully developed articles on Misplaced Pages, and there does not appear to be a reason to reduplicate the material here on the Trump article. Should those sections be summarized and reduced in size to 2-3 paragraphs each without the multiple subsections? ] (]) 16:51, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
			:Yes. Maybe reduced to even less than that. I've been thinking about the Covid section but haven't thought much about the Foreign policy section. There will be plenty of material coming up for the article. Plenty.
			:As an example of reduction, here's a possible change of the first paragraph of the Covid section,
			::'''from''' "The first confirmed case of COVID-19 in the U.S. was reported on January 20, 2020. The outbreak was officially declared a public health emergency by Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary Alex Azar on January 31, 2020. Trump initially ignored public health warnings and calls for action from health officials within his administration and Azar, focusing on economic and political considerations of the outbreak. In February 2020 he publicly asserted that the outbreak in the U.S. was less deadly than influenza, was "very much under control", and would soon be over. On March 19, he privately told Bob Woodward that he was deliberately "playing it down, because I don't want to create a panic"."
			::'''to''' "Trump initially ignored public health warnings and calls for action from health officials within his administration, focusing on economic and political considerations of the outbreak.".
			:Regards, ] (]) 18:10, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
			:You're correct. We have a good opportunity to carry such an edit off, too. I'd support you if you undertook to make such trims. ] (]) 23:00, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
			::Agreement with {{u\|Riposte97}} and {{u\|Bob K31416}}. The section of COVID under the first presidency has 7 sections, and is the summary given above by Bob K31416 intended for the entire COVID section, or, for one of those subsections. Your summary is a good one and let us know which subsections of the COVID section it covers. Possibly you have a similar summary in mind for the Foreign Affairs section as well which you could share with us. The summary so far look pretty good. ] (]) 15:35, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::My example was just for the first paragraph, as I mentioned, perhaps somewhat unclearly? I basically kept one sentence. The idea was to reduce the paragraph to a summary or main point without changing the tone. I think any attempts that might change the tone would jeopardize the success of reduction, which may be difficult to get agreement on in any case. It might be useful to get the thoughts from two of the most active editors, ] and ]. Cheers, ] (]) 21:59, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::Responding to ping. I'm terrible at this kind of thing, which is why I tend to avoid it. All I know is that the article has needed dramatic reduction for many years. ―] ] 23:02, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::I looked some more at the Covid section with an eye to similar reductions like the first paragraph. Unfortunately, I didn't find the rest of the Covid section amenable to that approach, at least for me. Maybe it would take the main people or person responsible for the Covid section to make an appropriate reduction. Regards, ] (]) 04:18, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

			:Most likely the section will gradually be reduced in size, as more info is added into the Second Presidency section. ] (]) 00:51, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
	"Trump bragged about being able to grope and otherwise touch women without consent or consequences."

			*Building on the idea stated above from {{u\|Bob K31416}}, I've added a short summary for each of the subsections in the COVID section and combined them together which now looks like:
	Lesniewski, Niels. , ] (October 15, 2016).

			::"Trump initially ignored public health warnings and calls for action from health officials within his administration, focusing on economic and political considerations of the outbreak. Trump established the ] on January 29.<ref>{{cite news\|url=https://www.cbsnews.com/news/coronavirus-outbreak-task-force-created-by-trump-to-lead-us-government-response-to-wuhan-virus/\|title=Trump creates task force to lead U.S. coronavirus response\|work=]\|date=January 30, 2020\|access-date=October 10, 2020}}</ref> Prior to the pandemic, Trump criticized the WHO and other international bodies, which he asserted were taking advantage of U.S. aid.<ref name="Politico_WHO">{{cite news\|last=Ollstein\|first=Alice Miranda\|title=Trump halts funding to World Health Organization\|url=https://www.politico.com/news/2020/04/14/trump-world-health-organization-funding-186786\|access-date=September 7, 2020\|work=]\|date=April 14, 2020}}</ref> In April 2020, Republican-connected groups organized ] against the measures state governments were taking to combat the pandemic;<ref>{{cite news\|last=Wilson\|first=Jason\|url=https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/apr/17/far-right-coronavirus-protests-restrictions\|title=The rightwing groups behind wave of protests against Covid-19 restrictions\|date=April 17, 2020\|work=]\|access-date=April 18, 2020}}</ref><ref>{{cite news\|last=Andone\|first=Dakin\|url=https://cnn.com/2020/04/16/us/protests-coronavirus-stay-home-orders/\|title=Protests Are Popping Up Across the US over Stay-at-Home Restrictions\|date=April 16, 2020\|access-date=October 7, 2021\|work=]}}</ref> Trump encouraged the protests on Twitter,<ref>{{cite news\|last1=Shear\|first1=Michael D.\|author-link1=Michael D. Shear\|last2=Mervosh\|first2=Sarah\|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/17/us/politics/trump-coronavirus-governors.html\|title=Trump Encourages Protest Against Governors Who Have Imposed Virus Restrictions\|date=April 17, 2020\|work=]\|access-date=April 19, 2020}}</ref> although the targeted states did not meet his administration's guidelines for reopening.<ref>{{cite news\|url=https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/493701-trump-support-for-protests-threatens-to-undermine-social-distancing\|title=Trump support for protests threatens to undermine social distancing rules\|last1=Chalfant\|first1=Morgan\|last2=Samuels\|first2=Brett\|date=April 20, 2020\|work=]\|access-date=July 10, 2020}}</ref> Trump repeatedly pressured federal health agencies to take actions he favored,<ref name="CNN-testing-pressure"/> such as approving unproven treatments<ref>{{cite news\|url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/2020/06/15/hydroxychloroquine-authorization-revoked-coronavirus/\|newspaper=]\|date=June 15, 2020\|access-date=October 7, 2021\|title=FDA pulls emergency approval for antimalarial drugs touted by Trump as covid-19 treatment\|first1=Laurie\|last1=McGinley\|first2=Carolyn Y.\|last2=Johnson}}</ref><ref name=pressed>{{cite news\|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2020/09/12/us/politics/trump-coronavirus-treatment-vaccine.html\|title=Trump Pressed for Plasma Therapy. On October 2, 2020, Trump tweeted that he had tested positive for ], part of a White House outbreak.<ref>{{cite news\|last1=Liptak\|first1=Kevin\|last2=Klein\|first2=Betsy\|date=October 5, 2020\|title=A timeline of Trump and those in his orbit during a week of coronavirus developments\|url=https://cnn.com/2020/10/02/politics/timeline-trump-coronavirus/\|access-date=October 3, 2020\|work=]}}</ref> By July 2020, Trump's handling of the COVID-19 pandemic had become a major issue in the presidential election.<ref name="Election_NBCNews">{{cite news\|url=https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2020-election/warning-signs-flash-trump-wisconsin-pandemic-response-fuels-disapproval-n1232646\|title=Warning signs flash for Trump in Wisconsin as pandemic response fuels disapproval\|date=July 5, 2020\|work=]\|first=Adam\|last=Edelman\|access-date=September 14, 2020}}</ref> "
	"he bragged about being able to 'do anything' to women 'when you're a star,' including 'grab them' by the genitals"

			Possibly editors can mention if this looks like a fair summary to replace the current very long COVID section in the article which contains seven (7) subsections with this trimmed version. The trimmed version would then add all of the Further information links for all of the main articles on Misplaced Pages which already exist. ] (]) 15:19, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
	Jaffa, Alexandra and Gutters, Hasani. , ] (October 9, 2016).
			:I think you're on the track of something good. My first thought is to eliminate the last sentence because it is about Biden. Cheers, ] (]) 19:54, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
			::Agreed and dropping the last sentence. Pinging {{u\|Riposte97}} and {{u\|Bob K31416}} to see if this looks like a good version to use to trim the current long COVID section. ] (]) 23:33, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::This is a huge improvement. Hopefully the whole article can proceed this way! ] (]) 00:15, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::I think you need more editors participating. The relative lack of interest, positive and negative, for this large change does not bode well. All I can say is that I wouldn't oppose your edit. For one thing, it wouldn't be set in stone and editors could modify it once it is in the article. A Bold-Revert-Discuss might get more editors to discuss it. Good luck, ] (]) 00:58, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::Just noticed something else in the sentence that begins, "Prior to the pandemic...". It probably went with other material that was about the pandemic. Alone it isn't about the pandemic. Regards, ] (]) 02:28, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::I started looking at how you got these sentences and it appears that you tried to do what I did with the example of the first paragraph. Good try. Regarding the sentence starting with "Prior..." that I mentioned above, I found that it was the sentence you selected from the subsection . Here it is underlined and enlarged in context,
			::::<big><u>Prior to the pandemic, Trump criticized the WHO and other international bodies, which he asserted were taking advantage of U.S. aid.</u></big> His administration's proposed 2021 federal budget, released in February, proposed reducing WHO funding by more than half. In May and April, he accused the WHO of "severely mismanaging" COVID-19, alleged without evidence that the organization was under Chinese control and had enabled the Chinese government's concealment of the pandemic's origins, and announced that he was withdrawing funding for the organization. These were seen as attempts to distract from his mishandling of the pandemic. In July 2020, he announced the formal withdrawal of the U.S. from the WHO, effective July 2021. The decision was widely condemned by health and government officials as "short-sighted", "senseless", and "dangerous".
			:::I think that to find a reduction of this that has a better chance for being accepted, we need to call on one of the main and currently active contributors to the article like ] and see what they think about reducing this subsection and if they have any suggestions of how to do it. With their participation, it would have a much better chance of being accepted. Otherwise it would take a much bigger participation for a reduction to have a chance. Cheers, ] (]) 17:08, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::Those are useful comments for this from Bob K31416. Regarding the response by the top editors you mention, then Mandruss has already responded above and its completely up to the other top editors if they would like to comment while consensus is being established. If there is consensus between 3 or more editors without contest, then the edit can normally move forward into the main article. I'm presently for supporting the edit as you have stated in your research above, and I'll join in with {{u\|Riposte97}} and {{u\|Bob K31416}} if either one of them is ready to bring this edit into the article. I'm also ready to add my trimmed version of the Foreign policy section under First Presidency here as well for discussion on Talk. It was mentioned at the start of this thread in order for both trimmed subsection versions (COVID and Foreign policy) to go together into the article at the same time, or if its preferred to do them one subsection at a time. Ready to support anyone who wishes to bring this trimmed version of the COVID subsection in the article at this time. ] (]) 19:53, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

			== Potential addition to the first paragraph of the lead ==
	The accusations come after the release of a 2005 tape earlier this month in which Trump bragged about being able to grope or kiss women due to because he was a celebrity.

			The page ] includes the following statement: {{tq\|Upon taking office, he will become the second president in U.S. history to serve non-consecutive terms after ] in 1893, the ], the first to take office after having been ], and the first ] to take office.}} These are a lot of historical firsts.
	Savransky, Rebecca. , ] (October 15, 2016).
	{{collapse bottom}}

			Misplaced Pages pages on other presidents often mention historically significant information in the first paragraph of the lead, see for instance: ] and the mention that "he was the first African-American president in U.S. history"; ]'s "He was the longest-lived president in U.S. history and the first to reach the age of 100"; ]'s "he became the only U.S. president to resign from office, as a result of the Watergate scandal"; ]'s "He was the youngest person elected president at 43 years"; ]'s "He is the longest-serving U.S. president, and the only one to have served more than two terms"; ]'s "He was one of only two presidents to serve non-consecutive terms"; among others.
	Thanks for your consider. ] (]) 08:16, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

			With this in mind, it seems fitting that information on Trump being the second president to serve non-consecutive terms, the oldest individual to assume the presidency, the first to take office after being impeached, and the first convicted felon to take office, all fall within historical notability and many presidential firsts that should be mentioned in the first paragraph per precedent on other pages. ] (]) 05:33, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
	: Yes. There's also which support the wording currently in the article though. Personally I think the sources I listed have considerably more weight than some of what you've listed here - like rollcall & thehill. My research suggested that most RS ''don't'' use the "being able to" phrasing, but rather say that Trump "bragged" about doing the things he talked about. ] (]) 16:08, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
			:Also, Trump is the richest U.S. president ever. ] (]) 09:05, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
	::Hm. I'm a bit vexed about what to do here. The sources listed by Dervorguilla by and large meet our reliability criteria. So I guess the question is whether they conflict and must be ] or whether they're technically consistent. I don't have an answer to that. --] (]) 16:41, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
			::That would violate consensus #38. ] (]) 19:01, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
	:Yes, that is an interesting selection there, {{u\|Ihardlythinkso}}. Admittedly, it's made to look a lot longer than it actually is by citing multiple articles from CNN. The selection of sources from Dervorguilla shows that sources that say "being able to" are in the minority. Still, I have another idea for compromising{{snd}}change ''bragged about forcibly kissing and groping women'' to '''''"bragged about his sexually aggressive behavior with women."''''' After all, in the tape he did talk about trying to have sex with a married woman. Thus, regardless of whether his words are interpreted as ''being able to'' grope women, the "sexually aggressive" statement remains true. I know this is less specific, but it's preferable to to misleadingly changing the statement to a theoretical matter when Trump did in fact relate his experience trying to move on a married woman. ] (]) 01:16, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
			:Bear in mind that anything added to the lead has to be in the body first, with citation. And the sourcing must be ''direct''; no deduction may be required to get from the cited source to the content. ―] ] 14:08, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
	:: Don't the recent discussion closures and kind of make this discussion moot? Seems like the issue was being discussed in ''way'' too many different talk page sections simultaneously. ] (]) 03:51, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
			:The former US president has accomplished a lot of firsts. We shouldn't flood the intro with all of'em. ] (]) 18:26, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
	::: It looks stupid and really non-eventful in the scope of the man's life. A ridiculous smear that remains as if it defines his biography. '''"On October 7th..."''' blah blah blah. Y'all are pretty naïve to think that this truly belongs in the lead of this BLP. It's not the true "bombshell" that it was designed to be. Get real. ] ] 06:36, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
			:Part of that sentence is going to be moot in less than 24 hours. Second non-consecutive term and Grover Cleveland: last I heard "second" isn't the same as "first", so this is more ole Grover's claim to fame. I think it's better to mention the impeachments and acquittals the way the lead does now. Oldest: not leadworthy, I don't think we even mention it in the body. First convicted felon: a label to be avoided per ]. I do think we should move the sentence about the felony conviction into the first paragraph but that is a separate discussion. ]] 18:53, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
	::::If that's your position, then stay civil and cast your !vote in the RfC above. This discussion is about making the language neutral and verifiable. --] (]) 17:20, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
			:What about "Trump has been an influential and polarizing figure in modern American politics." It's definitely supported by sources and the article itself. ] (]) 13:02, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
			::@] @] @] @] @] We need to figure this out soon, its going to look so weird if the lead paragraph is only one sentence ] (]) 16:05, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::This section is not about that. See ]. ―] ] 16:09, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
			:"convicted fellon" should be specific or it would go against MOS:CRIMINAL, I also doubt that it carries enough weight. I agree with OP that something in the first paragraph is needed. For me the choice is straight forward, looking at sources what characterize Trump is the aggressive stance toward the many economical issues, means trade war, mass deportations, etc. ] (]) 13:09, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

	== ~~List~~ of ~~Neutrality~~ ~~issues~~ ==		== Net worth and consensus 5 ==
	{{anchor\|Neutrality}}
	] said neutrality issues are required for a POV tag; here are some imo.

			] item 5: {{tq\|Use Trump's annual net worth evaluation and matching ranking, from the ''Forbes'' list of billionaires, not from monthly or "live" estimates.}}
	1: "Many of his statements in interviews, on Twitter, and at campaign rallies have been controversial or false" ''The inclusion of the word "false" is obviously not neutral''

			We currently source net worth to which is part of said ''Forbes'' list of billionaires. But that page identifies the number as "Real Time Net Worth", which is inconsistent with consensus 5 (real time=live). I seem to recall that the ''Forbes'' billionaires list used to provide a separate number that was not real-time, but I don't see that now. What's going on? Do we need to change the article? Do we need to supersede #5 with a new methodology, such as updating the article from the real-time number on the first day of each month or each year? ―] ] 09:43, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
	2: "audio recording surfaced in which Trump bragged about forcibly kissing and groping women"
	''the recording does not have Trump saying he "forcibly" did anything nor that he actually groped women. the recording said that because he was a star, women allowed him to kiss them and that he could grope them if he chose to.''

			Also, the "matching ranking" was removed from the article at some point. ―] ] 09:49, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
	3:"A subsequent analysis by The Washington Post, whose reporters were denied press credentials by the Trump presidential campaign, concluded that "Trump is a mix of braggadocio, business failures, and real success."" ''an obvious neutrality issue: This statement infers a retaliatory analysis and adds nothing to the BLP''

			It appears ''Forbes'' now has two billionaires lists: one real-time and one annual. A Google search for yields , which lists Trump at $2.3B and #1438 in the world. Seems like that should be our methodology: update the article each time the new annual list comes out. This methodology would reduce net worth from real-time $6.3B to annual $2.3B; I can't explain the huge difference except that maybe ~10 months have passed since the 2024 list came out. The 2025 list might list him much higher, I don't know. Can't say I understand anything about ''Forbes'''s methodologies. ―] ] 10:48, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
	4"Trump's candidacy has been described as something around which the alt-right movement has coalesced, together with its opposition to multiculturalism and immigration."
			:My bad. I was unaware of consensus item #5. Forbes, ], may not be the authority we'd like to have but they're all we've got. -] (]) 14:16, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
	''Another neutrality issue''
			::Good enough for me: "Forbes also publishes various 'top' lists which can be referenced in articles." Ok, barring objections, I'll change the article to conform with #5 in a day or two, using the 2024 list. ―] ] 14:34, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
			::Planned update:{{tq2\|In 2024, '']'' estimated Trump's net worth at $2.3 billion and ranked him the 1,438th wealthiest person in the world.<!--UPDATE ANNUALLY per ], item 5.--><ref>{{cite web \|last1=LaFranco \|first1=Rob \|last2=Chung \|first2=Grace \|last3=Peterson-Withorn \|first3=Chase \|year=2024 \|title=Forbes World's Billionaires List - The Richest in 2024 \|url=https://www.forbes.com/billionaires/ \|website=] \|access-date=January 20, 2025}} - Enter "donald trump" in the search box.</ref>}}...which will conflict with the preceding sentence:{{tq2\|According to ''Forbes'', Trump's wealth in 2024 comprised approximately $1.1 billion in real estate, $1 billion in golf clubs and resorts, and $3.5 billion in stock in ]—today his primary asset.<ref name=Forbes>{{cite news\|title=Here's How Much Donald Trump Is Worth\|url=https://www.forbes.com/sites/danalexander/article/the-definitive-networth-of-donaldtrump/\|date=November 4, 2024\|access-date=December 15, 2024\|work=]\|first=Dan\|last=Alexander\|orig-date=September 27, 2024}}</ref>}}There's already a conflict, but it's not so large. Maybe the $5.6B sum is assets only and the $2.3B is assets minus liabilities? There's a paywall in my way for the $5.6B source. ―] ] 16:08, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
			::{{ping\|SusanLesch}} Did you write the $5.6B sentence? If so, can you answer this? Is "wealth" a synonym for "assets"? I wasn't aware of that. If not, should it be changed to "assets" for clarity? ―] ] 16:52, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::Not for me to say.
			:::Our ] list was published in April 2024. The breakdown I cited was November 2024. Truth Social's value fluctuates that wildly. -] (]) 17:06, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

			:Another "improvement" I missed — March 2024 feels like B.C. now (see "Net worth update" link, below). I just reverted to the consensus 5 version. <s>The ranking on the used to be in the upper left corner of the Forbes webpage (see ]) but the Wayback machine’s toolbar is superimposed on that part of the archived pages. Now you '''do''' have to scroll down to "Forbes Lists" to see the annual ranking.</s> The problem was the link — the original link to the "Full profile" works as before. The link has to specify the list; there are others, such as the . The list is published in April, AFAIK. ]] 17:24, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
	5 "at least 15 women came forward with new accounts of sexual misconduct including unwanted kissing and groping" ''the word "accounts" infers not debatable...the word "claimed" should be used''

			:Adding the ] and ]. ]] 17:29, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
			::I like my "Planned update" better (both its text and its citation), but whatever. ―] ] 22:46, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
			::{{ping\|Space4Time3Continuum2x}} Also, do you see an apparent conflict between those two sentences? If you're a reader, does that raise an eyebrow? If so, how would you resolve it? ―] ] 23:40, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
			::: was the Wealth section before the election. The section could have used some trimming and updating but not the wholesale deletion of most of the contents. Gone is information that I don't think is "overdetail" for the successful business tycoon persona that he was/is projecting (tax returns showing losses, tax fraud, etc.). After the trim most of the section was about Forbes, from "John Barron" to Trump’s billionaire listing on November 4 and , 2024. When I reverted the last sentence to consensus 5 adherence, I didn't look at the second to last sentence which was also added , together with the one that violated consensus 5. IMO, it also falls under #5. It's merely a wordier description of Trump's ranking on the billionaires' list on the day before the 2024 election. This sentence should be removed.

			:::No objection to the wording of the last sentence you proposed in your planned update, above. Don't know about the citation. The url would require the reader to enter "Trump" in the text field, then click the name and the "Full profile" button (exactly what you argued against in last year's discussion, methinks). The current url takes the reader directly to Trump's full profile but that page doesn't name the editors. Either way we'd have to update the cite when the new list is published (year and access date in the current form, and, if necessary, the names of the editors in your proposed cite). ]] 10:52, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
	6:'''Immigration policies''' ''The section is not about immigration, it is about illegal immigration and the misrepresentation of that is a major neutrality issue.''
			::::{{tq\|The url would require the reader to enter "Trump" in the text field, then click the name and the "Full profile" button}} - No, they need only enter "donald trump" in the search box, which my citation explains to them. Bingo, it shows both ranking and net worth on the resulting line. No need to go any further for verification. And this way they would see only the annual, not both annual and real-time.{{pb}}Don't hold me to anything I said last year, or even last week. My thinking evolves.{{pb}}No objection to removing anything else that you see fit to remove. ―] ] 11:38, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

			:::::I removed the second to last sentence. (Entering just "trump" yields the same line, BTW) Why don't you want readers to see the real-time up-and-down? ]] 12:01, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
	7:"He repeated a National Enquirer allegation that Rafael Cruz, father of Ted Cruz, may have been involved in the assassination of John F. Kennedy"
			::::::{{tq\|(Entering just "trump" yields the same line, BTW)}} Yeah, I know. I could change that. If another Trump became a billionaire, we could change it back. {{tq\|Why don't you want readers to see the real-time up-and-down?}} Just seems simpler and more straightforward, providing the required verification and not confusing matters by putting other information in front of them. A citation is for article content verification only, not "further reading" or "more information". ―] ] 12:09, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
	''The source says "linking Cruz’s father '''to the man''' who shot President John F. Kennedy and in no way says his father "may have been involved in the assassination"''
			:::::::This looks fine. Naturally more can be said, but I think the important thing is that the range of his net worth is nailed down. The second sentence removed might be changed to percents but I am happy with what we have.
	] (]) 03:41, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
			{{cot}}

			:::::::{{tqb\|According to Forbes, Trump's wealth in 2024 was, very roughly, 62 percent stock in ], 20 percent real estate, and 18 percent golf clubs and resorts.<ref name=Forbes>{{cite news\|title=Here's How Much Donald Trump Is Worth\|url=https://www.forbes.com/sites/danalexander/article/the-definitive-networth-of-donaldtrump/\|date=November 4, 2024\|access-date=December 15, 2024\|work=]\|first=Dan\|last=Alexander\|orig-date=September 27, 2024}}</ref> (Truth Media's stock price is volatile.)<ref>{{cite news\|url=https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/2024/04/16/trump-truth-social-stock-price/73341300007/\|title=Trump Media stock price fluctuation: What to know amid historic hush money criminal trial\|last=Crowley\|first=Kinsey\|date=May 1, 2024\|access-date=January 20, 2025\|work=]}}</ref>
	On the first one, there was a HUUUUGGGEEEE RfC about that . So that's not going to fly.] (]) 04:56, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
			}}

	Second one is based on reliable sources and has also been discussed to death.

	Third, fourth are just your basic ]. This is well sourced and attributed. You can't just call something you don't like "a neutrality issue". You have to show that it is not based on sources or that it misrepresents sources.

	Actually the same thing for five, six and seven. You are mistaking your own opinions for "neutrality". Bring sources to the table and arguments grounded in policy or the tag is spurious.] (]) 04:59, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

	And oh yeah, there's a big ol' notice at the top of the article when you click edit which says:

	''" Firm consensus is needed to re-install a POV tag atop this article per discretionary sanctions. Please consider proposing it at the talk page, or getting attention of further editors other ways, like using an RFC or a section tag or an inline tag."''

	] (]) 05:06, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

	:#Trump is actually known for using a much larger percentage of false statements, as independently examined by fact-checkers, than most other politicians. These are three references cited by the article: . All these false statements are a big reason why he has received so much free media attention, which is also described by the article.
	:#This has now been changed to nonconsensually, which I think solves this problem.
	:#I just changed this to opined.
	:#This is just true. Check out the sources. I think white-supremacists could rightly be called the alt-right. However, if you can think of better phrasing, go ahead and improve it.
	:#I altered this as well from ''claims'' to ''allegations''.
	:#It shouldn't be titled ''Illegal immigration policies''. That would be long and probably even more biased. It's in line with how other politicians' policies are described.
	:#The definition of the word "link" is "a relationship between two things or situations." I don't see how this is misconstruing the sources.

	:Thanks for bringing these up. The article will be better as a result. The NPOV tag, however, should not be reinstated. ] (]) 14:33, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

	::On 2, sources actually use the word "forcibly" so we should follow the sources on this.
	::I also changed "alleged" back to "accused" for the same reason.] (]) 15:17, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
	:::That's swell, but {{ping\|Volunteer Marek\|Fyddlestix\|Nomoskedasticity}} do you understand that ]? ] (]) 22:53, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
	::::One of the accusers did say that he "forced" his tongue down her throat .] (]) 23:52, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
	:::: Who said otherwise? The exact same wording appears in lots of sources:
	{{collapse top\|Sources that say "forcibly"}}
	*Molly Redden, ''The Guardian,'' October 16, 2016.
	:*"On its release, the tape quickly unleashed a cascade of accusations from women who have said Trump '''forcibly kissed or groped them''', or reached under their clothing without asking."
	*Kurtis Lee, "," ''Los Angeles Times'' October 15, 2016.
	:*"Heller is the ninth woman to come forward in the past week with allegations that Trump '''groped or forcibly kissed''' them before he ran for president last year."
	*Harriet Agerholm, "," ''The Independent,'' 23 October 2016.
	:*"The porn star and sex educator is one of at least 11 women to make claims that the Republican nominee '''groped them, forcibly kissed them''' or made inappropriate remarks."
	*Trip Gabriel, "," ''The New York Times,'' October 27, 2016.
	:*"Increasing numbers of Republican women have turned on their party’s male leaders for defending Mr. Trump against accusations that he '''groped or forcibly kissed''' more than 10 women."
	*Amanda Sakuma, "" ''NBC News,'' October 26, 2016.
	:*"newly unearthed audio recordings showed Trump bragging about '''forcibly kissing women and grabbing them by the genitals'''."
	:"," ''The Telegraph','' 13 October 2016.
	:*"In what was one of the most negative and acrimonious debates in US presidential history, it was a matter of minutes before the lewd tape, in which '''Mr Trump brags about "grabbing p----" and forcibly kissing women,''' was brought up."
	*Jonathan Easeley, "'," ''Fox News,'' October 13, 2016.
	:*"In reports and first-person accounts recorded in The New York Times, People magazine and The Palm Beach Post, four women have accused Trump, the Republican presidential nominee, of '''forcibly kissing them or aggressively touching them against their will'''."
	*Tracy Jan, "," ''Boston Globe,'' October 14, 2016.
	:*"Trump has been confronted with a slew of allegations of sexual misconduct over the past week, starting with a Washington Post report of a 2005 tape featuring him '''bragging about forcibly kissing women and grabbing them by the genitals'''."
	* Nolan D. McCaskill, "," ''Politico,'' October 14, 2016.
	:*"the real estate mogul can be heard boasting about '''forcibly kissing and groping women''' with impunity because he’s “a star."
	*Joyce Chen, "," ''US Weekly,'' October 8, 2016.
	:*"Trump issued a video statement on his Twitter account late Friday evening in response to the footage, which shows him bragging to former Access Hollywood host Billy Bush about '''forcibly kissing and groping women'''."
	*Monica Langley, "," ''Wall Street Journal,'' October 11, 2016.
	:*"on Friday, all attention turned to the video of Mr. Trump’s talking about '''groping women’s genitals and forcibly kissing women'''."
	{{cob}}		{{cob}}
			{{sources-talk}}
	::::Just a selection for y'all to read (there's lots more). The foot-dragging on this is getting pretty tiresome. ] (]) 00:54, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
	:::::{{tq\|Who said otherwise?}} With respect, I think you did it implicitly when you reinstated unsourced content (while removing another piece of unsourced content). Since Volunteer Marek's edit summary said "{{tq\|since sources actually use the terms "forcibly" and "accused" not "non-consensual"}}, I assume the only purpose they added WaPo source was because they wanted to use word "forcibly". One would expect to find word "forcibly" in the WaPo article, but I did not find it, hence I made a ''technical'' edit in order to enforce WP:V. It would be okay for an editor to say that they are paraphrasing this and this source; then we could discuss how faithful to the source that paraphrase is. I'm not saying that we must use the exact words our sources use – sometimes it's the best course of action, sometimes it isn't – but it's a whole different matter to imply that we use the exact wording when we don't.<br />How many of those sources are cited in our article? I can't find a policy that says we can cite a source without citing it. If there are sources that you think are representative of population, go ahead and cite them using inline citations. If "forcibly kissed" is properly cited, I see no reason to object that wording, at this point. ] (]) 13:37, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
	:::: {{reply to\|Politrukki}} Correct. "The word 'source' in Misplaced Pages has three meanings: ... The creator of the work (for example, the writer)." ]. Here, the "source" of the headline -- its creator -- is some anonymous headline-writer. As a courtesy to the cited source (meaning, the article writer), we ought to use his terminology, not the headline-writer's. --] (]) 01:05, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

			== Updating of Trump & Vance, upon assumption of offices ==
	:::::{{ec}}{{ping\|Volunteer Marek\|Fyddlestix\|Nomoskedasticity}} As far as I can tell, I hold the same vision of this article as you do, but I'm just striving to find a middle ground that will convince the group of editors who ''don't'' want this statement in the lead at all to change their minds. Having a concise, neutral statement is a good start.

			I realize this page is on enough editors' watchlists, to prevent or revert those who might update the page prematurely, before Noon EST on 20 January 2025. But, perhaps many of you may consider adding ] to your watchlists, to prevent the same thing. PS - I'm presuming that ] & ] are already on many watchlists. ] (]) 00:13, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
	:::::All in all, it's not a huge deal whether the article says "forcibly" or "nonconsensually," or whether it says "allegations" or "accusations." One of each word is used verbatim by the sources we cite, while the other ones sound softer and less editorialized while conveying the same meaning. Some editors may see the mainstream media as liberally biased - read ] for more information. If that's somewhat true, then we follow the policies for biased sources. ] says: "Another approach is to specify or substantiate the statement, by giving those details that actually are factual."
			:We can't have too many watchers, but see . ―] ] 00:50, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

			== Is there a section on his crypto coin? ==
	:::::It's not necessary to write statements that use the exact words our sources use, as long as whatever words we use instead have the same meanings. ] (]) 01:14, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

			Is there a section on his crypto coin? ] (]) 01:33, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
	::::: {{reply to\|Volunteer Marek\|JasperTech}} Given all the controversy about this claim, I think it would be helpful to include the original language in a ref quote ]. <u>I've accordingly a second citation with a short ref quote</u>. --] (]) 02:48, 30 October 2016 (UTC) 05:14, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
			:No. ―] ] 03:48, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
	:::::: I '''strongly endorse''' this. Verification was the sole reason I included inflated (I expected them be shrunk later, but I should have prepared for an emergency landing) quotations in {{para\|quote}} parameter. I also explicitly '''endorse''' using citations, i.e. {{tag\|ref\|o}} tags, in the lead at least until there is consensus on the wording per ] ("{{tq\|All quotations, and any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include an ] that directly supports the material.}}"), and per ] ("{{tq\|Any statements about living persons that are challenged or likely to be challenged must have an inline citation every time they are mentioned, including within the lead. ... The necessity for citations in a lead should be determined on a case-by-case basis by editorial consensus. Complex, current, or controversial subjects may require many citations; others, few or none.}}")<br />If citations should be omitted per WP:LEADCITE, we must not forget that the lead should <u>summarize the body</u>. If there's a great discrepancy between the lead and body, something is wrong. ] (]) 13:37, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
			:in my opinion its not of enough note to be mentioned as of now . ] (]) 15:02, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
	:::::::{{U\|Fyddlestix }} has amply demonstrated that sources say "forcibly", and so should we. The same applies to "bragging" (see ]. It's getting a little tiresome seeing editors who don't grasp our policies or basic research skills, trying to scrub the meaning from a set of simple facts that have been widely reported. I agree that using direct quotes of the sources in the citation template is a good idea for verification. I also have no objection to including footnote citations in the lead as needed.- ]] 14:14, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
			:I'll add (really, "Strump"?) to the bullet list in ]. (Amazing Photoshop job on the website selling the coin, makes Trump at least 40 years younger and 50+ pounds lighter. Melania's coin is called $MELANIA. Smelania – maybe it's pronounced differently in Slowenian. I know — off-topic.) ]] 15:55, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
	::::::::Perhaps I've misinterpreted the amount of debate happening about inclusion of the sentences. If the majority of editors are fine with using the words the sources do, then I'm not going to complain. The inline citations are excellent - thanks Fyddlestix and Dervorguilla! ] (]) 15:31, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
	:::::::::I'm fine with paraphrasing, as long as we use words with the same meaning. For example instead of "bragged" we can use "boasted"; we should not use "talked" because they don't mean the same thing. I'm less concerned about "forcibly". I could live with substituting "without permission" (or consent).- ]] 15:54, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
	::::::::"Thanks for conforming to the cited source" would have sufficed (I'm referring to your bizarre {{tl\|fv}} tag ]). I'm truly sorry that I missed your comment "{{tq\| cited in the article specifically says "...a video of Trump bragging to “Access Hollywood” host Billy Bush in 2005..."}}" ]. Had I noticed that, I would have, of course, cited this source for "bragged", and another WaPo source (which says "can be heard making vulgar comments" instead of "bragging") for "without their consent".<br />{{tq\|Fyddlestix has amply demonstrated that sources say "forcibly"}} – I agree and I thank for citing them ''in the article''. We don't know if "forcibly" is what majority of sources use – proving that would require more than basic research – but if anyone objects "forcing", they should bring another set of sources that use different wording.<br />I hope you, and everybody else who is involved, noticed that you reverted many constructive edits – including all, I assume, {{u\|Dervorguilla}}'s edits. ] (]) 19:55, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

			== Objectivity and Accuracy ==
	::::::::: Correct; the others being ]'s () and ]'s (). --] (]) 09:01, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

			The piece in general lacks objectivity and is characterized by a strong, anti-Trump thread throughout in the form of numerous statements that are opinionated in nature but presented as fact or that are plainly inaccurate, in many cases because it seems facts have come to light since some grossly biased statement was written. Examples follow.
	:{{u\|KINGOFTO}}, if you have issues with the neutrality of specific language, then tag those sentences with {{t\|pov-inline}} and start a new discussion for each one. Some arguably non-neutral language here and there isn't a basis for an article-level POV tag. Also, as other folks have mentioned, some of these issues have already been discussed at length and resolved here on the talk page. --] (]) 19:15, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

	:: -] - no, no ] should put in the tag per guidance that it is the appropriate thing for this situation. (And then others should follow the guidance in the tag that says '''do not remove''). Putting in 7 (and then more...) tags all over is not a substitute for it and seems not better anyway. Just kind of proves the point and justifies an overall tag. We've gotten POV issue du jour (or multiples du jour) for weeks now, simpler to just put the notice up there and leave it. (Maybe after 9 November ... or maybe not) ] (]) 00:21, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

			Excerpted example of biased characterization from the piece:
	: ] - You seem missing the text of the POV tag, and the enclosed links for conduct. Relooking at your inputs for ] list I note you are proving his point it deserves a tag.
			“After a series of business bankruptcies in the 1990s, he launched several side ventures.”
	1: "HUUUUGGGEEEE RfC about that " ... kind of proves his point there are 20 editors in dispute with the word
	2. 'Forcibly' is still in dispute, and "based on" reliable sources sounds a bit like OR rather than NPOV conveying all POVs.
	3. WaPo indignation ... Rather than ], he seems correct - this is a single offended party, not meeting 'independant' and not wide ... and I'll add what the heck is significant enough to his life to make that worth a BLP inclusion ?
	4. How candidacy described - not ] if it's the only POV being presented ... and again, editor dispute is what the POV tag says.
	5, 6, 7 - OK you oppose him, citing opinion difference... demonstrating again '''POV dispute'''
	: Finally you said 'there's a big ol' notice at the top of the article when you click edit which says: Firm consensus is needed to re-install a POV tag' Umm -- not really so big or at top as the boxes, it's an embedded comment lost amidst the page ... and unattributed so why/who or what ... not referenced in the Talk header either so ???? Effectively never gonna get consensus for this either so ???? Seems a circular argument.
	: CHeers ] (]) 00:53, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

			Comments on the immediately above excerpt:
	::What does "you seem missing the text of the POV tag" mean? Anyway, there's a specific injunction in the article to NOT put in the tag without consensus. That's really there's to it.
			Statement is unbalanced and subjectively critical; Trump, like most entrepreneurs, undertake a collection of business ventures during his rise to success
	::1. Yeah, but we abide by RfC, even if some editors don't like it. This is NOT how this works: "I didn't get my way in an RfC so I'll put in a NPOV tag in the article". Come on, seriously?
	::2. Yeah and you need consensus to put the tag in. Anything what so ever can easily be made "in dispute" by tendentious editors with enough time on their hands.
	::3. No.
	::4. No.
	::5. No
	::Basically ] is exactly what you're doing. And saying "it's disputed" is NOT... not not not not not, a sufficient justification for the tag. You need to articulate it, not just "well I disagree".] (]) 14:00, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
	*As the ''''''-tag has been reverted into the lede I would like to ask where is the consensus about having that tag? --]] 16:02, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
	:: Above ] states -- ''if you have issues with the neutrality of specific language, then tag those sentences''
	:: It seems that there is consensus a dispute is ongoing (and participation in that dispute amounts to a de facto admission of that dispute), but lack of consensus about whether an article-wide tag is appropriate in this context. There is clearly no consensus for the language in question itself, and many editors have raised concerns that it violates BLP policy, especially that in cases like this we need to use the most conservative language possible. If some editors are unwilling to reach a consensus phrasing, working in everyone's legitimate concerns especially as related to BLP, it would seem tagging the dispute is the only appropriate measure at this time to avoid persistent edit-warring in which each "side" continues to insert its preferred wording into the article. ] (]) 17:08, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
	::: I agree with ] and have replaced the tag....not a badge of shame...not a warning...just a tag which, if not applicable here, then where? ] (]) 23:03, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
	*Adding a POV tag to the entire article is way out of line. Work on the specific issues. The article itself as a whole is not in dispute. To be clear: There is no consensus to POV tag the entire article. In fact there is a strong consensus not to. Adding disputed material against consensus can be a blockable offense per the Discretionary Sanctions. --] (]) 23:30, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
	:: To be clear, in my above statement I meant to advocate for an inline tag (which I had recently added), in case my statement that there was no consensus for an article-wide tag did not make that clear in context. The differing sides on this dispute have each argued in support of an inline tag, which seems closest we'll to consensus until there is more willingness for compromise on the questionable phrasing in question (which itself in present form lacks consensus). ] (]) 15:24, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

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

			Comments on the immediately above excerpt:
	The section about health says he doesn't drink alcohol. I'm pretty sure I've seen him drink wine in The Apprentice, but I'm not going to suffer through watching it again to find which episode it was. ] (]) 08:10, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
			Statement is unbalanced and subjectively critical. It can be argued, and many do, that Trump’s tactics toward N. Korea and China reduced those Nations’ aggressive posture, only to see it strengthen again under the lay-down policies of the Biden administration. The immigration policy didn’t “target Muslims,” but rather targeted travelers from nations that have strong culturally-based animus toward the US as demonstrated toward recent and previous acts of terrorism toward America, strong public demonstrations by the populace inciting terrorism toward America, and research, intelligence, and survey information documenting a large number of active terrorists and people that support terrorism toward America. The family separation policy referenced is simply a by-product of detaining adult aliens that have illegally emigrate with minor family members among their group. The minor family members are not arrested along with their adult parents/guardians, but are placed in care while the adults are incarcerated. This is the same dynamic that occurs when US citizens are arrested while caring for minor dependents.
	:Maybe it was non-alcoholic. The reliable sources all say he doesn't drink, and I could find nothing online about him drinking wine in The Apprentice. Even if you found it, it would be ]. Worthy of mentioning to a reporter maybe, but not of posting on Misplaced Pages. --] (]) 19:19, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
	::He once said he has a rare glass of wine. Not worth mentioning. ] (]) 18:54, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

			Excerpted example of biased and inaccurate characterization from the piece:
	== TOC Limit 3 ==
			“In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, he downplayed its severity, contradicted guidance from international public health bodies, and signed the CARES Act economic stimulus. He lost the 2020 presidential election but did not concede, falsely claiming widespread electoral fraud and attempting to overturn the results, including through his involvement in the January 6 Capitol attack. He was impeached in 2019 for abuse of power and obstruction of Congress, and in 2021for incitement of insurrection; the Senate acquitted him in both cases. After his first term, scholars and historians ranked Trump as one of the worst presidents in American history.”

	I don't think this limit of TOC to 3 levels is good.

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

			{{cot\|{{small\|1=] ―] ] 07:00, 20 January 2025 (UTC)}}}}
	The TOC limit 3 makes it difficult for the reader to figure out what's covered by the article. For example, it makes it harder to find "Sexual misconduct allegations". A bare mention of "Political positions" doesn't tell the reader that the entry deals with social issues, economic issues, healthcare issues, etc.
			:Several studies have pointed to the political leanings of Misplaced Pages's editor base. For instance, research by Greenstein and Zhu analyzed political bias in Misplaced Pages articles and found an early tendency towards a liberal bias, which they suggested might be linked to the political orientations of the editors. These studies used methods like analyzing word choice in articles related to U.S. politics to infer political slant. There's evidence suggesting that conservative editors might face more sanctions or blocks compared to liberal editors. This was highlighted in analyses pointing towards institutional favoritism toward left-of-center viewpoints in Misplaced Pages's arbitration and enforcement processes. The demographic of Misplaced Pages editors (predominantly male, from developed countries, often with liberal views) can influence how topics are covered or which topics are deemed worthy of coverage. The richest man in the world, Elon Musk, and Misplaced Pages's own co-founder, Larry Sanger, view Misplaced Pages as politically biased. Misplaced Pages has policies aimed at neutrality (NPOV - Neutral Point of View), and there's a significant effort by some in the community to reduce bias through collaborative editing, which can mitigate individual editor biases over time. ] (]) 06:33, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

			::The opening post is fine in my book (it could suggest specific improvements in addition to speaking more generally). Your comment is not directly related to improvement of this article, is too meta for this page, and qualifies as ] vio. I suggest ]. ―] ] 07:19, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
	In contrast, the Business Career section outlines all of his businesses.
			{{cob}}

			:Thank you for commenting. ] our Manual of Style: {{tq\|In Misplaced Pages, the lead section is an introduction to an article and a summary of its most important contents.}} You’re quoting portions of the lead and then state your opinion on them. You have a right to your opinion, but Misplaced Pages content is based on reliably sourced material. '''Please, read the body of the article and the reliable sources cited there'''. If you believe material and/or sources to be false or misrepresented, present the reliable sources that support your view. Please, also look at the sources Misplaced Pages considers to be reliable. You can find the list in ]. ]] 10:09, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
	Is there anybody else here who would like to revert it? --] (]) 20:24, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
			:{{Ping\|Dale Albert}} you're at least partly right. ] (]) 11:43, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

			:I agree with @]'s conclusions on this matter. While the statement "Misplaced Pages content is based on reliably sourced material" may be true in a technical sense, it fails to address the deeper issue of selective sourcing and framing within this article. Even if the claims are based on reliable sources, they appear to have been deliberately cherrypicked to cast Trump in a negative light. For instance, including in the lead the statement, "After his first term, scholars and historians ranked Trump as one of the worst presidents in American history," may be factually accurate, but it raises serious questions about relevance and balance. Is this truly the most critical information to feature in a summary of Trump? What about scholars and historians who hold opposing views or argue that he doesn’t rank among the worst presidents?
	:Agreed. I took it out earlier but it got reverted. I think I'm allowed to revert that under 1RR? ]<sup>]</sup> 21:05, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
			:Furthermore, this retrospective assessment feels increasingly irrelevant and outdated given that Trump has now returned to office. His presidency once again becomes active today, meaning any historical ranking from his prior term is incomplete and potentially misleading. Instead of presenting a balanced and current overview, the article seems to prioritize narratives that reinforce a one-sided perspective. This undermines Misplaced Pages's goal of neutrality and fairness, especially on such a polarizing subject. For a lead summary, relevance, balance, and up-to-date context are crucial, and this article falls short on all counts. ] (]) 14:22, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
	::Yes. The rule is, "one revert per editor per article per 24-hour period". You last edited the page on 12:27, 30 October 2016‎, so you can revert again after 12:27, 31 October 2016‎. It's 05:27, 31 October 2016 now, so you can revert.
			::You're welcome to participate in this article's development like anyone else. Otherwise, I would be interested to know what remedy you suggest. If some editors here are unable to check their biases at the door, your comment is not going to make them find Jesus and repent, and that means you're in violation of ] as much as the editor collapsed above. We follow Misplaced Pages policy here; if that's not sufficient, the flaw is with the policy, not the editors. You can discuss policy at ]. ―] ] 15:32, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
	::] is welcome to argue for his edit in Talk, but if he changes it without discussion, I'll revert it. --] (]) 05:28, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
			:::Re your comment "you're in violation of ]" — Could you explain that using excerpts from ]? Thanks, ] (]) 15:53, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
	:::The TOC limit of 3 was longstanding until {{u\|Bastun}} removed it yesterday. I reverted this out of usability reasons, because the expanded TOC would cover more than one screenful on a typical laptop screen. I hear the argument that a lot of relevant content is hidden in subsections but the lead is already an accurate summary of such contents, including controversial stuff; I see no pressing need to bludgeon the TOC. Now under DS per the edit notice, {{tq\|you must not reinstate any challenged (via reversion) edits without obtaining consensus on the talk page}}. As I reverted your change to a longstanding situation, the onus is on you to obtain consensus for an expanded TOC. — ] <sup>]</sup> 05:52, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
			::::Discussion not directly related to improvement of this article violates at least the spirit of NOTFORUM. This is a widely accepted principle. General blue-sky about bias cannot be ''directly'' related to improvement of the article—as I said, it can't have any effect on the article's content. The way to affect the article's content is to participate in the process, not to discuss bias. This also violates the spirit of consensus 61, by the way. ―] ] 16:22, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

			:::It's incredibly obvious that there is no real attempt at neutrality, especially on this page. To act as if only a few editors have a teeny bias against Trump is disingenuous when studies have proven time and time again that Misplaced Pages has a major left-wing bias, at least in the United States. It's also disingenuous to act as if by citing sources like the New York Times that Misplaced Pages is being unbiased when the Times and most other "reliable" sources have demonstrated clear bias for years. ] (]) 16:04, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
	::::Usability is an issue, true, but is that much of one? One or two swipes of a mousepad or mousewheel or a press or two of the PageDn key and you're there. Compare to the usability issued raised by hiding main topics - people visiting this page are probably a lot more interested in the current allegations facing Trump rather than his flirtation with professional wrestling some years ago. ]<sup>]</sup> 20:31, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
			::::I won't do it myself, but I would support closure of this thread if this kind of commenting continues. The very fact that it applies to far more than this article is a clear clue that it has no place on this page. ―] ] 16:42, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
	:::::As I said, with the TOC limits, the "Sexual misconduct allegations" became invisible. <s>They weren't mentioned in the introductory summary either. (I'd have to check, but I think that when people tried to include them in the summary, some people objected and defeated that edit too.)</s> When I read a page, I assume that I can get a good idea of the contents by reading the <s>summary and the</s> TOC, and I think other readers would too. Now they can't. <s>There's no hint that the article deals with sexual misconduct allegations.</s> Can you address that problem? --] (]) 20:56, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
			:::::No offense, but that's a pretty disingenuous idea. It's objectively true that this article, like just about every article on politics, seriously fails to be neutral. Deleting a thread in the talk page just because you don't like it basically proves this point. ] (]) 17:20, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
	::::::The TOC limit was in place {{diff\|\|709425806\|\|in March 2016}}, several months before the sexual misconduct allegations emerged. Those are unrelated developments of the article. Besides, TOC placement of this section was discussed earlier at ] (question raised by Bastun as well), to no effect. — ] <sup>]</sup> 09:36, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
			::::::If my argument was that I don't like it, you would have a point. ―] ] 17:33, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
	:::::::I think the discussion at ] still stands and was not resolved. First you claim that the sexual allegations are part of the campaign, and should be subheads of the campaign; then you claim that the outline is too difficult to read because it has too many subheads so you eliminate the subheads. You claim that the sexual allegations were not a major issue. Now they are a major issue. The TOC is organized in such a way as to hide them in the body of the text. Headling level 3 manages to obscure the sexual allegations. ] and I feel that the goal of making the subect accessible to the reader outweighs the problem of limiting it to 1 screen on your laptop. It doesn't fit on 1 screen in other monitors, including mine, anyway.
			::::::And you just subjectively proved Mandruss's point. ]] 17:49, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
	:::::::Why don't you think it's important to make the subject of sexual allegations easy to find in the body? --] (]) 14:11, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
			::::Reliable sources: that's a discussion to be held at ]. ]] 17:08, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
	::::::::{{re\|Nbauman}} Please read my words again: I don't "claim" anything here about where the sexual allegations should be placed or how much weight they should have; my position on this question is in the relevant RfC. This TOC discussion is not a content dispute between you and me about the sexual allegations, hence I have no answer to "why do I think it's important". I just pointed out that if you want to change the longstanding TOC limit, you must obtain consensus. As you noted yourself, the previous discussion at ] "was not resolved", i.e. did not show consensus for Bastun's proposal, so the status quo prevailed. — ] <sup>]</sup> 18:40, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
	::::~~:::::]~~, So ~~your~~ ~~position~~ is ~~that,~~ ~~when~~ you ~~decide~~ on the ~~TOC level, the question~~ of ~~whether~~ a ~~more~~ ~~detailed~~ ~~TOC~~ ~~would~~ ~~make~~ it ~~easier~~ ~~to read the~~ article ~~doesn't matter, is that correct? --~~] (]) 19:30, 1 ~~November~~ ~~2016~~ (UTC)		::::Again, please go the village pump if you want discuss the policies of Misplaced Pages, because this problem is bigger than just this one article. ] (]) 02:37, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
			::So present the majority of reliable sources that contradict our "selective sourcing and framing", e.g. {{tq\|scholars and historians who hold opposing views or argue that he doesn’t rank among the worst presidents}}. ]] 16:57, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
	::::::::::{{re\|Nbauman}} No. I didn't "decide" the TOC level; some editor did that 6 months ago and wasn't challenged until Bastun's edit. My position is that changing a longstanding TOC limit in order to emphasize a recently-added controversial topic is a poor attempt to grab readers' attention. Were your premise true (i.e. claiming that somehow the TOC limit was introduced on purpose to hide the groping scandal), I would have supported your position. But it's false, so I don't. — ] <sup>]</sup> 20:57, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
			{{Quote box
	:::::::::::I did not say that the TOC limit was introduced on purpose to hide the groping scandal. My position is that, whether or not it is a long-standing TOC limit, the final result is to make it more difficult for the reader to find a topic that many of them are interested in. Do you agree that it would be easier for the reader to find the sexual allegations in the body if it were in the TOC? --] (]) 23:04, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
			\|quote = A statement that all or most scientists or scholars hold a certain view requires reliable sourcing that directly says that all or most scientists or scholars hold that view. Otherwise, individual opinions should be identified as those of particular, named sources. Editors should avoid original research especially with regard to making blanket statements based on ]. Stated simply, any statement in Misplaced Pages that academic consensus exists on a topic must be sourced rather than being based on the opinion or assessment of editors. ]s, especially those printed in academic review journals that survey the literature, can help clarify academic consensus.
	{{od}} {{re\|Nbauman}} You wrote: {{tq\|with the TOC limits, the "Sexual misconduct allegations" became invisible.}} This is wrong; they didn't "become" invisible because of the TOC limit, they always were, by virtue of being written months later. You also wrote: {{tq\|The TOC is organized in such a way as to hide them in the body of the text}}, implying intent to hide. I say there's no intent to hide anything; there was a long TOC on a {{t\|very long}} article and it was accordingly limited in depth 6 months ago. Recently this groping affair emerged and was placed under the "Presidential campaign" section, so it was not mentioned in the TOC. <small>(Note in passing that contrary to your assertions I was not involved in adding this content or discussing its hierarchical placement.)</small> Now you and Bastun argue that this incident is worth mentioning in the TOC and I argue that the TOC would become unwieldy if we lifted the limit. Clearly I won't convince you and you won't convince me. Unless other editors weigh in strongly one way or another, we should leave the matter to rest. — ] <sup>]</sup> 01:24, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
			\|author = Misplaced Pages
	:No, you're putting words in my mouth. I said that the sexual misconduct allegations became invisible when you reverted Bastun's change. There may not have been an intent to hide, but it had that effect. The TOC limit 3 may have been acceptable when it was first included, when the article was simpler, but now as the article has grown more complex, the TOC limit 3 is no longer acceptable because it has the effect of obscuring important issues, like the sexual misconduct allegations. Because the article is more complex, we should have a more detailed TOC to help readers get through it.
			\|source = ]
	:I don't know that we do have consensus to keep TOC limit 3. Bastun and I want to expand it, you want to keep it. Consensus isn't a vote; you have to give reasons. You can't just arbitrarily vote no because you don't like it. I'm trying to figure out your objection so I can answer it, and I would like you to give me an answer.
			\|width = 50%
	:My question, again, is, "Do you agree that it would be easier for the reader to find the sexual allegations in the body if it were in the TOC?" Could you please answer that question? --] (]) 19:29, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
			\|align = right
	::See the ArbCom remedies message box near the top of this page, in particular: "Consensus required: All editors must obtain consensus on the talk page of this article before reinstating any edits that have been challenged (via reversion)." The edit to change the TOC limit was challenged, and it currently lacks consensus. That is all that matters at this point. If your argument is convincing, it will win consensus and the edit will be reinstated; if not, it won't and it won't. To date, after more than 3 days, I see two editors supporting the change, and that is not a consensus by any measure. User JFG is not required to convince you that you're wrong, and you don't get to declare consensus because they have not satisfied you that they have a viable argument (we don't get to be the arbiters of our own discussions and I'm sure you can see why that could not work). ―] ] 08:34, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
	:::I'm trying to obtain consensus. The way to obtain consensus is to have all the parties explain what their arguments are for and against a position, and then examine the basis of their arguments. I am trying to find out ]'s objection to expanding the TOC. The first reason he gave me is that it was decided months ago. His main reason seems to be ].
	:::My reason for changing it is that it will make the article easier to read. I'm trying to find out whether JFG agrees, disagrees, or doesn't care. My best understanding is that he doesn't care. That's not a good reason for establishing consensus. Consensus isn't a majority vote.
	:::Since you're weighing in on it, ], maybe you could give me your answer. Do you think the article would be easier to read if the TOC were expanded? --] (]) 18:46, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
	::::{{ping\|Nbauman}} Without an outside, uninvolved closer, it pretty much is just a vote. Empirical evidence strongly suggests that it is not in human nature to concede that one's opponent has the stronger argument, and no one can force them to concede. How many times have you done that? And I mean conceding entire issues, not just an individual point here and there. I used to be very aggravated by the fact that my proposal could be defeated by simply !voting against it, without addressing my points, but I've gotten used to it as part of my wider DGAF survival strategy. It's just the way it is. (This is not a commentary on this thread, just my general observation. But I will say that you should stop asserting ] because your opponent's arguments don't make any sense to you; a bad argument in your view is not absence of argument.) If you fail to gain consensus and feel strongly enough, start an ].<br />I have no opinion about the TOC limit. ―] ] 00:36, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
	::::For the record, I disagree, and it's not a matter of "not liking it". First, from a ] and ] standpoint, long menus are painful to scan and they get skipped, yielding the opposite of the OP's desired effect. Second, I also disagree with lifting the limit for the express purpose of steering readers' attention to the groping scandal. This information is easy enough to find by reading the lead (which comes before the TOC) or using the search box where "Trump" combined with any terms like "kissing", "groping", "assault", "rape", "bragging" or "grabbing" will promptly lead curious readers to ] ] fully dedicated to this topic. Oh, and a good chunk of ] too, with no less than ] ]. — ] <sup>]</sup> 21:01, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
	:::::I know a bit about user interface design and ergonomics. I have a copy of Henry Dreyfuss' ''Measure of Man''. Your link to "User interface design" discusses usability testing. I doubt that you've done usability testing on Misplaced Pages TOCs. So the fact that there is such as thing as usability testing doesn't support your claim, since you haven't done it. If you did usability testing, you might find that your subjects wanted a more detailed TOC. So it does look like it's simply a personal preference.
	:::::What other objections do you have, besides simply not liking it? --] (]) 22:29, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
	::::::I gave you lots of reasons but you are not listening, and I will point out that your proposal can also be construed as a personal preference. If you want to assess community support for this change, open an RfC. — ] <sup>]</sup> 23:36, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

	:I agree with Nbauman that the heading depth should be bumped up for this article. It's important to enable readers to find the subsections under "Presidential campaign, 2016," which I suspect they are most interested in these days. --] (]) 21:13, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
	::If people want to read about the campaign, they'll click the campaign heading. Or the sidebar. Or a link in the lead. Or use the search box. We have plenty of navigational aids already. If some content is deemed more important than some other, it can be bumped up a level. Finally, the article will ], so leave it be for now. We are all wasting our time arguing inconsequential minutiae. — ] <sup>]</sup> 23:36, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
	*The article should remain with the default TOC for reasons well-articulated by others in this section. There seems to a trend lately of hiding unfavorable navigational links which is very bad precedent to set, and it runs afoul of ].- ]] 12:09, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
	*: TOC limit 3 was in place long before the material in question was added. If any use of TOC limit is presumed to be for ulterior reasons, why does it exist as an option? Or is that presumed only in highly contentious political articles? What evidence do you have of this motive? If this material is important enough that it really needs to be in the TOC, why is it at level 4? I've said above that I have no opinion as to this issue, and I have none, but I do object to your reasoning. ―] ] 12:20, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
	*::It's at TOC level 4, {{u\|Mandruss}}, because when I moved it to TOC level 3, I was told "No, the groping and sexual assault allegations from years ago are only prominent now because of Trump's presidential campaign so they must be included as a subsection of that" and got reverted. And of course the allegation of a rape of a minor and upcoming court hearing aren't included because... well, yeah... ]<sup>]</sup> 12:52, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
	*::My conclusion that there is "a trend lately of hiding unfavorable navigational links" is based on observation, synthesis, and inductive reasoning. For style and ease of access reasons, there should be good reasons to deviate from a default, and I have seen none so far. There also needs to be consensus, which clearly doesn't exist.- ]] 12:37, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
	*:::I think ] sets a higher bar than observation, synthesis, and inductive reasoning, which are completely subjective by nature as you know. As for burden of consensus, it falls on the editors wishing to make the change, not those wishing to deviate from a default, per the ArbCom restrictions laid out near the top of this page. Unless a lie has been told, the TOC limit 3 was in place for six months and the disputed edit was the one that removed it. Your only viable case is that there is a consensus for that edit here, and that is very borderline. I'm not going to revert you for making a flawed argument on multiple counts. ―] ] 12:45, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
	*::::I stop assuming good faith when multiple edits and multiple comments demonstrate bad-faith. The failure to revert a bold edit does not establish much of a consensus, and the apathy/inertia allowing it to remain in place for six months doesn't either (see ], ], and ]). Once a couple of editors objected to the original bold edit, the silent consensus was negated. There is no first-mover advantage at Misplaced Pages.- ]] 13:01, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
	*:::::I am unable to reconcile that reasoning with the ArbCom restrictions. Given that choice, I'll continue to go with ArbCom. ―] ] 13:14, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
	*:::::{{re\|MrX}} I just noticed that you restored the contested edit of the TOC level, {{diff\|\|747794083\|\|claiming a consensus}} which is not apparent from this discussion. As {{u\|Mandruss}} advised you that this can be considered a violation of the ArbCom decision, I suggest you self-revert. Note that I appreciate {{u\|Awilley}}'s work to reduce the number of level-4 headers, thus improving legibility and navigation. — ] <sup>]</sup> 17:16, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
	*::::::{{U\|JFG}}, I count four editors who support the standard TOC levels, and one who does not. Given that the arguments for and against have similar weight, that seems like a firm consensus to me. I also support Awilley's edits to reduce the number of sections headings.- ]] 17:32, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

	:Can we please stop bickering about editors' motives and focus on what is best for the article? My analysis is that really only two content-based arguments have been made. Some folks want the limit increased to 4 to give the campaign subsections greater visibility, and some folks want the limit to stay at 3 to improve legibility and navigation. Discuss. --] (]) 17:29, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

	::Imposing a limit of 3 ''worsens'' navigation, {{u\|DrFleischman}}. I - like most readers, I'd imagine - have no interest in reading about Donald ringside at Wrestlemania Whatever. I ''do'' want to read the latest version of the section on allegations of sexual misconduct and would like to be able to jump to that section easily. On a mobile phone or tablet, especially, that's ''much'' easier to get to when the TOC limit is 4 rather than 3... ]<sup>]</sup> 18:14, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

	: With the recent streamlining of some unnecessary level-4 headers, the TOC is coming to a reasonable size. The only level-3 sections which are still broken down into level-4 subsections are his real estate career, the 2016 presidential campaign and his political positions. I would agree that all three of those deserve more detail: the real estate because it has been his main activity for several decades, the campaign and positions because they are the main theme of his life and reader interest today. That being said, I feel that within the campaign section, it is unbalanced to have 2 subsections out of 5 dedicated to the recent sexual innuendo and accusations. I suggest listing the ''Access Hollywood'' section under the main ''Sexual misconduct allegations'' section, because it's the event that triggered the outcry and prompted other people to pursue this affair. If my fellow editors agree to this balancing redistribution, I will be happy to keep a level-4 TOC. — ] <sup>]</sup> 18:30, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
	::Isn't it great how things turn out when we all work together? {{emoji\|1F60F}}- ]] 18:45, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
	:::On the "ergonomics," I was using an iPad yesterday which displayed the page in "reading view," which ignored TOC limit 3 and gave all levels. So according to the algorithms that generate reading view, the TOC limit 4 is easier to read.
	:::And on my own monitor, which is set to the Misplaced Pages default for number of lines, the TOC limit 3 takes more than 1 screen anyway. So what JFG is really saying is that it looks better on his monitor (even if it doesn't look better on anybody else's monitor).
	:::So this "ergonomics" justification doesn't hold up.--] (]) 21:11, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
	::{{u\|JFG}}, that sounds like a great idea. ] (]) 01:58, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

	:: ] - that seems a good side-suggestion, but maybe I've got a better one for re TOC level. Just raise the 2016 campaign to a level 1 item, and all its subsections up a level too. For the non-iPad user it's still an ergonomics navigation and readability issue to have just too much. The TOC is for rapid navigation within the article and sense of overall structure, and having many screens means it's less helpful to do navigation and overall structure is harder to see, plus the lower details are gonna be not seen. We've gotten to 5+ pgdns before I see article so into diminishing returns -- the lead is 2 screens so I'm into TL:DR skipping past the sex para to get to TOC so I can get to the topical interest, and having the TOC add layers is more to skip past where I'm seeing the top level and next level and more than any below that is visual junk to be skipped over. (And half of you have hit TL:DR and aren't reading this anymore...) Anyway, I'll suggest instead to move the 2016 election OUT of past politics to be it's own section, which I think would be appropriate for it's significance and duration and would also raise up the TOC level of it's parts so the sex maniacs do not mangle it more than need be.
	:: p.s. I think we're only seeing this issue because folks are puting too much detail re campaing into this BLP page instead of the article on that topic. I'm noting the ] bio has 2016 election as one section 1 level not 3 levels, and 2.5 pgdns (due to photos) not 7.5. So maybe a multi-article navigation issue causing a TOC-problem here. (Unless folks are just feeling his life and material is just more noteworthy and covered so ] getting more WP space, but that ... seems a different topic than TOC :-}. Cheers ] (]) 04:53, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
	:::{{re\|Markbassett}} You illustrate my point very well: overly long and detailed TOCs get skimmed and skipped, negating their purpose in giving a clear overview of the subject matter at hand. I have considered your suggestion to move the 2016 campaign up a notch but it strikes me as illogical to detach it from the ''Politics'' section and put it on the same footing as, say, ''Appearances in popular culture''. Trump's life has three overarching themes: real estate, entertainment and politics; the current top-level structure reflects this nicely. Depending on election results, the Politics section will grow or shrink and the article ]., as suggested earlier by {{u\|JasperTech}}. To your other point, comparing the structure of this page to Hillary Clinton's article, this simply reflects the natural difference between Trump spending his life in business and Clinton spending her life in politics. Biographical articles do follow the subject's life development, regardless of which section is deemed more interesting or more in demand. I agree that Trump's bio page currently has too much detail about this campaign, and I'm sure that will change over the next few months (either as it shrinks for lack of relevancy if Trump loses or as it morphs into describing the formative period of the Trump presidency if he wins). — ] <sup>]</sup> 05:37, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
	::{{ec}} {{Done}} I have grouped the sexual allegation material into a single section and I hereby endorse the full TOC display. — ] <sup>]</sup> 05:00, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

	== Trump email controversy ==

	I believe we should cover the Trump email controversy somewhere in the article. As ''Newsweek'' notes, "Trump’s companies have systematically destroyed or hidden thousands of emails, digital records and paper documents demanded in official proceedings, often in defiance of court orders." --] (]) 20:32, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
	:That seems pretty big, especially the part about the Hard Rock Casino e-mails. I'd wait a couple of days and see whether/how the rest of the media picks it up. It certainly seems newsworthy to me. --] (]) 20:48, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
	::@DrFleischman, that's the point, we are NOT the news. If this is the type of horsesh$t that's going to be added to the BIO, its time to lock this down. --] (]) 14:59, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
	:::It's from a reliable source. The view that this is "horseshit" is your own. You're welcome to go argue on WP:RSN that Newsweek is "horseshit".] (]) 15:01, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
	:::More sources , , , as well as older stories which began just scratching the surface , .] (]) 15:04, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
	::::Who the F cares that's its from a reliable source? That doesn't mean automatic inclusion in the article? --] (]) 15:06, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

	:The relevant material has been removed by User:Malerooster with an edit summary ... which is really just one big personal attack. Note that the material is well sourced.] (]) 14:39, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
	::If the shoe fits. --] (]) 14:56, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
	:::You might want to read ] again and note the article is under discretionary sanctions. And what your edit summary shows is that your revert is completely spurious.] (]) 15:01, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

	:::Malerooster, you've been around long enough to know better. The material is reliably sourced, and pertinent to this BLP. Trump has criticised Clinton strongly over email management and now it turns out he's been doing much the same thing for years longer. Trump has made this extra-relevant. --] (]) 15:16, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
	::::@Pete, ''he's been doing much the same thing for years longer'', now that's some serious horsesh#t. --] (]) 15:24, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
	:::::Do you have anything constructive to add to the conversations or are you just going to refer to other users' comments as "horseshit"? ] (]) 15:26, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
	:Agree with Dr. Fleischman that we should wait and see how the media picks it up. The fact it is sourced is irrelevant, it at also must be significant. Per ], "discussion of isolated events, criticisms, or news reports about a subject may be verifiable and impartial, but still disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic. This is a concern especially in relation to recent events that may be in the news." While it is tempting to compare this story to Clinton destroying emails, the difference is Clinton's destroying emails is important because it is part of the narrative about whether or not her use of a private email server violated national security (when she was Secretary of State). The investigation into the alleged security lapse was news for months, while few if any of the cases in which Trump allegedly destroyed emails received any attention. ] (]) 15:19, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
	::I initially thought we should wait also, but now it's has been covered in a few very solid sources (in addition to the ones presented above, there's also '', , , , ''), so I think a sentence or two would be appropriate right now, and more can be added as the story develops. What makes it noteworthy is that Trump accused Clinton of the same thing. - ]] 15:46, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
	:::Plus the whole "often in defiance of court orders" part. – ] (]) 16:13, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
	: Wait. No indication this will be a lasting campaign issue much less a biographical one. ] (]) 16:23, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
	: Wait. If we included every Trump-scandal-of-the-day, the article would be overwhelmed. Wait and see if it becomes more than a 24-hour story, or if it becomes a campaign issue. --] (]) 16:59, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
	::I can't remember any time during this election when something like this blew over, but I guess it's possible. Certainly there's nothing wrong with waiting a day or two to see where this goes.- ]] 17:27, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
	This again follows the pattern of: 1) Verified material covered by multiple reliable sources gets added to an article. 2) As it's perceived as being negative to Trump, it gets removed. 3) "Debate" follows, with various policies quoted, but no clear consensus can obviously emerge so partisan editors effectively keep out the negative material prior to the election. I've not checked the equivalent Clinton article, but I'm sure it's talk page doesn't include contributions from the same editors who are here quoting ], ] and similar, in relation to the latest "FBI investigating Clinton for emails she didn't send" story. I find it hard to believe this is what Arbcom actually intended. ]<sup>]</sup> 17:19, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
	:If you did go to the Clinton talk page, you would then realize your analysis above is horsesh#t. Sorry Volunteer Marek, sh$t is sh&t, and just calling a spade a spade, too bad if you don't like. --] (]) 17:27, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
	::Is your '''''i''''' key broke? Maybe you can find a replacement at ].- ]] 17:33, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
	:I'm in favor of immediate inclusion of this content, now that {{u\|Volunteer Marek}} and {{u\|MrX}} have provided additional sources. And I think {{u\|Malerooster}}'s arguments should be disregarded, as repeatedly calling the story "horseshit" with nothing more is classic ]. --] (]) 17:44, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
	::Include it. Put it in the LEAD. Idiots. --] (]) 19:49, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
	:::{{ping\|Malerooster}} ], ], ]. – ] (]) 20:18, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

	:This is a clear example of ]. Trump has been headline news every day for over a year, and has been a world famous celebrity for over thirty years. Not every story deserves mention let alone its own section. Generally too, stuff like that should not just pop out but should either be included in a section about his business methods or as part of the specific cases where they arose. It seems like this is an attempt by the DNC to counter the Clinton email scandal, and hence its only relevance is to the campaign articles. But it looks like it's not working, and hence has minimal weight. ] (]) 02:51, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
	::It's not recent. He's been doing this for years. Nor is it confined to one episode - it's obviously something pertinent to the man, rather than just one aspect. --] (]) 03:40, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
	:::No, it's recentism. This article is dominated by editors who are unambiguously anti-Trump. There is zero way around this fact. ] ] 05:19, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
	::I agree that a section is undue. But a paragraph is appropriate in my view. --] (]) 06:12, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
	:::You sure there's not enough "meat" for its own little article? Like ] "encyclopedic" little gem. It could get to FA status, ya know... ] ] 06:59, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
	::::{{re\|Doc9871}} Of course ], duly {{diff\|\|747340498\|\|listed in Trump's sidebar}} too… {{facepalm\| }} — ] <sup>]</sup> 07:53, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

	FWIW - Concerning ''any'' controversies, both this article & ], should be left alone until ''after'' the prez election. ] (]) 18:06, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

	It looks like someone has created ]. It seems like that information should be included into this article or merged into ]. The standalone article seems very weak and unlikely to have any legs. ] (]) 18:28, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

	:Recentism is a personal essay, not a Misplaced Pages guideline. One of the purposes of Misplaced Pages is to have an encyclopedia that is current and up to date.
	:If something is wrong with the article, or something can be improved, I see no reason why it should wait until after the election. Readers are most interested in Trump while he's running for president. Is there something wrong with that? --] (]) 22:37, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

	:: {{reply to\|Nbauman\|}} May I question your bold claim that "''Recentism is a personal essay, not a Misplaced Pages guideline''". It's actually part of ] policy,
	:::: "Discussion of isolated news reports is a concern especially in relation to ''']''' in the ],"
	:: and ] policy,
	:::: "Misplaced Pages considers the enduring ] of persons and events. Most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion. Breaking news should not be emphasized."
	:: Compare with ''']''', which does focus on recent events. --] (]) 07:40, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
	:::], you are free to question my "claim." I don't think it's a "bold claim" to quote the actual text:
	::::]: This essay is not a Misplaced Pages policy or guideline; it is intended to be an explanatory supplement to the Misplaced Pages:Neutral point of view, Misplaced Pages:Notability, and Misplaced Pages:What Misplaced Pages is not policies.
	:::I would invite you to quote any text to show that WP:RECENTISM is an official policy or guideline, or has any official WP status, rather than some editors' unofficial interpretation of WP:NPOV and WP:NOTABILITY.
	:::I would also recommend that you quote more completely from ]:
	::::News reports. Misplaced Pages considers the enduring notability of persons and events. While news coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion. For example, routine news reporting on things like announcements, sports, or celebrities is not a sufficient basis for inclusion in the encyclopedia. While including information on recent developments is sometimes appropriate, '''breaking news should not be emphasized or otherwise treated differently from other information.'''
	:::That means breaking news is as acceptable if it meets the same criteria as any other content. That means reporting by multiple ]. ] doesn't mean deleting unflattering content, it means adding the subject's point of view.
	:::One of the problems with WP:RECENTISM is that editors use it as a justification to delete anything they don't like, when they can't find a good reason.
	:::I don't want to accuse people of editing with a bias for or against Trump, but the suggestion that we wait until after the election before including it seems conveniently favorable to Trump.
	:::In any case, the entry ] cites a USA Today story of June 13, 2016, and a Newsweek story of October 31, 2016. How recent is "recent"? Is 5 months enough? How many ]s are sufficient to give weight? Are the 21 cited in the references enough? --] (]) 22:08, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

	===Removal===
	Hey all. I removed the (short) paragraph in , citing BLP/UNDUE concerns, and I noted that I had also looked at ], where a consensus right now is difficult to see--but there's a lot of '''delete''' votes, and a number of '''merge''' votes, and some legitimate concerns, which strengthened my in my opinion. My invocation of the BLP is not unequivocal; it's a judgment call, and the moment you all have a decent consensus here on what to do with it, I will not stand in the way. This is going to be a matter of editorial consensus, so good luck with it.<p>BTW, my edit summary was so long that I had to remove "Undid edit by {{U\|Volunteer Marek}}", and I didn't want to make this personal anyway--so let me just say congrats that Auburn was ranked in the top ten. ] (]) 18:30, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
	:I think at the very least the ] should be linked somewhere. And we're coming for ya.] (]) 18:32, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
	::Oh I know that. I wonder, isn't it in one of these templates? The merge votes mentioned some "Legal affairs of DT" article, which seems valid, and I am sure that page is linked--and I would be surprised if there wasn't a link from the legal article to the email article. This is part of the balancing act for an article that's at AfD: is it valid to have a direct link from the main article? Somewhere in the text or more prominently right under a subject heading? But this is something y'all can settle here. Thanks VM, ] (]) 18:59, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
	:::I'd like you to explain exactly why you think there are Undue and BLP problems. Destroying evidence in a civil case is a serious offense, and according to the Newsweek story, Trump was sanctioned at least once and settled cases on unfavorable terms as a result. The Newsweek story was picked up by many ] who also thought it was significant. I've read the AfD and the arguments for deletion basically come down to ], or they don't like it because it's unfavorable to Trump, so I'd like a better reason, based on WP policies and guidelines. --] (]) 21:03, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
	::::{{U\|NBauman}}, it is not as big a story as many of the other stories going around right now--though probably well-verified, this is not a headline grabber, and for it to be included it should be big. Yuge. The second paragraph of ] is indicative: "Undue weight can be given in several ways, including but not limited to depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, and juxtaposition of statements." This certainly had prominence of placement, for instance. Now, that the votes you don't like at the AfD are examples of IDONTLIKEIT--well, I hope you see my point. As long as that AfD is running, and as long as it's not some obvious SNOW keep, we need to accept that the content is not unequivocally notable. But I don't have to defend the votes at the AfD (nor do you have to attack them) in order to see that there is a legitimate AfD, and that thus the content is still contentious. Get the consensus, and you can stick it back in. ] (]) 03:39, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

	==Tag restriction in edit box==

	Could someone please explain by what consensus or authorization this came from?

	{{tq\|Firm consensus is needed to re-install a POV tag above this article per discretionary sanctions. Please consider proposing it at the talk page, or getting attention of further editors other ways, like using an RfC or a section tag or an inline tag.}} ] (]) 22:59, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

	:It was added in on August 14, 2016 by administrator {{u\|MelanieN}} in response to another editor repeatedly inserting the POV tag. Maintenance tags, like everything else in this article, are subject to the arbitration remedies mentioned at the top of this talk page (]), meaning they shouldn't be restored without consensus. The POV tag is often used as a badge of shame, which is why it's so contentious. Additionally, this page already has over 1300 watchers, so adding the tag to attract more editors or encourage discussion (which is ongoing) is unnecessary. ]<sub>(])</sub> 23:19, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

	::{{U\|KINGOFTO}}, by one of our most-respected admins to listen to the experienced editors who have advised you to stop repeatedly adding the POV template to the top of this article. Your examples of how the article fails ] have been roundly refuted. Your conduct here has gone from annoying to full-on disruptive and tendentious. If you persist, I can almost guarantee that you're going to be blocked or topic banned. Please stop now.- ]] 23:44, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
	:::.- ]] 23:53, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

	==Discussion at ]==
	]You are invited to join the discussion at ]. - ]] 02:07, 2 November 2016 (UTC){{Z48}}<!-- ] -->

	== Political affiliation ==

	*<small>The following request copied from ] -- ] <sup>]</sup> 09:03, 8 November 2016 (UTC)</small>
	The infobox says that he was Democrat prior to 1987, but the Political Affiliation section either isn't clear on his pre-1987 standing or seems to suggest that he in fact leaned Republican. -] (]) 06:09, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

	:: '''Maybe wrong twice''': First, I see what looks like his registration history as Republican. Online I see it mentioned as 'he registered for the first time as a Republican' in July 1987 -- so never a Democrat. Second though, why is this included ??? If this template is a politician one, to reflect his party, then shouldn't that be the party he '''ran''' as and only in the yes that he did run or serve ? ] (]) 01:11, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

	== comma ==

	I believe that is incorrect. See e.g. .

	The relative clause here is non-restrictive, i.e. the sentence could equivalently be split into two: "Trump is ... a politician. He is the Republican nominee..."

	The relative clause cannot meaningfully be restrictive in this context, given the combination of the indefinite article in the main clause and the definite article in the relative clause. In other words, you could say "the politician who is the Republican nominee", but you can't say "a politician who is the Republican nominee" because there is ''by definition only one'' politician who is the Republican nominee.

	Maybe nobody cares, but I would think that the first sentence of a very high-profile article ought to be grammatically correct.

	--] (]) 15:51, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
	*'''Trump is a businessman who is also the Republican nominee'''. See, I just did it. Your argument is not grammatical, by the way--it's stylistic. Plus I don't agree that somehow "boasted" is informal and therefore incorrect--but that edit has already been reverted. ] (]) 17:42, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
	::No, they were saying "bragged" was informal, so "boasted" was better. But they have different connotations and "bragged" appears to be well sourced. --] (]) 19:18, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
	*Sorry, yeah, the other way around. I actually Googled around and "boasted" is verified as well--the LA Times, I think, had that in a headline. Either way, I don't care for that stylistic argument, and we had pretty much settled on "bragged", though not in the context of "bragged" vs. "boasted". "Boast" has a bit too much of an heroic, Anglo-Saxon connotation for me; "brag" strikes me as appropriate given the sources, but also given "braggadociousness". Thanks for the correction, ] (]) 20:19, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

	== New picture ==

	I think it's time to put a more appropriate image in the infobox.

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

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

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

	== Opening Sentence ==

	The opening sentence of the article contains a possible error. That sentence begins, "Donald John Trump (born June 14, 1946) is an American businessman, television producer, and politician . . . " That last word is incorrect. If Trump is elected president, he will be the first to attain that office who had never served in any prior political office or the military. That means that he won't become a "politician" unless he wins--and only then after he is inaugurated. And if he loses, of course, he will remain, as he himself says, a political outsider. In his speeches he has even declared plainly, "I am not a politician." It would, therefore, have been more correct to have written "political candidate" instead of "politician" in that sentence.

	] (]) 6:45 PM Eastern, November 8, 2016 <!--Template:Undated--><small class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added 23:46, 8 November 2016 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

	:This was previously discussed, and the consensus was that, as a candidate, he is a politician.--] (]) 06:18, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
	::I have removed "politician," as it is redundant to "president-elect" in the same sentence. --] (]) 16:41, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

	== Getting rid of his political stances after election ==

	Are we removing this after today? Seems pretty weird to let it stay there, Obama doesn't have a "policies" section. ] (]) 05:10, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
	:{{reply to\|User1937}} There is an article about the ]. Why would it be necessary to remove the "policies" section? ] (]) 06:49, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
	::I would agree with trimming or removing the "political stances" section, with a link to the main "Political positions of..." article. It was appropriate when he was a candidate, but that's behind us. It will soon be replaced by a "presidency" or "tenure" section detailing his major actions, positions, and proposals as president. --] (]) 16:40, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

	== When to update the article to president-elect? ==

	All major betting markets have him at 97-99% (the difference from 100% largely due to fees & commissions). Do we wait for AP to announce? ] (]) 05:50, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
	:We wait for anyone to call it, first off. And then we don't necessarily jump on the first call. Remember the 2000 election. – ] (]) 06:05, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
	::After two big newspapers announce it. God bless Donald Trump. ] (]) 06:32, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

	== If Trump Wins ==

	If Trump wins I made his President-Elect template.

	{{Infobox President
	\| name = Donald Trump
	\| image = Donald Trump August 19, 2015 (cropped).jpg<!-- This image has been placed following discussion. Do not alter without discussion. -->
	\| office = ]
	\| order = <!-- // DO NOT ADD 45TH PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES UNTIL JANUARY 20, 2017 Noon EST -->
	\| term_start = January 20, 2017
	\| term_end =
	\| vicepresident = ] (elect)
	\| succeeding = ]
	\| successor = Vacant
	\| birth_date = {{birth date and age\|mf=yes\|1946\|06\|14}}
	\| birth_place = ], ], ]
	\| birthname = Donald John Trump
	\| nationality = ]
	\| party = ]
	\| spouse = ]
	\| children = {{unbulleted list\|]\|]\|]\|]\|Barron Trump}}<!-- Omit mothers' names (as nonessential information customarily found in a Royalty infobox rather than a Person infobox). -->
	\| residence = ], New York, U.S.A.]
	\| alma_mater = {{unbulleted list\|]\|] {{small\|(])}}}}
	\| profession =
	\| occupation = Businessman
	\| religion = ]
	\| signature = Donald Trump Signature.svg
	\| website = {{url\|trump.com/biography\|Official website}}<br>{{url\|donaldjtrump.com/about\|Campaign website}}<!-- Primary ('Businessman • television producer') site goes above secondary ('politician') site, which disappears Nov 10. See Template:Infobox person style (microsoft.com/presspass/exec/billg). -->
	\| footnotes = <center>'''This article is part of a series about'''<br /><div style="font-size:120%">'''Donald Trump'''<br />] {{·}}<br />] {{·}} ] {{·}} ]<br />]{{·}}]<br />] {{·}} ]</div></center>
	}}		}}
			:::We don't need or have to do that ourselves. The sentence is badly referenced to begin with. See the quote to the right. ] (]) 17:29, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
	:Very good; thank you. ]<sub> ]•]</sub> 06:05, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
			::::Yes, you need and have to. This isn't an article about science. Where are we saying that all or most scientists or scholars hold a certain view? We're citing reputable C-SPAN and Siena College surveys of historians and scholars. ]] 17:41, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
			:I'm gonna soften my position slightly. I've long been aware that I have one position (we're okay) directed outward to people not actively working on this article (usually but not always non-editors), and a different one (we're not okay) directed inward. It's probably not a good thing to have both. I think "editorial judgment" is allowed to play too great a role in consensus—here and I assume at many, many other articles. That leaves articles vulnerable to the effects of uncontrolled editor biases. That said, ''this is not the place to discuss that problem, again because it's far larger than this article.'' This is not a proper use of any article talk page, and that's not a principle we invented. It should be discussed at ], and that's the sort of thing I avoid in my semi-retirement; I find it too stressful.{{pb}}If someone wishes to respond to this comment, they should do it at my user talk page. Hell, I'd be happy to host a whole big discussion about these meta issues, but participants should bear in mind that nothing will be changed on my UTP. For any chance of that, use VPP instead. ―] ] 22:57, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
			::You'll have a hard time convincing a lot of these editors to go there. It appears a lot of them simply think this issue applies to Trump's main article and other Trump-related articles and ''only'' those pages and not an issue that could apply to every WP article. ] (]) 02:39, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::That's fine. If editors continue to abuse this article talk page, I am confident that this thread will be closed. And it needn't be done by me, I have no doubt that a number of other frequenters of this page see eye-to-eye with me on this. ―] ] 02:43, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

			== travel ban formulation on lead, v2 ==
	:I would leave out nationality, residence, alma mater, occupation and religion. ] (]) 06:24, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
	::LOL!!! ] ] 06:34, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
	{{outdent}}Residence and occupation will change. It is assumed that the president is an American. Trump may have dual nationality as his mother was from the UK. Religion is no longer the defining feature it once was. I would leave out anything that is unimportant or ambiguous. ] (]) 06:41, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

			This has already been discussed on talk page, ], still to a formulation that excludes the word "refugee" from it. The word carries important meaning of the desired effect of Trump actions, it is well developed in the body and is more precise that just vaguely refering to some Muslims countries, since other Muslim countries that had partnership with the US were not included in the ban. It is a good formulation firstly made by @], if I remember correctly. Since BRD is in place it should be discussed on talk first if editors wants to keep it after a reversion. ] (]) 12:23, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
	For people born in 1946 British nationality was ] by descent through the ''legitimate male line''. You didn't get British nationality by having a British-born mother when you were born in the US to an American father. Trump is certainly no British citizen; the UK Parliament wouldn't . --] (]) 07:04, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

			== New Short Description ==
	::Residence is the '''WHITE HOUSE'''!!! :P <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 07:10, 9 November 2016 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
	:::Not yet, it isn't. --] (]) 16:36, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

			Because Trump just got inaugurated the 47th ] i think we should update his short description which still says that he is the ].
	== Climate change denial should be mentioned in the lead ==

			as a result we should change it from : President-elect and 45th president of the united states.
	His ] is mentioned in the body of the article, with several reliable sources ("Trump rejects the scientific consensus on climate change, repeatedly contending that global warming is a "hoax."). Many RS have discussed his climate change denial and how serious these views are, so this is certainly not a lesser issue, many RS agree it's one of the most important political issues when it comes to Trump. Therefore it should clearly be mentioned in the lead. --] (]) 07:28, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
			<br/>

			to : 45 & 47th President of the United States.
	:It has not received a lot of attention and therefore does not belong there (yet). ] (]) 07:49, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
	::IMHO, it ''has'' received a lot of attention (at least outside the US) although we may wait for a few days to put it in the lead. ] (]) 08:58, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
	:::It does not belong in the lede. The lede should mention only those things that he himself made into the major themes of his campaign (e.g. immigration and trade). Climate change is already in the body of the text, and it gets suitable attention at ]. --] (]) 16:35, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

			or use the alt version : President of the United States. ] (]) 18:00, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
	::::"The lede should mention only those things that he himself made into the major themes" – that the subject of an article gets to decide which issues that are covered in the lead is certainly not a recognised principle on Misplaced Pages or what ] says. Trump has himself made strongly contrarian statements on climate change and the environment and has said he wants to dismantle the Environmental Protection Agency. Clearly environmental policy is a very important topic and he holds strong views on it and has proposed radical policies in the field. --] (]) 19:47, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
	:~~::::Please~~ ~~have~~ ~~this~~ ~~discussion~~ ~~at ].~~ — ] ~~<sup>~~]~~</sup>~~ 23:06, 9 ~~November~~ ~~2016~~ (UTC)		:Why not just remove President-elect ? ] (]) 18:02, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
			::because it would still say that he is the 45th ] but that was in ] and now he is the 47th ] so thats why we should add 47th to it as well. ] (]) 18:06, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
	:::::"Clearly environmental policy is a very important topic" This statement is factually incorrect. You may think environmental policy is important but that is your opinion only. I don't think environmental policy is important. Further, the assertion that environmental policy is "clearly very important" is necessarily false... because it clearly is NOT important to me. So speak for yourself. ] (]) 16:49, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
			:Where does it still say, "president-elect" in the short description, it had been removed around 12pm. ] (]) 18:03, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
			::I think it should stay as "President of the United States (2017–2021, 2025–present)", as that is how it is written for the ] article. ] (]) 18:05, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::It also says "President of Russia (1999–2008, 2012–present)" on the article for ], another politician with multiple non consecutive terms. I agree with ]. - ] (]) 18:38, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::I agree but it isn't the same for ], as they don't number presidents the same way. ] (]) 18:41, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
			::If you search Donald Trump on the ] browser it says that he is the ].<br/> ] (]) 18:09, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::Must just take some time to update. It definitely says "President of the United States (2017–2021, 2025–present)" in the source code. If you want, you can try ] the cache to see if it changes. ] (]) 18:17, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::i can't edit it because i'm not an ]. ] (]) 18:20, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::They mean the cache your end. ] (]) 18:22, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

			== Superseding consensus #50, sentences 1 and 2 <span class="anchor" id="Updating consensus #50, lead sentence"></span> <span class="anchor" id="Superseding consensus #50, first paragraph"></span> ==
	== Donald Trump's Victory ==
			{{small\|Original heading: "Updating consensus #50, lead sentence" ―] ] 02:17, 21 January 2025 (UTC)}}

			Current wording: {{tq2\|The lead sentence is: Donald John Trump (born June 14, 1946) is an American politician, media personality, and businessman who served as the 45th president of the United States from 2017 to 2021.}} I propose to update it to read {{tq2\|The lead sentence is: Donald John Trump (born June 14, 1946) is an American politician, media personality, and businessman who serves as the 47th president of the United States.}}
	Donald Trump won the electoral college vote with 276 votes as of 7:44 am, Greenwich Time. <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 07:45, 9 November 2016 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
			Present tense makes clarifications such as "current" and "since 2025" redundant. ]] 18:12, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
			:The "47th..." ] (]) 18:36, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
			::Oops. {{Smiley2\|doh}} Replaced "serves as the 45th" with "serves as the 47th". ]] 19:45, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
			:What GoodDay said.{{pb}}Instead of amending #50, I think we should supersede it with a new consensus covering the whole first paragraph. That's what #17 did before it was superseded by #50. Otherwise, it's a new separate consensus for the second sentence, or leaving the second sentence unprotected by consensus. ―] ] 19:35, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
			:I'm in agreement with this proposal. Indeed, anything is better than "...who has served...". Also "current" & "since 2025" aren't needed. ] (]) 20:43, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

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

			===Sentences 1 and 2 proposals===
	] (]) 07:56, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
			*Proposals containing "current president of the United States": D, E, F, G
			*Proposals containing "previously served as the 45th": D, E, F, G
			*Proposals containing "e served as the 45th": A, B, C
			*Proposals containing "A member of the Republican Party": B, C, D, E, F, G
			*Proposals containing "is the 47th": A, B, G
			*Proposals containing "has been serving as 47th": D
			*Proposals containing "serves as 47th": E
			*Proposals containing "has been the 47th": C, F
			*Proposals containing "since 2025": C, D, E, F

			A:{{tq2\|'''Donald John Trump''' (born June 14, 1946) is an American politician, media personality, and businessman who is the 47th ]. He served as the 45th president from 2017 to 2021.}}
	== First Billionaire President? ==
			B:{{tq2\|'''Donald John Trump''' (born June 14, 1946) is an American politician, media personality, and businessman who is the 47th ]. A member of the ], he served as the 45th president from 2017 to 2021.}}
			C:{{tq2\|'''Donald John Trump''' (born June 14, 1946) is an American politician, businessman, and media personality who has been the 47th ] since 2025. A member of the ], he served as the 45th president from 2017 to 2021.}}
			D:{{tq2\|'''Donald John Trump''' (born June 14, 1946) is an American politician, businessman, and media personality who has been serving as 47th and current ] since 2025. A member of the ], he previously served as the 45th president from 2017 to 2021.}}
			E:{{tq2\|'''Donald John Trump''' (born June 14, 1946) is an American politician, businessman, and media personality who serves as 47th and current ] since 2025. A member of the ], he previously served as the 45th president from 2017 to 2021.}}
			F:{{tq2\|'''Donald John Trump''' (born June 14, 1946) is an American politician, businessman, and media personality who has been the 47th and current ] since 2025. A member of the ], he previously served as the 45th president from 2017 to 2021.}}
			G:{{tq2\|'''Donald John Trump''' (born June 14, 1946) is an American politician, businessman, and media personality who is the 47th and current ]. A member of the ], he previously served as the 45th president from 2017 to 2021.}}

			===Sentences 1 and 2 survey===
	Can this be added? Also this article: ] should be updated. ] (]) 08:11, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
	~~:We do not actually know his~~ ~~net~~ ~~worth~~. ] (]) 08:14, 9 ~~November~~ ~~2016~~ (UTC)		*B then A. ] (]) 07:37, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
			*B then A. ―] ] 08:00, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
	:We don't? Forbes says they do. Shouldn't we go by that? ] (]) 08:25, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
	~~::I think only a billionaire could afford a personal 757 jet~~. ] (]) 08:39, 9 ~~November~~ ~~2016~~ (UTC)		*G. ] (]) 08:01, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
			*A or B. "Current" and "previously" are redundant since we're mentioning the dates. ]] 13:53, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
	:::Also, we don't know the worth (in inflation-adjusted dollars) of previous presidents. In terms of their own day, Washington or Jefferson may have been billionaires. Leave it out. --] (]) 16:30, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
			*C followed by B. I replaced C with my own proposal (similar to F but without "and current" or "previously") because the one that was labeled as a MOS violation will clearly not win. –''']<sup> ] ]</sup>''' 21:09, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
	::::{{tq\|we don't know the worth (in inflation-adjusted dollars) of previous presidents.}} We appear to think we do. ―] ] 16:37, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
			*:I don't know if you noticed that the old C was one way-too-long sentence instead of two shorter ones. Plus the MOS vio. I was being ]y to include that, wanting to demonstrate the pitfalls of blind cross-article consistency to the proposer. You coulda left it and made yours H, saving some effort, but you're good. I'm too tired to check your work in the "Proposals containing" list. ―] ] 22:00, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
			*B then A. -] (]) 21:45, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

			== Infobox ==
	He still hasn't released his tax returns (the only presidential candidate in recent years not to do so), so no, we don't. ]<sup>]</sup> 18:15, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

			Concerning his being the 47th prez & previously the 45th prez. I'm assuming we're using the infobox of ], as how to handle this? ] (]) 18:39, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
	== Put Donald Trump won presidental election ==
			:I and apparently got reverted seconds later. ]] 18:43, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

			PS - I do 'kinda' understand though the potential false appearance of having 'incumbent' under 45th. That this would work better, after his second term ends. ] (]) 18:43, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
	Donald Trump won the presidential election. Add more stuff in this wiki! ] (] \| ]) 08:28, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

			Grover Cleveland is long dead and buried and his two presidencies are very much in the distant past. We have a live and living sitting president who was also president in the more recent past. I fixed the infobox to separate the two terms:
	== Infobox image ==
			{{cot\|Infobox A - separating the two terms}}
	I think it's time to change the lead image. The smiling Trump is reflective of the man who is now President-elect of the United States. Trump is not the man in deep contemplation but the man who contemplated a winning strategy and stands ready, and happy to serve.--] (]) 08:27, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
			'''{{Infobox officeholder
	:Agree, of course. The same goes for ], the pages about the Republican primaries, etc. We have , it's time to use it. This is not equivalent to "beating a dead horse" anymore. ] (]) 08:39, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
			\| image = TBA<!--DO NOT CHANGE THIS.[REDACTED] DOES NOT HAVE PERMISSION TO USE THE 2025 PORTRAIT. IT WAS TAKEN BY THE INAUGURAL COMMITTEE WHICH HOLDS THE COPYRIGHT FOR THE IMAGE. WHITEHOUSE.GOV HAS PERMISSION TO USE THE PORTRAIT;[REDACTED] DOES NOT. -->

			\| alt = Official White House presidential portrait.
	{{od}}I placed a new, less obscured image of Trump in the infobox.
			\| caption = Official portrait, 2017

			\| order = 47th<!-- DO NOT ADD A LINK. Please discuss any proposal on the talk page first. Most recent discussion at ] had a weak consensus to keep the status-quo (no link). -->
	If this is reverted, this image is the proposed image:
			\| office = President of the United States
	<gallery>
			\| vicepresident = ]
	File:Donald Trump speaking with supporters at a campaign rally at the Phoenix Convention Center.jpg\|Image 1
			\| term_start = January 20, 2025
	File:Donald Trump by Gage Skidmore 10.jpg\|Image 2
			\| term_end =
	File:President Trump 2.jpg\|Image 3
			\| predecessor = ]
	File:Donald Trump Arizona 2016.jpg\|Image 4 (cropped of Image 1)
			\| successor =
	</gallery>
			\| order2 = 45th President of the United States

			\| vicepresident2 = ]
	Placed this in the talk page just in case! --] (]) 08:43, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
			\| term_start2 = January 20, 2017

			\| term_end2 = January 20, 2021
	:It needs to be DISCUSSED first Gage/Calibrador, stop imposing it, most of us like to follow rules...--<span style="color:blue;font-weight:bold;font-size:medium;font-family: Monotype Corsiva;">]]</span> 08:58, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
			\| predecessor2 = ]

			\| successor2 = Joe Biden
	Reminder : this image has also been proposed (see section above and previous discussions) ] (]) 08:59, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
			}}'''

	:(moved image to gallery above)

	: ] is following the rules, but you are not. I agree with the logic of ], and I vote to keep the contribution of ]. Several others have already reverted your disruptive edit concerning this matter, ]. Please see WP on conduct—anything remotely percieved as bullying is to be avoided, and don't be resistant to allow others to contribute within guidelines. You're not the only user here, and so far you're the only one resistant to this edit. ] (]) 09:22, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

	::Sorry for placing it without discussion! One of the reasons I uploaded my image is that in the current image, the microphone is in the way. The other proposed image seen in the reminder has a microphone too but is not bad.--] (]) 09:03, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

	Also, here is another proposed image:
	:(moved image to gallery above)

	Should be enough options for now.--] (]) 09:12, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

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

	*Ok, I added a gallery now, its an easier method and makes it less congested, peopel can add more options (just make sure its an actual headshot and recent and not images from 2014 or before).--<span style="color:blue;font-weight:bold;font-size:medium;font-family: Monotype Corsiva;">]]</span> 10:54, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
	*1, 2 and 4 are fine as far as I'm concerned. What matters is that we have to replace the current photo ASAP. ] (]) 15:50, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
	*I like Image 2 the most but it would be better if the microphone was photoshopped out. 1, 3, and 4 are also feasible. Note that the photo of Trump on the ] article has been changed as well. ] ] 16:06, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
	*I vote for Image 4. ] (]) 16:44, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

	* '''Comment:''' Why don't we wait until his presidential picture is released? We are going to change this picture to only have to change it again soon. When will this non-sense end? <span style="color:#008080;">'''Chase'''</span>\|<sup><small style="font-size:75%;">]</small></sup> 23:10, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

	::::How long does it take for this official picture to be revealed? . As president elect of the United States, Trump should at least have a decent picture until the official one is unveiled.--] (]) 03:00, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

	* '''No change''' until his official portrait emerges. That was the consensus in zillions of prior discussions. — ] <sup>]</sup> 23:13, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

	* '''Change picture'''. Out of all the photos to chose from, this was obviously a negative POV choice. There's no reason not to change to an image with a formal pose. -- ] (]) 23:27, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

	* '''Change picture''' to 3 or 4. 3 is him grinning and not smiling as much while 4 is closer and shows him smiling. The current image shows him hunched over behind a microphone.--] (]) 02:56, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

	*'''No change''' per JFG, although zillions may be a slight overstatement. ―] ] 05:13, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

	* '''Change picture''' I don't like Trump, but he does look pretty damn presidential in picture #3 ] (]) 15:15, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

	'''How much longer is this going to go on?''' Pretty soon all of Trump's and Clinton's supporters that come to this page are going to line up and vote accordingly here. So we must let Misplaced Pages ] determine what photo is used. -- The existing photo of Trump, clearly wearing a frown with eyes shifted to his left, violates ], as it is a "disparaging" image of Trump. Since there are more formal pictures that could have been chosen, this is a POV issue as well. All president's biographies, and even that of ], present the subject with a favorable pose. We need to treat this biography like any other. The image should be changed now and administrators should make sure Misplaced Pages policy is maintained for all editors. -- ] (]) 00:09, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

	*'''Comment:''' Image 3 has been placed into the infobox for now since most agreed with in and because most agreed that the previous image was not NPOV. Image 3 can stay for now but if others want to agree on the other proposed images, decide below. The previous image, however, should not be placed back. At least for the next few months until his official portrait is unveiled, we can have a NPOV image for him.--] (]) 02:14, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

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

	Can we now please get a new picture of '''PRESIDENT ELECT TRUMP'''?--] (]) 17:08, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
	:This is under discussion ]. --] (]) 17:10, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

	: Seems not to matter now. The practice is to keep the official government photo of their last government position -- so in a couple months it would become his official Presidential Photo, and then it stays that forever. ] (]) 01:47, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

	::Agree. ―] ] 05:05, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

	This is my opnion but I don't think the new picture looks presidential with the black background and the expression on his face. I proposed a new picture in a new topic

	--] (]) 2:46, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

	::: Hello everyone,

	::: The only images we should be considering are those which A. include President-elect Trump smiling, and B. include an '''American flag''' in the background. This is the standard for literally all U.S. president's WP pages, and U.S. presidential candidate's WP pages. Therefore, only ''image # 2'' would qualify. We should change to this photo immediately, and if in a few months there is an 'official photo', we can later change to that one. ] (]) 12:03, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

	== Use of President-Elect ==

	Please correct me if I am wrong but isn't it premature to call Donald Trump President-Elect until the Electoral College elections occur in the 50 states and the District of Columbia. I thought there was something in the constitution about that where yes he is elected by popular vote but in order to be the President-Elect he needs to be elected by the Electoral College first and then and only then can he be called President-Elect and then upon swearing-in President of the United States. ] (]) 08:45, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
	:Almost all media organizations have referred to him as President-elect. I'd suggest looking back at the talk page archive of Barack Obama from around his election to determine the answer to your question. ] (]) 08:49, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
	::I completely understand what your saying. But I don't think he can be called President-Elect until after Electoral College vote. So this is what I'm going to do, in the morning I'm going to check an online version of the U.S. Constitution to see what exactly it says about this and will post a further response. But I invite other Wikipedians to chime in. ] (]) 08:57, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
	:::I'm sorry, he won. It's even on the main page. Time to admit it and update the lede.] (]) 09:14, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
	::::Precedent on Misplaced Pages is likely to yield a better result. ] (]) 09:15, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
	::::I'm not dispute that he won in fact I voted for him, all I'm saying is that it is my belief that he cannot be called President-Elect until the conclusion of the Electoral College vote. ] (]) 09:21, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

	:He is not the president-elect. He has not been formally elected by anyone, and whether he might be elected/appointed at a later point by the electoral college is pure speculation at this point. It also seems likely that Clinton will actually win the election in the normal sense of the word, as it is generally understood internationally (e.g. in the context of election observations), that is, she will receive the most votes (which however doesn't rule out the ''possibility'', not certainty, that the electoral college ''might'' elect the guy who got the least votes as president, a practice more associated with countries with a limited democratic tradition than with western countries). --] (]) 09:23, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
	::You are aware that Clinton conceded, right? This isn't an ongoing election. ]<sub> ]•]</sub> 09:26, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

	:::It is an ongoing election for Misplaced Pages's purposes because it is the electoral college who gets to elect the president, and until they have elected a president, there is no president-elect, only speculation about who seems likely to be elected by the electoral college. --] (]) 09:29, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
	::::Actually, by law, that's not the case.. According to the US Congress: "It will be noted that the committee uses the term "president elect" in its generally accepted sense, as meaning the person who has received the majority of electoral votes, or the person who has been chosen by the House of Representatives in the event that the election is thrown into the House. It is immaterial whether or not the votes have been counted, for the person becomes the president-elect as soon as the votes are cast." If you read the congressional discussions about the subject, waiting for the electoral college's official decision is not required. - ] (]) 09:39, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
	:::::I suggest you read that sentence again. It clearly refers to the person who has received the most votes in the electoral college. --] (]) 09:42, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
	::::::That's exactly what it says and what has happened in this case. The law refers quite clearly to "apparent successful candidates" for president and vice president to be qualified to be referred to as president-elect and vice president-elect. It does not say, as you suggest, that the electoral college must finalize their decision for it to take effect (and if you read the congressional discussions around this it reaffirms it). The law, and reliable sources, both support the descriptor. - ] (]) 09:45, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
	:::::::No, it doesn't, it says the opposite. There would be no point in having an electoral college if the vote by the electoral college wasn't necessary. --] (]) 09:51, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
	::::::::Your interpretations aside (apparent does not mean official or finalized), you're still arguing against reliable sources. Misplaced Pages uses reliable sources, rather than editorial interpretation of constitutional law. Do you have any reliable sources that support what you're trying to say? Because all the sources I'm finding support the descriptor. - ] (]) 09:55, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

	::What you're referring to as winning the election "in the normal sense of the word" is irrelevant to that, since that's not how the president is determined. Even if she won the popular vote, that would not mean he is no longer the president elect, nor would it change the fact that reliable sources are saying, without doubt, that he is the president elect. Misplaced Pages uses reliable sources, and reliable sources support "president elect" being a descriptor for the lede. - ] (]) 09:29, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

	It may be technically/legally correct to say he is not really the president-elect until the Electoral College has met and acted. But at Misplaced Pages we follow Reliable Sources, and sources are unanimous in referring to him as president-elect. --] (]) 09:54, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
	:I don't think it's technically/legally correct to say Trump is not really the President-elect at all. The sources got it right, as Public Law 88-277 also stipulates that “President-elect” and “Vice-President-elect” ... "shall mean such persons as are the apparent successful candidates for the office of the President and Vice President, respectively, ... following the general elections ..." .--] (]) 10:26, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
	] I just looked through the text of both ] and the ], and neither one use the word "President-elect" nor make reference to when that title applies. Both items simply specify how the ] chooses the President and Vice-President, and when terms take effect, etc. etc. That's all. ]<sup>]</sup> 11:08, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

	==Reactions; description as far right and more==
	It is time to start working on a sub section or something on how the world reacts to the results, for instance, how he is first and foremost congratulated by far right figures (). We also need to revisit the issue at some point of how his position in the political landscape should be described; certainly there is a strong case for describing him as a far right politician in the first paragraph of the lead, based on coverage in reliable sources and his political positions and how they are assessed in reliable sources. --] (]) 09:34, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
	:This sounds extremely POV to me. And to be honest, I disagree. He is center-right. He is less socially conservative ("far right") than Ted Cruz for example.] (]) 09:58, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
	:: I don't think "far-right" is appropriate to describe him, and I don't think the "far right was first" info is significant. We should report the dramatic drop in value of the Dow Jones futures and other financial markets during election night, as it began to look more and more like a Trump win, but we should do that at the Presidential Election article, not here. --] (]) 10:01, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
	:His views are more far-right than any far-right party in Europe that I know of (as pointed out e.g. here). If banning Muslims from entering the US, building a wall against Mexicans and so on and so forth isn't far-right, nothing is. His views have also been widely described as such. Also, the reactions of Le Pen and other far right figures who were the first to congratulate him have been widely reported in reliable sources across the globe. --] (]) 10:08, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
	::I could explain why you're wrong, but I suggest closing this topic as per ].] (]) 10:42, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
	<Personal attacks and BLP violations removed.>--] (]) 10:44, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
	:This talk page, and this section, is for discussing improvements to the Misplaced Pages article on Donald Trump. Please stay on topic. --] (]) 10:48, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
	::And this is not a forum. Close please.] (]) 10:51, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
	::]: I don't think ]'s comment . It was based on RS.] (]) 15:54, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
	:::Was it? ] applies to all pages, not just articles. The removed material egregiously insulted a living person — I won't quote how, as that would kind of defeat the purpose — . I would have been remiss if I ''hadn't'' removed the insulting part. I suppose I could conceivably have left the rest, i. e. the ] attacks on other editors. But it's not like that was acceptable talkpage discourse either, so I didn't. I have warned the editor, btw. ] \| ] 16:21, 9 November 2016 (UTC).
	::::I don't see where the BLP violation would be?] (]) 23:36, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
	:::::Really. As I just said, I won't quote it here as that would defeat the purpose. I've e-mailed it to you. I hope I've spent enough time on this now. ] \| ] 23:50, 9 November 2016 (UTC).

	== Religion ==

	Since all articles about previous Presidents have religion in their infoboxes, I suggest adding:

	Presbyterian

	to the infobox. Or delete that parameter from all those articles?] (]) 11:51, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

	Hi Ernio, I added exactly that this morning and someone inexplicably removed it.

	I agree it should be re-added, however I do not want an edit war over something so empirical but also something so minor. But it belongs in the infobox like for any other President. --] (]) 22:11, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

	== When is the article getting unlocked? ==

	There isn't a lot being updated, because pretty much nobody is allowed to. ] (]) 15:02, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

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

	== Apples and pears ==

	In the sentence "At 70, he will be the ], surpassing Ronald Reagan, who was 69 when he won the election in 1980." we are juxtaposing winning (Reagan 1980) and becaming president (Trump 2017 ). Strictly speaking it should be:
	*At 70, he is the ], surpassing Ronald Reagan, who was 69 when he won the election in 1980.
	;or
	*At 70, he will be the ], surpassing Ronald Reagan, who was 69 when he became president in 1981.

	The first option is more durable, as — gramatically — it will still be valid after taking office. ] (]) 15:02, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
	::Why in the world does his age matter in the first place? Obama was the first black President (that's big), if Hillary won, she would've been the first female President (that's big), but the oldest person? ] (]) 15:07, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
	:::The section is not about the importance of the age, but about a factual inaccuracy. Naturally you are freely to tackle the issue of age in a separate section or with the people who introduced it. Having said that, I agree with you that it not of any importance. ] (]) 15:16, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

	::::Not ground-breaking. But, worth a sentence. ] (]) 15:18, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

	== Why are unproved accusations in the LEAD? ==

	The sexual accusations are all rumors, NOTHING has been proven. This should be removed, who's with me? ] (]) 15:16, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
	:Hear, hear. Remove.] (]) 15:39, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
	::I second this. There is as much evidence proven in a court of law that Bill Clinton is an offender: zero. Notice there's nothing about Hillary's e-mails in her lead (a case in which she was found to have done nothing wrong after two investigations). If (and it's a big if) Trump or Bill is ever indicted, tried and found guilty, it can go in. Until then, absolutely not. ] (]) 15:51, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

	: It is in the lead because this has been discussed in several RFC's (See: ) and consensus was to have it added to the lead as stated. Note: It is an "accusation" and it's is balanced with his denial of the allegations. ]<sup>]</sup> 16:08, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
	::@User:Cbs527, RfC is still open so there has not been consensus to have it added to the lead. --] (]) 16:12, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
	:::See "L̶a̶n̶g̶u̶a̶g̶e̶ ̶i̶n̶ ̶l̶e̶a̶d̶ ̶s̶e̶c̶t̶i̶o̶n̶ ̶a̶b̶o̶u̶t̶ ̶s̶e̶x̶u̶a̶l̶ ̶m̶i̶s̶c̶o̶n̶d̶u̶c̶t̶"̶ ̶#̶3̶ ̶a̶b̶o̶v̶e̶ [[Talk:Donald_Trump/Archive_31#Language_in_lead_section_about_sexual_misconduct\| Link for
	Language in lead section about sexual misconduct]] ]<sup>]</sup> 00:56, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

	There is consensus to include this after weeks of extensive discussion. --] (]) 17:22, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
	:Saying that Tataral, doesn't make it true.--] (]) 18:31, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

	== Presidential campaign, 2016 should be shortened ==

	It's really really long right now, especially the part about the sexual misconduct allegations (not even proven)... It's almost completely copied from the main article. The taxes bit is also a bit long. Should we trim it a bit? ] (]) 15:46, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
	:Yes, the allegations should be trimmed.] (]) 15:51, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

	== Edit request ==

	Please remove the word "American" from the opening sentence. This is proven by him being president elect, as mentioned earlier on in the sentence. It's also a case of overlink ] (]) 15:57, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
	:Done. --] (]) 16:07, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
	::] also says "American" on the lead. Also, it is standard ] to have their nationality on the lead, no matter what office they hold. Also, if it was proven that he was American by being a president-elect, we could've also omitted it when he was a presidential candidate. <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 17:58, 13 November 2016 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

	== Not in the lede: 2005 audio recording, alleged sexual misconduct, false tweets?? , since none of them had a significant (to say nothing) influence in the presidential election and the final results. ==

	All the following statements seem to be really unneccesary right now in the lead, meticulous DETAILS, and past incidents (media gossip) during a presidential campaign which finally had no influence on the final results of the Presidential election:

	1.-"Many of his statements in interviews, on Twitter, and at campaign rallies have been controversial or false" (Biased, speculative)

	2.-"On October 7, a 2005 audio recording surfaced in which Trump bragged about forcibly kissing and groping women; multiple women accused him of forcibly doing so shortly thereafter." (God, already included in the body content, besides, there is a whole article about this gossip, no need for this specific incident in the lead)

	In my opinion, there is no place for this chit chat - (difficult to corroborate) allegations in the lede of an article about a Head of State. This is an encyclopedia and all those statements now turned into pure conjectures and "dirty trick campaign" stuff. ] (]) 16:23, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

	:How has the success of Trump in the election turned all these reliably sourced facts into "pure conjectures"? And, picking nits, he is not Head of any State right now. --] (]) 16:42, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
	::There probably will have to be a reworking of the lede eventually, now that his candidacy is no longer the focus. However, that material was not "conjecture" or "dirty trick campaign stuff". The tape was a major influence on the campaign, in fact leading multiple Republicans to withdraw their support. The "controversial or false" wording was discussed extensively on this talk page, and consensus was to include it, because his use of false statements is so well documented as far beyond that of other politicians. Both items were inserted after much discussion and consensus, and it will take additional discussion and consensus to remove them. --] (]) 16:50, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
	*] has been alerted about discretionary sanctions by {{U\|Bishonen}}. Ajax1995, referring to well-referenced events and accusations as "gossip" or "chit chat" (and "assault" is not the same as "misconduct"; the former term has consensus) is demeaning, to put it mildly, and it suggests that you have difficulties remaining neutral. If that is indeed the case, you should probably stay away from this highly charged article. Thank you. ] (]) 17:26, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
	::mmm, not sure, Drmies, this is the talk page not the main article, the Neutrality is intact in the main article; therefore before removing anything, first I added a new discusion for consensus and different opinions about my very PERSONAL POV, and as you can see, I do not try to impose anything on the main article, that´s what the Talk Page is for; right? to exchange opinions and feedback; If you dislike my personal POVs in this talk page, OK, nothing wrong with that, is your very respectable personal opinion; but to express that such material, right now, (IMO) is filler content and unnecesary in the lead (not in the body content) since the election day is over, is totally valid, worthy of criticism (positive or negative), not of censorship. An apology if I do not answer right away, work schedule ] (]) 18:10, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

	::: {{reply to\|Ajax1995}} Your comment <u>about Trump's "''chit chat''" (bullshitting)</u> is on point. By now at least <s>half a million</s> <u>6,100,000</u> people have viewed the article; and many reasonable readers, including the press, may discount it as being a project of the ] (which is now dead). Not much we can do. <u>A lot of of our hard-working colleagues understandably feel hurt and angered by recent events, and you can expect the article to become increasingly framed by that anger</u>. --] (]) 19:51, 9 November 2016 (UTC) 09:32, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

	:::: Absolutely right, Just compare the difference between the language used on Trump´s lede (pejorative: false tweets, groping) and Hillary´s lede (peacock: influential speech, tackled, won far more) nothing about the E-mails and FBI investigation; I think we must keep the neutrality in both cases, a task that normal editors and administrators must solve. So, ], I Think solving this lede thing will still take too much time.] (]) 17:09, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

	:::::: It is a total joke yes. I can understand why now so many countries ban wikipedia, it is seems to be edited by politically biased people many who are crazy maybe even simply having mental problems and these people spew nonsense and push bias all over the place. I predict many people lost faith in "wikipedia" and start seeing it as I have now because of this bias.. compare Trump and ] not even close in bias. but trump won anyway and we will all avoid fight between us and russia for no one but a certain peoples interests so who cares. maybe if what news media says is true and trump is new hitler /musolini/ blah blah okay he will ban[REDACTED] anyway avoiding future problems. ] (]) 17:55, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

	:Should remove. It is a minor issue in relation to the topic and does not belong in the lead. The campaign is over and we now have the opportunity to follow neutrality in writing the article, without the distraction of issues the Clinton campaign sought to advance. No doubt as Trump assumes the presidency, there will be more important issues for the article. ] (]) 18:07, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

	== Can we get rid of the political positions part now? ==

	It's all in the main article, let's just link to it the way it's linked in ]'s second infobox. ] (]) 16:56, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
	:No, we can't, and you were way out of line to just go ahead and delete it. <s>I will restore it.</s> It has been restored. It cannot be deleted until consensus is reached here at the talk page to trim or remove it. You just started a discussion about that, ], but there has not been time for people to weigh in, much less for consensus to be reached. If you want you could transfer that discussion down here to the bottom of the page where it would be more prominent; we shouldn't have two different discussions going on. But you absolutely cannot act unilaterally like this. --] (]) 17:07, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
	::{{ping\|User1937}} I agree with MelanieN that you were way out of line. You don't post a message about a HUGE deletion and then act on it FOUR MINUTES LATER. ] (]) 17:12, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
	:Excuse me. But to be fair, out of the 44 President articles, none of them have a "political position" section, except if the election is ongoing. But, it's over. And the main article is in the infobox already, so I really don't see why people would be against this, I guess. But yes, it's important to get consensus.

	So I'm asking for consensus. ] (]) 17:18, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

	Also, I asked for another consensus above this (Presidential campaign, 2016 should be shortened), but you all aren't commenting in that? It seems like I only get consensus going when I go through with edits here :/ ] (]) 17:19, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
	:I for one did comment in that earlier post of yours. (I agreed that we will need to trim this section, and probably to remove it entirely after he becomes president - replacing it with a link to the "political positions" article and a "presidency" section.) You ignored that and went ahead and removed it without even giving people time to respond. "Consensus" does not happen immediately, and none of these actions should be taken right now, the day after the election, when people may still want to know what his political positions are. --] (]) 18:16, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

	* '''OK, reduce''' I agree towards a consensus to shorten this -- mostly reasoning is that it's too long, and a bit from the precedent that such seem not the norm for a President-elect judging from the Obama ] area. It looks like the link moves up to his first info box. (And the title is wrong, but that's another matter and I'll fix it...) ] (]) 02:02, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

	== Final results, Clinton received a majority of the popular vote ==

	Simplistic wordings such as "he defeated Hillary Clinton in the general election" need to be reworded as Clinton won a majority of the votes, while Trump's candidates won a majority in the Electoral College, which is expected to appoint a president later. --] (]) 17:17, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

	:This starts down a somewhat slippery slope. Saying she won the popular vote is true, but also not the whole story. She won by ~0.2% It was a statistical tie. In any case, its premature, as the counts are not even done yet. http://www.latimes.com/nation/politics/trailguide/la-na-election-aftermath-updates-trail-looks-like-clinton-will-win-the-popular-1478698530-htmlstory.html ] (]) 17:42, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

	::This is a completely unnecessary level of detail. ] 17:45, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
	:::Not a "statistical tie" as statistics aren't involved here. This is a count, not an estimate. ] ] 17:48, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

	:I think it is relevant and note that in the ] article lead he says, "becoming the fourth president to be elected while receiving fewer popular votes nationwide than an opponent." While that does not mean his win lacks legitimacy, it means he didn't overwhelmingly win either. Stats by the way use samples to estimate populations, but the final results are the population, hence agree with EvergreenFir it is not a statistical tie ] (]) 17:54, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
	:If Hillary does win the popular vote, then we should note it similarly to how we note it in the 2000 related articles, as ] suggests. But we need to wait for the final tallies, absentee and provisional ballots that are still outstanding and whatnot. – ] (]) 18:05, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
	::There are no final results at this point. Three states are still regarded as "too close to call" when I checked just now. We should include the tally by electoral college votes (and possibly number of states although that is less relevant) when it is finalized. We should also comment on the popular vote when it is finalized. Neither is appropriate for comment right now. --] (]) 18:21, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
	:::Either way, that's irrelevant. She lost. End of story.] (]) 18:21, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
	::::You do remember the 2000 election, don't you? If she won more popular votes, that's relevant. Even if the Electoral College doesn't pick her. – ] (]) 18:23, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
	:::::Yes, she lost. That does not make the popular vote irrelevant. It is newsworthy, especially if she won it, although it does not affect the result. If Trump winds up winning the popular vote we will certainly include that tally, won't we? --] (]) 18:27, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
	:::::P.S. I just noticed the section title here. It is absurd and wrong. She did not "win" in any sense. That is not how our elections work. She lost, via the electoral college. The popular vote is an afterthought. It should certainly be mentioned in the text, and possibly in the lede analogous to the mention in the George W. Bush article. AFTER it is finalized. --] (]) 19:56, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
	:::::::'''Agree''' with MelanieN, but does anyone know by what margin the popular vote favored Clinton? If she won the popular vote by e.g. 51%, or 60%, this should be mentioned for clarity. Otherwise biased readers on either side of the fence will jump to their own conclusions, assuming the margin was great, or not great. -- ] (]) 21:35, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
	::::::::We won't know for several days. Votes are still being tallied. --] (]) 23:22, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

	::::::::: ] - I think a couple close ones like Michigan have mandatory automatic recounts, even though it won't alter the overall result. Mostly I think this point isn't significant in news at the moment, preponderance is 'Trump surprise win' about 20:1 over any afterthought about the popular vote. I think just follow the cites and cover in proportion to how the coverage is. ] (]) 02:11, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

	::::Just because you paint it as "irrelevant" doesn't make it so. ] ] 23:25, 9 November 2016 (UTC)


	] -- '''Just follow the cites''' and you'll see that it's not ] coverage ... I'm seeing it's about 20 "Donald wins" or "surprise win" to any mention of popular vote (googling, ~75:4 million), and a lot of the popular vote mentions seem afterthought to 'Hillary lost' such as 'Hillary lost, but may still win the popular vote'. So the wording to reflect the prominence is 'Trump surprise win'. ] (]) 01:41, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

	:Copy edited heading per MelanieN and ]. ―] ] 01:49, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

	== Why can't we start the lead with "Donald Trump is an American politician who...." ? ==

	] (]) 18:19, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
	:That would be kind of redundant, no? Obviously POTUS-elect is an American politician. – ] (]) 18:24, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
	::I agree with ]. It would be redundant now. ] (]) 22:39, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

	== Adding new material is not a revert ==

	seems problematic to me. Is there any substantive reason for it? There was no edit-warring today about this material, and much if it was added material, not even changing what was already there. An admission of criminal behavior is very serious stuff, and we ought to be neutral and accurate about such stuff, no?] (]) 23:59, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
	:Yes, it should be reverted to keep it NPOV.] (]) 00:01, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
	:Please read up on the definition of a revert. I'd hoped to see the New Anything not the Same Old Anything back to the party. I do give you credit, wasting no time etc.]] 01:36, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
	::"Reverting means reversing a prior edit or undoing the effects of one or more edits, which typically results in the article being restored to a version that existed sometime previously." What prior version included this material? It's obviously needed per ]. We can't just hide the fact that many reliable sources construed the Access Hollywood tape as something other than a confession of criminality.] (]) 01:44, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

	== 1928?? ==

	The general election section says the following: "Trump's win simultaneously marked the first time that Republicans gained control over both the White House and Congress since 1928."

	The GOP controlled the WH/Senate/House during the GWBush years. If there's some other meaning intended, it needs to be clarified, otherwise it's flat-out wrong (more specifically, the cited Fortune article got it wrong). ] (]) 01:47, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

	The wording is correct, it says "gained".

	: Agree, I don't understand what meaningful fact that is trying to convey. The Republicans already hold control over both Houses of Congress, which is easily enough verified at ], so nothing will be simultaneously "gained", and if the fact is claiming that Republicans haven't held a majority in Congress and in the Executive office since 1928, simply checking at the ] demonstrates that isn't true either. ] (]) 00:40, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

	== somebody gonna fix this? ==

	"he will be the oldest person to ever become a assume the presidency."

	] (]) 02:46, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

	:{{done}} Thanks. ―] ] 02:49, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

	== Colleges attended by Donald Trump ==

	I suggest adding the following information to this article:

	Donald Trump attended Fordham University from 1964 to 1966. After two years, he transferred to the University of Pennsylvania. He graduated from U. Penn.'s Wharton School in 1968 with a bachelor’s degree in economics.

	Source: http://heavy.com/news/2016/05/where-did-donald-trump-go-to-college-education-young-biography-news/ published May 27, 2016
	] (]) 03:39, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

	==RM notice==
	]
	There is a move request ongoing, I just thought I would let you know. - ''']''' <sup>(]) (]) (]) </sup> 04:54, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

	== Errors by user Robotic131225189311 ==

	1. is clearly incorrect per source and 1RR prevents me from fixing it. 2. {{ping\|Robotic131225189311}} Please refer to the ArbCom remedies template near the top of this page. In short, you can't simply here. Even without the remedies, we don't resolve editing disagreements by revert and edit summary between two editors; that is what the article talk page is for. Thank you. ―] ] 08:29, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

	{{ping\|Mandruss}} {{done}} - ] <sup>]</sup> 09:11, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

	:Thanks, but only partly done. I still dispute , and the editsum shows cluelessness as to ] and ]. ―] ] 09:18, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

	::Ah! I wondered why so much fuss over an extra 's'. Hopefully fixed now. - ] <sup>]</sup> 09:22, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

	:::Thanks. Is correcting violations of the ArbCom restrictions exempt from 1RR? If so, I could have saved you the trouble. If not, you violated 1RR to save me from committing that egregious offense (thanks yet again). Anyone? Bueller? ―] ] 09:25, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
	::::I don't believe that it is exempt. It's arguable whether it ''should'' be; I can see good reasons for both exempt & not. I am relying on the definition of ''"revert"'' at ] - {{tq\|An edit or a series of consecutive edits that undoes other editors' actions—whether in whole or in part—counts as a revert.}} - As my edits were consecutive, they are one revert. Of course, I'm happy to plead my case at WP:AE if anyone feels so inclined. - ] <sup>]</sup> 11:25, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
	::This makes no sense.{{diff\|Donald Trump\|748782480\|748781190}} Even ''if'' it were appropriate for the lead, it's awkwardly worded and haphazardly placed without regard for chronology. Not happening. ] ] 10:24, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
	:::Ok. So he's reinstated the same bit of crap for the 3rd time within 24 hours.{{diff\|Donald Trump\|748784058\|748782480}} Can we get a block for 1RR violation and can someone remove it? It's sloppy and completely undue for the lead. Embarrassingly bad. ] ] 10:43, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
	*] is also worrying. Thoughts on a 1RR exemption based on ]? - ] <sup>]</sup> 11:42, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
	:It is absolutely unacceptable. This editor needs to be blocked. Now. ] ] 11:45, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
	::This could be a first, me completely agreeing with Doc. This is not the kind of article where aggressive incompetence even after warnings and corrections can be tolerated, and a DE complaint at ANI should not be required. Is {{u\|Bishonen}} in the house by any chance? ―] ] 11:54, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
	:::<small>(As surprising this may seem to some, not ''every single'' "Trump supporter" is a knuckle-dragging, xenophobic, misogynistic, racist, LGBQT-hatin', wall-worshipping, inbred cretin. I'm honored that we can agree on some things. Huzzah!) ] ] 07:51, 11 November 2016 (UTC)</small>
	::::{{Small\|I had no idea you are a "Trump supporter", and I honestly don't categorize editors that way anyway. I categorize them according to whether they are supporters of Misplaced Pages policy, process, and good faith collaboration. None of which is a comment about you either way. ―] ] 08:03, 11 November 2016 (UTC)}}
	::One foot out the door, but I'll look at it when I get back. ] \| ] 12:04, 10 November 2016 (UTC).
	{{od}} I kind of wish somebody had warned the user about edit warring sooner, and about the 1RR restriction rather than just the usual 3RR warning. But I see they have continued to revert, at least a fourth time, after being warned, so I've blocked for 31 hours. Also they should be alerted to the discretionary sanctions for American politics and BLP, I've done that. Nobody had pointed them specifically to the restrictions at the top of this talkpage, ''on their own page'', which is always a good idea as soon as it looks like a new user (= new to the page) is unaware of them. (I've done it now.) You can say they ought to read the warnings at the top of the page without having to be told to, but in practice I don't think we expect that. There's a daunting and off-putting amount of stuff at the top of the page. (I'm glad somebody at least collapsed the wikiprojects, but still.) And who knows if they ever looked at the talkpage? So, only the short 3RR block for now. ] \| ] 13:22, 10 November 2016 (UTC).

	:See my opening comment here. With respect, I don't think it's unreasonable to expect even a newer user to respond to a freaking ping and read what was written there. ]. They had more than ample advice and warning, even if we failed to follow procedure to the letter. Thanks for the block. ―] ] 14:00, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
	::Together with the warnings, it should hopefully hold them. ] \| ] 14:03, 10 November 2016 (UTC).
	:::One of the things about the DS, as I understand it, is that people generally will not be sanctioned for violating them until after they have received the OFFICIAL warning on their talk page. When you put <nowiki>{{subst:alert\|ap}}</nowiki> on their talk page, it gets logged, and they are thereafter expected to abide by the rules and be sanctioned if they don't. It creates an actual record, which they cannot remove, showing that they have been warned. "They should have read the notice" or "I pinged them" is not considered to be adequate, documented warning in terms of issuing blocks and/or bans (except possibly in the most egregious cases). Anyhow, if you see someone violating the DS, don't mess around with other ways of warning them. Put the template on their talk page. In my case I usually add a custom-written paragraph explaining exactly what that means and what behavior of theirs triggered it. But it is the official templated warning that puts them on notice. ], would you agree with this? --] (]) 16:33, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
	::::Yes, ], I have to agree. It's a very bureaucratic system, but we have to comply with it, because it's only the official alert template that "counts", which matters a lot if the user appeals our discretionary sanctions. On the upside, it's not hard to add a ds alert template. Melanie has provided the specific American politics template above. This is the general form of the alert, for all areas: <nowiki>{{subst:alert\|topic}}</nowiki>. Replace "topic" with the official and also intuitive code for the topic area (ap for American politics, blp for biographies, cc for climate change, and so on). To make doubly sure, there's a list of those topic codes ] (scroll down a little). ] \| ] 16:53, 10 November 2016 (UTC).
	:::::Well I'm just learning this after 3.5 years and about 30K edits, and it's not like I don't pay attention or don't care about doing things the right way. The logical conclusion is that the DS are largely pointless unless there happens to be someone at my level or above around. "Bureaucracy" is spot on, and it's my understanding that excessive bureaucracy is something to be avoided, not embraced. Added to my list of Just How Things Are At En-wiki, Deal With It. ―] ] 17:50, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

	== Protests ==

	I assume someone will add information about the current Protests going on? Seems important to be mentioned. <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 09:35, 10 November 2016 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
	:Yes, this seems big. We will have to consider whether to mention this, and where/how. --] (]) 10:43, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
	::Big? Yes, if ] is about the font size used for the headline in that bulwark of journalism, ''The Telegraph''. Depending on other RS, probably has a place in one of the many Trump sub-articles. Not here. ―] ] 11:11, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
	:::If we mention it anywhere it should be in the Presidential campaign article, not this biographical article. --] (]) 16:23, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
	::::There's a conversation at ].--<span style="font-family:Segoe print; color:#CC4E5C; text-shadow:gray 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">] ]</span> 20:13, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
	I suppose this may be out-of-place in this thread, but it seems almost as if this biography is being used to "protest Trump" as well - nowhere near Neutral POV. It is not the function of an encyclopedia to criticize individuals and their actions. In many cases this goes far beyond what is normally said about a political candidate, one who has never been convicted of a criminal act. ] (]) 18:14, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
	:Even if Donald Trump had been a presidential candidate remotely resembling anything the world has ever seen, Misplaced Pages neutrality policy does not require us to give equal treatment to article subjects in any category. We are driven by reliable sources. We neither criticize nor praise, we simply report. ―] ] 18:58, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

	== Claim that Donald Trump saved the world from nuclear war ==

	I suggest we add a note on this article that the Presidential adviser to Vladimir Putin, Sergei Glazyev, said that Donald Trump has saved the world from nuclear war following his election. This already has precedent in other articles whose profiles were praised as saving the world.
	http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3922890/The-Kremlin-says-victory-Clinton-sparked-World-War-Three-electing-Trump-saved-world-Armageddon.html#comments <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 11:53, 10 November 2016 (UTC)</small>

	: Hagiologically ridiculous. -- ] </sup></font></span>]] 11:56, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

	stop trolling ] <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 12:17, 10 November 2016 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

	:Might be worth adding to ], although the '']'' is not always regarded as ]. ] (]) 12:03, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

	::While it's pretty clear from my user page that I hate both Trump and the Mail, pretty much every ''any'' news source you can read on Trump right now is going to be POV one way or another, and new information should ideally from a cross-section of pieces whose bias cancels each other out. ] ] ] 12:23, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

	:::Two days after the election and Trump has yet to take office. The claim, if it was made, is silly and the person making the claim holds no office. Further, his opinion is likely tainted by the fact that the current president froze his U.S assets and he is banned from entering the U.S. ] (]) 12:31, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

	:::{{tq\|new information should ideally from a cross-section of pieces whose bias cancels each other out}} Did I just hear that from an admin? ]. ―] ] 12:36, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

	::::That link you supplied mentions things like the ] and that ]; the only news source I know who mentions that is the '']''. ] ] ] 12:39, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

	:::::Nevertheless, I know of nothing in ] or any other policy that supports your statement highlighted above. My guide is ], whether or not that results in "a cross-section of pieces whose bias cancels each other out". ―] ] 12:43, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

	Saved the world from Nuclear war? How? By destroying the USA without need for any war is the only way he could do it. Trump is the one talking about starting wars all the time! Most people think silly trump is going to start a nuke war even if he doesnt intend too, with his ignorant ancient trade ideas.--] (]) 00:28, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
	:How do people believe this when he just defeated one of the biggest warmongerers in American history?] (]) 00:46, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

	== Filmography article ==

	On ], it opens "Donald Trump is an American actor, television personality..." should it state "actor" on this article? At most, it should say "television personality". <code>&sim;&sim;&sim;&sim; ]<sup>]</sup></code> 13:43, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
	:Seems reasonable - most of his filmography is cameo appearances, and starring in a reality TV show is different from acting in a regular show or movie. Feel free to make the change. ] (]) 14:57, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

	== "Many of his statements have been false" ==

	First things first, I am not American, nor am I a conservative of any stripe.

	However, the comparison between the leads of the two candidates couldn't be more different.

	Trump has made false statements, but if we look at Politifact - a website that Republicans condemn when it highlights their errors - [http://www.politifact.com/personalities/hillary-clinton/ roughly half of its entries on Hillary Clinton are "Half-true" or less. This includes several "pants on fire" during the campaign, including one relating to her FBI investigation, a completely false accusation about Trump's view on the auto industry during the recession, and calling herself the only candidate who never pledged to raise taxes on the middle class.

	This is, of course, a lower percentange of untruthful statements than what Politifact has listed for Trump. But where does "many" begin when you say a politician has made "many" statements that are false? If both candidates are listed by a Pulitzer-prize winning website with a majority of untruthful statements, it should be in both candidates' leads. If not, have it in neither and develop the details later on. ] (]) 14:15, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

	: See older discussions on this. In short: numerous reliable sources (incl. those that do a lot of fact-checking) have remarked on the extraordinary amount of falsehoods that Trump has said during the campaign, both in absolute terms and relative to other politicians. ] (]) 14:26, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
	::I do think we have a major POV problem when we compare both ledes, partly based on RS though.] (]) 14:29, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
	:::] to the RfC about whether to include "or false." Essentially, I think, though Hillary Clinton has said many completely false things, the coverage of them in reliable sources isn't as great, so they don't have as much weight. That may not be fair, but it's just how Misplaced Pages is, and it has it's strengths and weaknesses. ] says, ''"An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to the '''weight of that aspect in the body of reliable sources''' on the subject."'' ] (]) 15:05, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
	::::Uneven press coverage is not what this is about. It's generally accepted that "all politicians lie" - that is, they say some things that are not true. That's a given. Hillary Clinton is in that group. Out of her statements that get challenged (and remember, those are the only statements that the fact-checkers rate), some are exaggerations, some are misrepresentations, and a few are out-and-out false ("pants on fire"). If that were the pattern with Trump it would not be worth mentioning, because that is the pattern with most politicians. The difference is that when they rate Trump's statements that have been challenged, the pattern is different. An extraordinary number of Trump's statements turn out to be out-and-out false. He does not fit the normal pattern of a politician who shades the truth. He is a person who often says things that are simply, provably, 100% false. That unusual pattern has been commented on by numerous reliable sources, and that is the basis for our sentence in the lede. I agree it is an unusual thing to say about a president-elect. Right now the lede, and the article, are focused on his history up to and including the campaign. By the time he is president I assume we will be shifting away from campaign-focused information, and that sentence may go. That may also depend on whether he changes his approach to the facts now that he is no longer in campaign mode. --] (]) 16:20, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
	:::::{{re\|MelanieN}} Granted, Trump said a lot of crap. However he also said a lot of truths. Fact is, he talks a lot more than most politicians, and doesn't mince his words… The apparent bias may stem from Trump's big mouth and his self-styled "truthful hyperbole". Add to that the propensity of journalists to select the most juicy bits for endless replay and amplification, add to that the failure to grant him a talent for irony ("Russia, if you're listening, I hope you find Hillary's 33'000 emails that she deleted" — oh my God he's a double agent for Russia, quick let's hang him for high treason!), and here's a recipe for systemic bias. I for one have been genuinely puzzled as to why Trump was ever considered racist, while I never saw him behave in a racist way during 15 months of campaigning. Oh sure, he said Mexicans are rapists and drug dealers (reality check: "Mexican" is not a race, neither is "Muslim"), everybody noticed the words but failed to rate this outburst as simply making an exaggerated point for effect. When he visited Mexico, he behaved like a total gentleman with the President and the feeling was mutual. A real racist or Mexican-hater would have taken this opportunity to threaten the country or further demean its citizens. — ] <sup>]</sup> 18:13, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
	::::::Nice little essay defending Trump, but not very convincing. ("Sure he lies a lot, but that's OK because.....") The point here is that he "says a lot of crap", i.e. says things that aren't true, to a much greater extent than other politicians do, a fact that Reliable Sources have taken note of. He broke the mold when it comes to political departures from the truth, and this was reported, not as editorializing, not as opinion, but as demonstrated fact. I'll ignore your equally unconvincing attempt to explain away racist-sounding statements as "making an exaggerated point for effect", since racism is not the subject of this thread. ] (]) 08:09, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
	:::::::{{re\|MelanieN alt}} Your point is granted, and I'm not advocating that we should remove the "exceptional number of falsehoods" evaluation from Trump's bio. That's a salient fact, so it is ], and I kept it prominently during my article trimming exercise yesterday. We can acknowledge that he says a lot of crap while not concluding that everything he says is crap. (I believe you cited the slippery slope argument to me in another discussion some time ago…) {{p}}
	:::::::Claims of racism on the other hand are allegations based on interpretation of Trump's words as "dog whistles" or based on his being supported by dubious people, they are not backed up by Trump's actions in public life (the only serious claim I've seen was the 1973 housing discrimination affair, which was more targeted at his father and where Trump Jr actually ended up renting to blacks). On the campaign trail, I've seen him hiring people of all colors, getting vocal support from black pastors, kissing black babies and having the only other black candidate in the Republican field be the first to endorse Trump upon dropping out. <small>Yes, off-topic, just my observations as an uninvolved non-American, weird how race perceptions still play a prominent role in that country…</small> Oh, and for all the accusations of bigotry hurled at Donald Trump, how about him getting a prominent gay personality, ], to speak at the Republican convention and elicit a standing ovation from the crowd when saying "I'm proud to be gay and proud to be an American"? I don't think any other Rep candidate could have pulled this off. — ] <sup>]</sup> 05:54, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

	:::wow as i read more of this page this bias becomes so clear. so many political editing by crazies who tried to influence election.. but why was this allowed?? i cannot believed i donated once to this biased website. yet still trump won despite such bias, this at least shows great power and intelligence of trump voters to see past such biased media and lies by an ENCYCLOPEDIA not a political liberal blog. i hope people are ashamed but unlikely because of such crazy insane biased people. this type of thing is what caused people to "disappear" in communist russia, bias overrides history accuracy or truth/attempt at maybe nonbias. insane truly insane people ] (]) 18:21, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
	::::I have a lot of reliable sources saying Oceania has always been at war with Eurasia. Should I add them to the lede? ] (]) 00:48, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

	:] - If you're seriously inclined to ask, please file it as an actual ]. Yes, it's an odd line and looks bad vs Clinton handling. And the RFC mentioned above asked only for this line OK or not got lots of objections mentioned above about POV, subjective, and biased, or so forth. In the end, the RFC Poster took the inputs and counted 30ish in favor and 20ish opposed and went this way. I don't think that a differently asked RFC would necessarily wind up in this wording, and this might be the first time WP put a papers rating system into BLP lead -- but again, if you are seriously inclined then please do it by a RFC. Cheers ] (]) 07:21, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

	== Adding a Presidential Template for Trump ==

	Normally any article about a president would have a template at the bottom with articles about their presidency but this is the first time we have had one that amassed a large company and never was in public office or military (outside school). There is a template but it's of his family and his company. I created one specifically for his presidency in case there is a consensus to do so or merge it with the existing one. The image is just a placeholder until he gets an official portrait. What do other users think of the idea of a seperate one for his presidency like the other presidents?] (]) 14:59, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
	{{Donald Trump\|state=expanded}}
	* '''Support''' – In another discussion, I suggested splitting the existing Trump navbox into one for his family and businesses, and one for his political activities and presidency. Your draft is a great start. Some Trump articles would have one navbox and some the other one; very few would need both. — ] <sup>]</sup> 18:23, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
	** The Bush Family has a template as well as ones for H. W. and W.] (]) 21:46, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
	* '''Support''' - The placeholder image looks great! Creating a separate template for the Trump presidency is a good idea.--] (]) 05:46, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
	::{{Done}} FYI the "yuge" {{t\|Trump}} template has been split into {{t\|Trump businesses}}, {{t\|Trump family}} and {{t\|Trump presidency}} and each article mentioned has been reassigned the appropriate template. Next step is to retire {{t\|Trump}} as obsolete (not sure if it should be deleted just yet but that may be its ultimate fate). I have also restructured the Trump businesses part to look cleaner and include up-to-date information in all subsections. I think it should be further split to separate the media appearances from the rest (for example it includes comedy skits, board games and cameo appearances in movies, which make no sense in a template about business affairs). I'll get to that a bit later today.
	::The presidency navbox still needs work; your draft above might be a good source of inspiration. See also {{t\|Donald Trump series}} which is now stable.
	::Further comments welcome here or at the individual navbox talk pages. — ] <sup>]</sup> 11:59, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

	== Why are his "political stances" still in the main article? ==
	Why is Donald Trump the first President (or soon to be) to have a section devoted to his "political stances". If people want to check out his political positions, the main article is linked in the Trump series template. I know a lot of folks here are very very hessitant in deleting a currently major section, but can't we face the facts and admit that it shouldn't be there anymore? ] (]) 14:14, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

	== New article: Donald Trump's business career ==

	{{edit extended-protected\|Donald Trump\|answered=yes}}
	'''Edit request: Change the entire business career section to ].'''

	Before the election, I ] to split Donald Trump's business career into a new article, citing the fact that the article is really huge (and now it's even bigger at 91 kB of readable prose size, according to ]). ] encourages that most articles be split above 60 kB of readable prose size, and should almost certainly be split above 100 kB. Other sections should most probably be split too, but this section is just about discussing the business career section.

	I ended up deciding to wait because other editors pointed out that any changes made before the election might have to be undone afterwards depending on whether he was elected or not. Now, since the political areas of the article are only going to expand, I think it makes sense to split off the business ventures section of the article into a new one and include a summarized version in the main article instead. Below are my proposals, which are up to date as of November 10.
	*The ] to put in the main article, which will eliminate about 11 kB of readable prose size.
	*The ]. This is basically just the modern "Business career" section on Misplaced Pages, with a new lead paragraph{{snd}}feel free to improve it.
	I believe these suggestions are cautious enough that they can be implemented right away if editors are in favor of doing so, and once another full article is created, the version on the main article can be safely trimmed down more, bit by bit. I know that removing some parts will generate a lot of controversy, so I did my best to trim only obvious paragraphs. ] (]) 16:48, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
	* '''Support''' – I totally agree with splitting off his business career now. However I think it's even more urgent to mercilessly trim everything related to this nasty and long-winded presidential campaign, because most of it is a sheer duplicate of stuff mentioned at length in dedicated articles (and those could be trimmed of excess detail too). Happy to contribute to the copyediting if we don't get too much pushback. — ] <sup>]</sup> 18:18, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
	* '''Support''' some type of split to reduce the size of this particular article. I am not sure what the best way to split it would be, but this seems to be one way to do it. ] '''·''' ] 19:19, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
	* '''Support'''. ] (]) 19:28, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

	'''All right{{snd}}I've ].''' Unfortunately, I don't have extended-confirmed abilities yet, so if someone could implement the shortened change to the main article, that'd be fantastic. <u>And honestly, I don't expect many valid reasons not to create this article. You know, ] and everything.</u> ] (]) 00:54, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
	:] '''Done'''<!-- Template:EEp --> ] '''·''' ] 05:20, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
	::Thanks {{u\|Tony_Tan}}! Just one quick follow-up edit, since the Trump Force One image under ''']''' isn't displaying properly due to a modified dash.

	{{edit extended-protected\|Donald Trump\|answered=y}}

	::Text to delete: <big><span style="font-family:monospace">File:Trump Force One at Valdosta Regional Airport a&nbsp;— cropped.jpg</span></big>

	::Replace with: <big><span style="font-family:monospace">File:Trump Force One at Valdosta Regional Airport a - cropped.jpg</span></big>

	::Thanks again. I'll be getting extended-protected abilities in a week and a half or something, so I won't be bothering anyone for too long. In the mean time, I'll work on some other articles.
	::] (]) 13:43, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

	:::{{fixed}} ―] ] 14:10, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

	{{re\|JasperTech}} FYI: I embarked on a general trimming expedition today, cutting redundancies, excruciating detail and overcites; readable prose size is down from 89k to 77k. More to do, but that's progress. — ] <sup>]</sup> 19:05, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

	== "Donald Trump" or "Donald J. Trump"? ==

	How should he be referred as as President? Because I've seen both forms used and I'm not sure there is yet a consensus on that. Or is it too early to bring this up? Cheers, ]] 18:45, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
	:{{tq\|Or is it too early to bring this up?}} Let's wait until his son is elected before we add the J:). ] (]) 18:47, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
	::You think his son could beat Chelsea? I suggest we start an article on the presidency of Donald Trump if there is not one already. Maybe the articles on the Trump organization and The Apprentice are adequate for his business activities. ] (]) 20:07, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
	:Once he becomes president next year, there's every chance the '''article will need to be moved''' to Donald J. Trump; his official social media profiles (, ) use his middle initial. I think it is too soon to do so now as it's not in the common vernacular as is with ] or even ]. So many people have known him for decades as just Donald Trump, but it is still worth pointing out … only time will tell! ] <sup>'']''</sup> 10:02, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
	::Once he becomes president, he will establish how he wishes to be known. If the White House webpage refers to him as Donald J. Trump; if his employees and surrogates refer to him as "President Donald J. Trump"; if his official portrait (and we should put that in here if we can get it) is titled Donald J. Trump; then it will be clear that is his presidential name and we should move the article. If these sources mainly refer to him as "Donald Trump" then we will keep it here. Nothing should be done until he assumes office. A president gets to establish how he/she is referred to by contemporaries and posterity - whether as Richard M. Nixon or Ronald Reagan, Dwight D. Eisenhower or Jimmy Carter. (And I'm puzzled - you said his Facebook and Twitter profiles use his middle initial, but those entities are titled without it..) ] (]) 08:18, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

	== Attempt to seduce married woman ==

	This BLP presently says:

	{{cquote\|He also speaks of his efforts to seduce a married woman, saying he "moved on her very heavily." <ref name="auto3">{{cite news \|first=David A. \|last=Fahrenthold \|title=Trump recorded having extremely lewd conversation about women in 2005 \|date=October 8, 2016 \|website=] \|url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-recorded-having-extremely-lewd-conversation-about-women-in-2005/2016/10/07/3b9ce776-8cb4-11e6-bf8a-3d26847eeed4_story.html}}</ref>}}
	The cited source says very clearly that those efforts were unsuccessful, and so I suggest this instead:

	{{cquote\|He also speaks of his unsuccessful efforts to seduce a married woman, saying: "I moved on her, and I failed. I’ll admit it....I moved on her very heavily."<ref name="auto3" />}}
	Without this correction, we suggest that he "moved heavily" in a forcible way (especially given what the previous sentences of the BLP currently say about forcible kissing and groping). The cited source says, "In that audio, Trump discusses a failed attempt to seduce a woman, whose full name is not given in the video. 'I moved on her, and I failed. I’ll admit it,' Trump is heard saying."
	{{talkref}}] (]) 21:04, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
	*'''Support.''' Looks like a clarification that will better conform to reliable sources. ] (]) 22:30, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
	*'''Comment''' - no, do not resurrect the debate so soon after the last time. This is in the section 4.3.4 Sexual misconduct allegations, and I'd suggest that is already ] excessive detail on it for a BLP, and that perhaps since the election is over and the 11-year+ topic now lacks any potential ] effect it may time it can instead get discussed as something to be yanked. In any case, I'd think an 11-year ago tape will shortly get squeezed out by more significant actual events during 2017-2020. The perspective on tape is now a note of the whole of it was both it had no actual sex and that it little affected the campaign or prolonged coverage -- so judging by precedents the whole tape bits should wind up as less _total_ than the 6 lines of the Gennifer Flowers affair. Just sayin the tape turned out to be only a medium flap. ] (]) 23:25, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
	*'''Oppose''' - That he was unsuccessful is a comment about her, not him. ―] ] 04:32, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

	== Popular vote ==

	I have removed the line about Clinton winning the popular vote, as this count is still being conducted and the numbers are not finalized. This is not yet a fact, and should not be a part of Misplaced Pages until it is a fact. This reflects a discussion and change on ]. ] ] 21:11, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
	:Reliable sources are reporting it as a fact and we follow verifiability, not truth. ] (]) 04:41, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

	==Question about extended-autoconfirmed protection==

	Is the extended-autoconfirmed protection added yesterday (which is currently set as "indefinite") going to be kept infinitely, or reduced to high-risk semi-protection once the vandalism risk has reduced? I understand that this is among the most controversial articles on here right now, but I thought it was only Misplaced Pages policy to infinitely extended-autoconfirmed protect articles relating to Israel and Palestine. My understanding is that it is only used temporarily on other articles. By "indefinite", does it mean that it will be extended-autoconfirmed protected until the vandalism risk goes down (which could be several weeks/months)?
	<!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 21:19, 10 November 2016 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
	:Indefinite is convenient but not infinite, and there's no real reason it should last for a long time. When assessing how long it will last, we look at how hot the topic is, and any related vandalism on other articles. Obviously within one or two days of the election it's still going to be quite hot but I don't see it lasting for several weeks or months. I hereby ping {{ping\|Ks0stm}}, the protecting admin, for any further comment. -- ] <sup>]</sup> 21:54, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

	Thanks - yeah, I thought it was probably protected indefinitely because we don't know how long he is going to be this controversial (among many) for. Regardless of my own views, I had no intention to vandalise, or even edit the page; I was simply curious because protection beyond semi/move is modaretely rare.

	] (]) 22:39, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
	:{{re\|Gourleyo\|Zzuuzz}} Yeah, the only reason I didn't set an expiry is because I didn't want the article completely unprotected upon expiry, and there's no way to have it automatically roll back to semi-protection instead of no protection. Any admin can feel free to reset this to semi whenever they feel the time is right to give semi-protection another chance. ] <sup>(]•]•]•])</sup> 07:54, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

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

	] (]) 10:59, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

	== He is not President-elect of the United States.... yet ==

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

	== Trump's Religion ==

	I saw a previous conversation on this, but I think someone should add a section for Trump's religion in the info box. He is a member, albeit inactive, of the Reformed Church in America and his membership is in Marble Collegiate Church on Fifth Avenue in New York.<ref>{{cite web\|last1=Barron\|first1=James\|title=Overlooked Influences on Donald Trump: A Famous Minister and His Church\|url=http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/06/nyregion/donald-trump-marble-collegiate-church-norman-vincent-peale.html\|website=nytimes.com\|publisher=New York Times\|accessdate=November 10, 2016}}</ref>
	* You should probably read through the discussions as to why religion is generally considered inappropriate for politicians' infoboxes. This is much more so for "inactive" members of any religion. ] <span style="color:red">🍁</span> ] 23:27, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

	{{reflist-talk}}

	:: I truly don't understand how ''not'' putting Trump's religion is justified. The "inactive members" thing would appear to not be relevant as he is roughly as active as recent prior presidents have been (sure, George Bush was a born-again, but others are very similar to Trump), he said numerous times on the campaign trail that " a Presbyterian," etc. etc. "Generally considered inappropriate" yet in basically every American politician's infobox. Just because of bunch of Misplaced Pages editors think that to contempt Western religion makes them intellectual doesn't mean it should inexplicably be phased out of infoboxes, starting with Trump. --] (]) 16:11, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
	*I would agree with including his religious affiliation, it is one of the things I look for in an infobox, and is to be found in the info boxes of other presidents and vice presidents, it seems rather odd not to have it. It is certainly more relevant than the man's signature. ] (]) 05:12, 14 November 2016 (UTC)Cyndane5

	== Revert to image that gained consensus ==

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

	:::Yes, most agreed that the ] was not appropriate or NPOV. Overall, most people agreed that Image 3, or ], should be used as it is more neutral.--] (]) 02:45, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
	::::Oh my god, people. Please look at the many discussions of the infobox image, which received votes from scores of editors and went through a formal analysis and vote based on photography and appearance attributes. Just because a small handful of editors now seem to like this one just based on gut feeling, saying "I like this one", you're making a mess of something that actually achieved a proper consensus. Respect it, or again open a full RfC with multiple image options and tagging multiple WikiProjects and other relevant groups. What you have here is an embarrassing form of 'consensus'. ] ] · ] · ] 03:23, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

	:::::100% agreement. ―] ] 04:25, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

	:::::I agree. Far too much discussion on this.--] (]) 08:29, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

	== Trump New Picture ==

	I know, his picture was changed 30 minutes to an hour ago but based on all the other president pictures, it is no good and looks unprofessional in my opinion.

	I found a picture that looks like a presidential picture and I think should be used. I am currently getting permission from the photographer.




	--] (]) 2:40, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

	:If you can get permission, Example 1 is pretty good. If you receive permission, let us know. As for now, the current image is more NPOV than the original, but hopefully you can get their permission.--] (]) 02:48, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
	::{{re\|Dyl1G\|ZiaLater}} I understand you are proposing a picture change in good faith, however it will not be accepted unless you run a formal RfC. The sooner you start the process, the sooner it will end. Besides, I personally don't see how the longstanding picture is disparaging; it actually gathered consensus repeatedly over many many other pictures that various editors deemed "more presidential". In this picture, Trump looks serious and attentive, his face is in focus, the colors are neutral, well it's just fine. (And for the record, I once advocated for a picture change as well, at least an edit of this one to remove the microphone and background artefact, but I accepted consensus to keep this one). — ] <sup>]</sup> 16:34, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

	::FYI, the last big push to change the image consisted of a week or two of heated debate in a series of talk threads, followed by a big RfC. After the RfC got several dozen !votes, the activity died to the point that the archive bot archived the RfC before it was closed. And nobody complained about the lack of a close, nobody restored the RfC from the archive or asked that that be done, because we were all suffering from severe infobox image fatigue. I think many of us still are, I know I am. In the end, all that editor time and energy were wasted. My advice is to wait for the official White House portrait. ―] ] 16:43, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
	:::{{ping\|Mandruss}} Agreed. - <span style="font-family:Trebuchet MS">] <small>(])</small></span> 16:47, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

	@JFG How do I start a formal Rfc? --] (]) <!--Template:Undated--><small class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added 18:00, 11 November 2016 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
	:{{re\|Dyl1G}} Instructions are at ]. Enjoy! — ] <sup>]</sup> 20:43, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

	== Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 11 November 2016 ==

	{{edit extended-protected\|Donald Trump\|answered=y}}

	In the first line 'Donald John Trump (/ˈdɒnəld dʒɒn trʌmp/; born June 14, 1946) is an American businessman, reality television star, and'
	change the word "star" to host or presenter. In the U.S. ther term 'star" connotates a professional actor or performer. Changing to host will pnot denigrate Trump or his role.
	] (]) 03:26, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

	:"Star" seems a bit ]y. Changed to "personality". Merriam-Webster sense 4b: "a person of importance, prominence, renown, or notoriety <a TV personality>". ―] ] 04:15, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

	== Capitalization of president-elect ==

	Re

	I get that there is disagreement in this area in the world, and I get that many people see their viewpoints on certain style issues as the only correct ones regardless of community consensus, but I do not see support at ] for {{u\|Michipedian}}'s reasoning as to the word "the" and common vs. proper nouns. I understand the reasoning, and I don't necessarily disagree with it, but that's beside the point. I note that "president-elect" occurs 15 times uncapitalized at ]. Since JOBTITLES represents the community consensus on this, we needn't look any further. Anyone is free to seek a new community consensus, but the way to do that is not by revert and edit summary in mainspace.

	When commenting, please bear in mind that it's not about what seems more correct to you, but what is supported by Misplaced Pages's guideline on the matter. ―] ] 06:52, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

	: I think my reasoning is supported by the third bullet point in the link you provided.
	: "When the correct formal title is treated as a proper name (e.g., King of France; it is correct to write Louis XVI was King of France but Louis XVI was the French king)"
	: According to this, I believe the following are all correct:
	: - "Donald Trump is President-elect of the United States."
	: - "Barack Obama is President of the United States."
	: - "Donald Trump is the president-elect of the United States."
	: - "Barack Obama is the president of the United States."
	: ] (]) 18:59, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

	::It's difficult to reconcile that with the non-capitalization in "as well as chairman and president of The Trump Organization". "Chairman of The Trump Organization" and "President of The Trump Organization" are both titles that are no less "proper names" than "President-elect of the United States", and there is no "the" preceding them. The fact that there are no Misplaced Pages articles for those titles seems irrelevant for this purpose; they are still titles.<br />Nevertheless, your position is not <u>completely</u> baseless per guideline as I thought, so I'll concede assuming no one else jumps in with a stronger counter. ―] ] 19:21, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
	::I agree with ] on this fine point of orthography. — ] <sup>]</sup> 20:47, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
	:::If "Chairman" and "President" are official titles in the governmental structure of The Trump Organization, then they should be capitalized as well. ] (]) 06:19, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
	{{od}}Re {{ping\|Spartan7W}} Your editsum suggests that you did not see mine or read this thread. Are you disputing the conclusion reached and agreed upon here? If so, on what basis? ―] ] 20:12, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
	::There is absolutely no logic in leaving "President-elect" lowercase when it is used as a proper noun. If one uses 'President-elect' as a title before 'Trump' or as a standalone, it is capitalized. If it is used to describe the office, it is capitalized. Only if it is not used as a proper noun is it lowercase. Same goes for "Chairman" or any other title. There is no consensus or agreement reached here on this topic, and even if there were somehow consensus, the glaring inaccuracy of a lowercase 'President-elect' in proper noun situations justifies ignoring it <span style="border:2px solid #d69d36; background:#FFFFFF;">  ''']''' ]</span> 14:40, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
	::: {{ping\|Spartan7W}} Please refer to the guideline cited above. "Louis XVI was the French king", from the guideline, is grammatically equivalent to "Donald John Trump ... is the president-elect of the United States." If not, what is the grammatical difference? Pinging {{u\|Michipedian}} for comment. ―] ] 14:56, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
	::::Because "French king" and "California governor," or whatever you want, aren't titles. An announcer doesn't say "his highness, French king Louis XVI," he says, "His Highness, the King of France, Louis XVI, etc". Thus, President-elect of the United States is a position, an office, a title; it represents an incoming American president (<-see what I did there?). The term 'president-elect' is not a proper noun unless used officially, or as a title preceding his name, "President-elect Donald Trump." In the case of French king, "France" is the proper noun, but you are just describing an adverb of sorts, as 'king' in general terms refers to a general position and powers, as opposed to King of France, a specific and formal title. If you said Donald Trump, blah blah blah, is the 'American president-elect' or 'United States president-elect,' then I would have no issue with the case of the word. However, that is not a formal use of the office and title, and the proper way is "President-elect of the United States," and same goes for any office. Eric Garcetti is the Los Angeles mayor, as newspapers often put to save space, but formally and properly, Eric Garcetti is the Mayor of Los Angeles (you can also put the person in the middle and say "Mayor Eric Garcetti of Los Angeles". A word describing an office like senator, governor, president, mayor, chairman, secretary are just common nouns on their own, unless coupled with a formally structured title, like President of the United States. <span style="border:2px solid #d69d36; background:#FFFFFF;">  ''']''' ]</span> 15:07, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
	{{od}} Now at ]. ―] ] 15:38, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

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

	:I support it. Age seems relevant. I don't know how much the media have talked about his age, but it was a big issue in ]'s campaign and he would have been 72 at inauguration. Between 2009 McCain and 2017 Trump, I'd put my money on 2017 Trump as more likely to die or become disabled in office (McCain is still kickin' and smilin' at 80). That Trump sets a new record seems lead-worthy. ―] ] 08:39, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
	::Can we work in "bigoted" in between "oldest" and "person"? ] ] 08:55, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
	::you will put money on this? i will take this bet on Trump being just fine for maybe even 8yrs! how much? ] (]) 15:50, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
	:::I didn't say I would put money on Trump dying or becoming disabled in office. I said that seems more likely than it did for McCain in his campaign, something that was a big issue in the media. Why, you ask? Because personality and worldview, etc, have been shown to be factors in longevity, and I think McCain's tend to favor longevity more than Trump's. That's obviously just my opinion, and I know nothing of the history of longevity in either man's family. But it was a silly aside, the bottom line is that the new record is more than a ] factoid. ―] ] 15:59, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
	:The oldest seemed important for William Henry Harrison and Ronald Reagan and youngest elected for JFK. ] (]) 08:59, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
	:::: {{reply to\|Mandruss}} OK, but wouldn't McCain's/Trump's choice of running mate be a "''factor in longevity''" too? ;) --] (]) 04:29, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
	:::::{{reply to\|Dervorguilla}} I get it. I think. :) ―] ] 04:48, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
	:::::: <small>{{reply to\|Mandruss}} You did indeed. According to one opinion writer, Pence was "born to be Vice President"; according to most, Palin was not. I think she might have regarded herself as born to be the first female ''President'', though -- albeit not necessarily the first ''elected'' female president... --] (]) 23:20, 13 November 2016 (UTC)</small>
	{{od}} I agree with ] on this, but would support a compromise: how about if we keep it in the lead for now, but not in the lead paragraph of the lead? Per ], "The first paragraph should define or identify the topic with a neutral point of view, but without being too specific. It should establish the context in which the topic is being considered by supplying the set of circumstances or facts that surround it. If appropriate, it should give the location and time. It should also establish the boundaries of the topic; for example, the lead for the article List of environmental issues succinctly states the limits of that list."] (]) 05:01, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
	:{{ping\|Anythingyouwant}} No objection to that edit, which you already made. There remains an organization issue, with para 3 referring to his nomination, then ending at "oldest to assume the presidency" with no mention of his election to the office. But that's a separate issue, and relatively minor. ―] ] 06:56, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
	::], the 70 stuff has been put back into the opening paragraph by which lacked an edit summary. The editor who did that was ]. I don't see consensus for that edit.] (]) 19:56, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
	:::{{ping\|Anythingyouwant}} I already said I don't object to the move down. You want me to do something else? ―] ] 20:28, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
	::::I just wanted to make you aware of it. I guess that after some more hours I'll revert back, if someone else doesn't do so first. It's very annoying that 1RR facilitates and incentivizes drive-by editing at this BLP by making it much harder to revert the drive-by edits. Obviously, there was no consensus for putting it back in the lead, but admins don't seem interested in enforcing the consensus requirement.] (]) 20:59, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
	:::::We are in agreement. ―] ] 05:39, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
	:] - I'd be OK either way. I do see others mention trivia items that would not seem to be suitable for Lead status so I guess it's acceptable, but where are guidelines or criteria on picking what to include ?? Trump would be oldest, and first billionaire, and first without prior government or military service, and first with foreign-born wife, and first divorced man, and first Twitter president, and .. ehh, I guss whatever enough people want to include will do but it still seems kind of fluff. ] (]) 06:57, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

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

	:::: ] - Unless otherwise clarified, that sure looks like personal opinion rather than a WP guideline or criteria regarding side-remarks in a BLP. Just sayin we've got a LOT of 'firsts' here, and the "someone said of course its important" approach looks infeasible. It sounds a lot like the just-seen , and does not give a basis of inclusion. And yeah, still think trivia fluff that do not meet ], but eh it seems a precedent of fluff exists. ] (]) 07:44, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

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

	Firstly, "oldest person thing" is no way to speak about a senior citizen. Secondly, a "democratic election" has put this "thing" in the lead. Thirdly, talk pages are a place to discuss the improvement of articles, not countries.--] (]) 07:19, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
	:You clearly did not read the header correctly. The word "thing" refers to the part of the text referring to Trump's age relative to other presidents. ] ] 05:48, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

	== Major demonstrations against Trump ==

	Now "major demonstrations against Trump" is on every frontpage where I live (not the US); the global coverage of the demonstrations is extensive, and it is clear that it will have to be mentioned in the article, and in my opinion also be mentioned briefly (one sentence) in the lead. Also, Trump has directly responded/engaged with the demonstrators on Twitter in his usual way (spewing invectives). --] (]) 11:07, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

	*, TIME
	*, AJE
	*, FT
	*, Reuters
	*, AP

	"Trump has directly responded/engaged with the demonstrators on Twitter in his usual way (spewing invectives)".. more insane people.. why are people like this even allowed to edit on such controversial article with such obvious and clear bias?? just give up, Donald Trump won and will be president of the united states, he will ally with putin and avoid ww3 so be thankful that nuclear apocalypse does not happen due to silly attempt to overthrow assad for who knows whos gain ] (]) 15:45, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

	::No, Tataral, Trump has NOT directly responded/engaged with the demonstrators on Twitter by "spewing invectives". (or rioters, according to the NY Post/AP article you listed): "Love the fact that the small groups of protesters last night have passion for our great country. We will all come together and be proud!" That is not invective, but rather, is remarkably tolerant about rioters who are causing severe damage to property and also physically harming innocent bystanders.

	::I would recommend waiting to add content about the protests of a fair election, as they are recent, and Misplaced Pages is not a source of current news.--] (]) 05:36, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

	::Seems like it should go to ] or something rather than this BLP, since it's not something in Trumps life or in response to an action he did. I it gets organized or larger it might be worth is own article, but a 'couple days' of it and awfully vague on content or mixed with riot and looting ... doesn't seem big enough for that. ] (]) 07:53, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

	== Wrong golf course ==

	In the third paragraph of Section 2.1.6, the positioning of the sentence "In June 2015, Trump made an appeal objecting to an offshore windfarm (Aberdeen Bay Wind Farm) being built within sight of the golf course, which was dismissed by five justices at the UK Supreme Court in December 2015." implies that the wind farm was built in sight of the Turnberry course, not the Aberdeen course on the other side of the country. Should the sentence be moved to the previous paragraph for clarity? <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 13:22, 11 November 2016 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
	:{{Done}} Thanks for the heads up! — ] <sup>]</sup> 23:31, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

	== Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 11 November 2016 ==

	{{edit extended-protected\|Donald Trump\|answered=yes}}

	THIS IS AN IMPORTANT REQUEST WHERE[REDACTED] SHOULD JUST STICK TO THE FACTS RATHER THAN SPECULATION REGARDING THE OUTCOME OF THE AMERICAN PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION PROCESS.

	Please REMOVE "He was elected as the 45th U.S. president in the 2016 election, defeating Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton, and will take office on January 20, 2017. At 70 years old, Trump will be the oldest person to assume the presidency."
	As Mr. Trump has not been elected yet by the Electoral College which should confirm their choice on December 19 2016 according to the Constitution, under circumstances prevailing at the time and under the fact that Mr. Trump did not garner the majority of the popular votes...hence he is not the American people president of choice. I will circulate this request on Social media.[REDACTED] CAN DO BETTER THAN THAT if it wants to be considered as a trusted source.

	REPLACE WITH: " He ran for the position of 45th U.S. president in the 2016 election, coming second by popular votes count behind Hillary Clinton, however deemed president-elect on the assumption that, as customary but not by any provision of the Constitution, all Electors comprising the Electoral College in a State will vote for the candidate who received the majority of the popular vote in that state."

	] (]) 15:10, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
	:{{Not done}} See the definition of ]. — ] <sup>]</sup> 16:29, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
	:'''Fly-by comment'''-Yeah,the correction to document these trivial finer aspects seem to be the lone hope to delay the inevitable as long as possible!But given the post-poll environment, the sentence proposed by {{User\|YPLeroux}} is a classic!Sorry, that it does not conform to the article of ]. <span style="background:#fff0cc;font-size:17px" font-family:= "Monotype">]<sup>]</sup></span> 19:39, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

	== Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 11 November 2016 ==

	{{edit extended-\|Donald Trump\|answered=yes}}

	] (]) 20:08, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
	:{{not done}} You have not stated what changes you would propose to the article. <span style="font-family: Gill Sans MT, Arial, Helvetica; font-weight:140;">]</span> <sup>''] ''</sup> 20:14, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

	== President (elect) should come before businessman ==

	It is with all the other Presidents. <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 20:35, 11 November 2016 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

	==Rfc about Donald Trump's new photo proposal==
	{{cot\|title=Delisted RfC pending resolution of image licensing issues. Actually you could start over with a new RfC, cleaner that way. ―] ] 04:11, 12 November 2016 (UTC)}}

	Should the infobox of Donald Trump after permission from the photographer contain this photo?


	*'''Comment'''The source and licensing of the photograph is unclear. - ''']''' <sup>(]) (]) (]) </sup> 21:17, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
	*:There's a credit . I'd also like to clarify whether {{u\|Dyl1G}}, the proposer, is confident in obtaining permission to re-use this image commercially and on any site (for example a CC-BY-SA licence). Somehow I find it unlikely. -- ] <sup>]</sup> 21:28, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
	* Can be used here - https://commons.wikimedia.org/File:Donald_Trump_Image_2016.jpg --] (]) 21:53, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
	*:LOL, that was quick. Welcome to Misplaced Pages. Could you do us a favour and confirm the licensing by either adding something on your website or ]. See ] for more information. Until that happens I suggest for your protection we don't use this image. Thanks. -- ] <sup>]</sup> 22:08, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
	*Sorry I am deleting it ] . I am not the real photographer. Just a friend of the Photographer. I ask if someone can contact the photographer to upload the sourced image. It will be deleted soon. Kind Regards. Not --] (]) 22:13, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
	* I doubt thats the real image and author. Could someone contact the Image Photographer and ask about an image license? That will fix it otherwise we should delete the image that has been uploaded here. No drama.. Just that anyone can upload the image and add details. Simple. Get a verified Yes you can use it from the Photographer then Bob is your uncle! --] (]) 22:06, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
	*The proposed photo is better than the one currently used. It is more NPOV
	*Someone might want to de-list and hat this RfC until licensing issues are satisfactorily resolved. -- ] <sup>]</sup> 22:47, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
	I found the license. I will post it. It is from Getty.
	-- ]


	This photo is under the "Rights-managed" license.

	As it states "Limited to the specific use, medium, period of time, print run, placement, size of content, and territory selected, and any other restrictions that accompany the content on the Getty Images website (or any other method of content delivery) or in an order confirmation or invoice. Non-Exclusive, meaning that you do not have exclusive rights to use the content. Getty Images can license the same content to other customers. Exclusive licenses may be available for rights-managed content upon payment of an additional license fee. Please contact Getty Images if you are interested in licensing content on an exclusive basis."

	(I am chatting with Getty Images for a license) <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 23:13, 11 November 2016 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

	If this license is up to code, I will live chat with getty of getting a license deal for this photo. <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 23:07, 11 November 2016 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

	'''UPDATE'''

	Unfortunately, Getty will not give me a license to use the picture because the Terms of Use on Misplaced Pages are CC's. The person said we could contact Matt, the photographer directly and see if he will give me the license. <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 23:43, 11 November 2016 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
	{{cob}}		{{cob}}
			and then by {{u\|Admiral Farmer}} with the edit summary "Since this is the same office, I combinded it into one square. much like the one on Grover Cleveland’s page".

			{{cot\|Infobox B in the style of Grover Cleveland}}
	== Good news! ==
			{{Infobox officeholder

			\| image = TBA
	Hey, ]. I bet you didn't know that. Anyways, while some people are '''''very''''' polarised about what happened, there's some good news (for everyone)! This article can now be nominated for ]-status, now that it's stable, for the most part. So ] and nominate it! ] ] ] 22:37, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
			\| alt = 2017 Official White House presidential portrait.
	:I'm iffy on the "it's stable" bit. Plenty of new information is coming out. ] ] 22:53, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
			\| caption = Official portrait, 2025
	:Yeah, this has been an incredibly unstable article, with edit wars and constant, huge neutrality battles for months. I'm sure the battles will resume after the shock subsides. Plus this article will need major work in the coming months as the focus switches from being mainly a business person to being mainly a politician. --] (]) 23:18, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
			\| order = 45th and 47th<!-- DO NOT ADD A LINK. Please discuss any proposal on the talk page first. Most recent discussion at ] had a weak consensus to keep the status-quo (no link). -->
	::If it was "stable" it would't need extended-confirmed protection. The explosion of argument on this talk page immediately after his election shows what would have happened to the article without the extra protection. Maybe when it reaches the point where it can be reduced to semi-protection it could be evaluated for stability. It is certainly not there now. ] (]) 08:24, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
			\| office = President of the United States

			\| vicepresident = ]
	:: {{reply to\|Esmost}} All true. And first you need to work on trying to get it to B-quality. (The quality ratings all got erroneously changed over Election Day; I've restored.) --] (]) 04:20, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
			\| term_start = January 20, 2025

			\| term_end =
	== Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 11 November 2016 ==
			\| predecessor = ]

			\| successor =
	{{edit extended-protected\|Donald Trump\|answered=yes}}
			\| vicepresident1 = ]

			\| term_start1 = January 20, 2017
	Typo Correction -
			\| term_end1 = January 20, 2021
	Please change ("skills as a negotiato.") under 2.1.2 Trump Tower to ("skills as a negotiator.")
			\| predecessor1 = ]
	] (]) 23:31, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
			\| successor1 = Joe Biden
	:{{done}}. - ''']''' <sup>(]) (]) (]) </sup> 23:46, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
			}}

	== Page too big? ==

	Trouble loading page with internet connection slow sometimes.

	Page too big?

	Can be trimmed down some by editors?

	Much thanks ! ] (]) 02:00, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
	:Mr. Trump has done a lot of notable things in his life. He is going to have a large article. ] ] 02:20, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
	::] page quite large and hard to load on Internet at 328 ]s, whereas ] page only 298 ]s. ] (]) 02:37, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
	:::You'd be better served to compare the article to someone who has done a similar amount of notable things in their life. ] ] 03:02, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
	::::I do think some of the things in this article would be a good split. Maybe a separation from the business man to the politician or something. I don't know what would be the best way to handle that. ] ] 03:04, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
	:::::Okay that sounds like a good start. Especially to make room for lots of massive additions that are bound to happen soon over time. ] (]) 04:14, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
	::::::There is also content that is out of date, see the last paragraph in the Net worth section, which references hypothetical claims that the Trump brand has lost value due to his presidential campaign. There are way too many references too, over 600. I think that we will need to split the article into two separate ones, as there will be a lot of new content over the next four years. Trump as business man and Trump the politician seems reasonable to me, although we will need to get other editors' input on the best way to do this.--] (]) 05:26, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
	{{od}} {{re\|FeralOink}} I have started to address this concern yesterday in a general trimming expedition, cutting redundancies, excruciating detail and overcites; readable prose size is down from 89k to 77k. More to do, but that's progress. In particular I trimmed the Net worth section and added recent sourcing about the brand value's rebound post-election. — ] <sup>]</sup> 05:33, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

	There is a newly created page ], which was mentioned earlier on this talk page. I believe that much of the content on that page is still duplicated here. I would like to trim more of it out of this page (further reducing the size), but don't want to do too many edits to the page in one day. I will revisit this tomorrow, and give time for additional editor comments.--] (]) 05:57, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

	== Polling failure - suggest add these sources for section on Polling failure ==

	{{edit extended-protected\|answered=yes}}
	------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

	''' Polling failure '''

	{{more\|Nationwide opinion polling for the United States presidential election, 2016}}
	The election ended in a victory for ] despite being behind in nearly all opinion polls.<ref name=peterbarnes>{{citation\|url=http://www.bbc.com/news/election-us-2016-37949527\|accessdate=12 November 2016\|work=]\|date=11 November 2016\|title=Reality Check: Should we give up on election polling?\|author=Peter Barnes, Senior elections and political analyst, BBC News}}</ref><ref name=ethansiegel>{{citation\|url=http://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2016/11/09/the-science-of-error-how-polling-botched-the-2016-election\|work=]\|accessdate=12 November 2016\|date=9 November 2016\|author=Ethan Siegel\|title=The Science Of Error: How Polling Botched The 2016 Election}}</ref> After the general election polling misfiring, media analysts differed as to why the opinion prediction industry was unable to correctly forecast the result.<ref name=peterbarnes /><ref name=ethansiegel /> '']'' questioned whether polling should be abandoned due to its abject failure.<ref name=peterbarnes /> '']'' contributor ] Ethan Siegel performed a ] and raised whether the ] sampled for the polling was inaccurate, and cited the cautionary adage ].<ref name=ethansiegel /> He concluded there may have been ] on the part of the pollsters.<ref name=ethansiegel /> Siegel compared the 2016 election to the failure of prognosticator Arthur Henning in the ] incident from the ].<ref name=ethansiegel />

	------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

	Suggest to add above as new section for the article.

	Or some, all, or any of the above.

	Thank you !
	{{reflist-talk}} ] (]) 06:08, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
	:The polling is about the campaign, and should be on the campaign articles. But, it's not biographic and it shouldn't be added to this page. – ] (]) 06:11, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
	::2nd paragraph at ] already does discuss it. So clearly it does belong on this article page. Perhaps just a small addition to mention the media comparison to ] from ]. ] (]) 06:21, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

	:No thanks. Now that the frenzy is past, I hope to see non-BLP parts move to better spots and shrink this article to saner size -- and as Muboshgu said, this isn't something in Trumps life or response to something he did, it's about polling. Maybe in some election article or polling article, but not here. ] (]) 08:03, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
	::Agree with both Muboshgu and Markbasset. Not here.] (]) 08:35, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
	:] '''Not done:'''<!-- Template:EEp --> There does not seem to be consensus — ] (]) 20:01, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

	== ] statement in article lead ==

	{{edit semi-protected\|answered=yes}}

	The first paragraph of the lead section contains the sentence:
	:He was elected as the 45th U.S. president in the 2016 election on the Republican ticket, defeating Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton, and '''will take office''' on January 20, 2017. (emphasis added)
	Please change this to:
	:He was elected as the 45th U.S. president in the 2016 election on the Republican ticket, defeating Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton, and '''is scheduled to take office''' on January 20, 2017.
	While it is extremely likely that Trump will take office on schedule, it is not yet a mathematical certainty that nothing will happen to prevent this from occurring. --<font color="red">]</font> 10:40, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
	:Done. ] (]) 15:17, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

	== Trump and Wrestling ==

	{{Ping\|MelanieN}} Nothing about Trump's involvement in professional wrestling in the lead section of the article. Details about other ventures like pageantry and reality TV were added. Is there any reason why the wrestling part was not included? ] (]) 12:12, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
	*Honestly that is such a small part of his life it does not warrant to be included in the lead, and that is coming from a wrestling fan. ]] 13:38, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

	== Donald Trump is the president-elect ? ==

	I have a question for you as I Wikipedian Polish Misplaced Pages ... Why according to you Donald Trump is now president-elect? I ask, because many times I go to the enwiki and look with astonishment that give information in advance. I hope that nothing will change at the Trump ... but how do you ensure that Trump will be the president ..... and only on December 19 will be known. At my pliwiki to immediately cancel that person adds that "Donald Trump is the president-elect" ] (]) 14:51, 12 November 2016 (UTC).

	:Previously discussed multiple times on this page. You can find some of it still on the page, the rest in recent archive pages. The short answer: Most reliable sources say he is the president-elect, so we say he is the president-elect. It is not according to us. ―] ] 15:05, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

	Sorry, but Donald J. Trump is the president designate and not the president-elect. Though dismissed as a technicality, legally he has not been elected president by the electoral college. That will take place on December 19, 2016. Once that happens he will be the president-elect.] (]) 15:55, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

	::Agree with Mandruss. Reliable sources call him President-elect. Obama and Hillary call him President-elect. The news media calls him that. Those are all reliable sources. ] (]) 19:14, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

	== Fascism? ==
	{{cot\|1=Closing; no chance of including anything like this being used in the article; BLP and PA problems in the discussion <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 07:05, 13 November 2016 (UTC)</small>}}
	With a very large number of sources calling Donald Trump a fascist or at least his positions fascist, why is this not in the article? It seems massively biased not to even mention this. ] (]) 18:00, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

	:I agree that we could in principle mention how his political positions and views are assessed in a discussion of this topic, provided it is done in a nuanced way and based on good sources. There does seem to be quite a few credible sources assessing his political position in such a way. It would require some work to write a balanced/nuanced discussion of this. --] (]) 19:27, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

	::Only if there are neutral, unbiased sources. The "fascism" label is very subjective, inflammatory, and pejorative today, so many sources that connect Trump with that political ideology might be doing so because they oppose Trump, or if this is not the case, it might be seen by many people that this article is anti-Trump if we mention this. We have to be careful in this area. --] (]) 23:54, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

	:Why isn't an encyclopedia accusing the next US president of being a fascist? You sound like a complete lunatic right now. ] (]) 00:50, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

	:No reliable sources have called him a fascist. We had the same issue with Obama, where his opponents called him a socialist. ] (]) 04:43, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
	{{cob}}		{{cob}}
			It's the same title but 45 is an office Trump held from 2017 to 2021, and 47 is an office he is holding now. Please, self-revert, or maybe someone else who agrees with my reasoning could revert. ]] 18:55, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
			:In the split version, the office shouldn't be lower-cased. ] (]) 18:59, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
			::Yes, it should be, per ]. 45th is a modifier. 47th is, too, but the capitalized "P" of "President of the United States" is baked into the template — it links to the Misplaced Pages article. We could change it to the grammatically correct lower-case p, I assume, but that would lead to a permanent back-and-forth. ]] 19:36, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::You're right, it should be lower-cased per JOBTITLE. But this is one place where I think cross-article consistency is a worthwhile thing, and nobody has found the energy to raise this at Village Pump. I find it easier to stomach if I tell myself that heading is in title case. ―] ] 20:33, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::For the time being, offices are upper-cased in infoboxes regardless of modifiers. ] (]) 20:36, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::I.e., title case. What I said. ―] ] 20:38, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::As far as I can tell, they're only upper-cased because they link to a Misplaced Pages article. But meh, I can live with an upper-case "P". Other than that, any thoughts about the merits? ]] 20:45, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::Merits? You mean splitting idea? ] (]) 20:54, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::No, we often lower-case the first letter of a link to an article. The first character is case-insensitive. See the first sentence of this article, for an example. ―] ] 21:00, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::{{tq\|Other than that, any thoughts about the merits?}} Other than what I said in my first comment? ―] ] 21:03, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::Merits, two editors asking — the problem must be me. Too obtuse? Which do you prefer, Infobox A with one box for each term or Infobox B? And, PLEASE, disregard the portrait, it changes every two minutes. ]] 21:26, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::::I presume with 'version B', you meant to include the office? ] (]) 21:32, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::::Yes. I just fixed it — don't know what happened there, I just copied it from the main space. ]] 22:08, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::::Ok, so I see two differences between A and B:
			:::::::*A has two heading lines. B has one heading line.
			:::::::*For me, and I'm not universal, A's headings fit on one line. B's heading wraps. Big deal.
			:::::::I don't think one is easier to read or understand than the other. So it's practically a toss-up, a flip of a coin. <del>If I have to !vote, I'll !vote for the one with one heading line (B).</del> ―] ] 22:31, 20 January 2025 (UTC) Edited 22:40, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::::It didn't take me long to change my mind. B says "45th and 47th", then shows 47th and 45th. Therefore A is a little easier to understand, <del>and I hereby change my !vote to A.</del> ―] ] 22:53, 20 January 2025 (UTC) Edited 04:22, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::::Honestly not really? 45 comes before 47, and the 2017-21 term of office clearly came before 2025-present. Rather self explanatory. We can add a note if need be to clarify. But splitting would really make this article inconsistent with all others as all other infoboxes of leaders with multiple terms still use one box. Example: ], ], ].
			::::::::Now the latter two examples aren't counting two separate terms as we have here, but splitting the boxes instead of using a note to clarify would be more inconsistent with the format other articles use for similar situations. Unless there's an example I missed where they do split the boxes for an incumbent with a previous term ] (]) 01:48, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
			:I agree that there should be two separate boxes. ] (]) 20:17, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

			:::::::Best we stick with option '''B''', though I do understand why some might prefer 'A'. Thing is, an RFC would likely be the only chance for 'A' to be adopted & I doubt that would be much of a chance. ] (]) 23:01, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
	== Trump Photo 2 Rfc ==
			:'''Option B''' other incumbent world leaders who have served previous terms also use just one box. 45th POTUS is not a distinct office from 47th POTUS which would seem the case if it were two different boxes. Also this concern seems to be splitting hairs as most readers can probably understand 45th is for the 2017-21 term and 47 for 2025-present fairly easily. ] (]) 01:15, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
	<!-- ] 07:24, 21 December 2016 (UTC) -->{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil\|1482305084}}
			::*I posit that 90% could figure it out if they studied it for half a minute (assume they have never seen an officeholder's infobox before). Why make them study it for half a minute? And then there's the 8% who would take considerably longer, and the 2% who would never figure it out.
	{{rfc\|pol\|bio}}
			::*{{tq\|other incumbent world leaders}} I don't care. Other stuff exists. 99% of readers will never notice such a "discrepancy", and it's highly unlikely to present an actual problem for the remaining 1%.
			::*{{tq\|45th POTUS is not a distinct office from 47th POTUS}} is your one decent point, and I'll think on it. It might even change my !vote (back). ―] ] 01:44, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

			'''Question''' Is there agreement that after Trump's term ends the same format as Grover Cleveland's article should be used? Regardless of what you think it should be now with him as incumbent - ] (]) 03:26, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
	Should the infobox image be replaced with:
			:May we save that for January 2029? If I agreed now, that doesn't mean I'll feel the same way then. ―] ] 03:43, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
			'''Option B''' per discussion. Lesser of two weevils. ―] ] 04:22, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

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

			{{ping\|Mandruss}} {{ping\|GoodDay}} {{ping\|Bokmanrocks01}}: Option B does not comply with the template's usage instructions (and neither does ], for that matter). This is what I should have lead with if I had looked up the template yesterday. ]] 10:29, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
	] (]) 20:16, 12 November 2016 (UTC)Dyl1G
			:{{ping\|Space4Time3Continuum2x}} Does it specifically address nonconsecutive terms, or are you reading something into it? ―] ] 10:51, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
			::No and no. The logic of the parameters (e.g., order, order2, order3 ... order16) seems self-explanatory to me, as does the infobox ({{{order}}},{{{term start}}}–{{{term end}}},{{{:president}}} ...; {{{order2}}},{{{term start2}}}–{{{term end2}}},{{{president2}}} ...). And intended to {{tq\|aid users in the application of {{:Infobox officeholder}}}} has an example for someone who held the office of Ambassador of the United States twice (]). ]] 11:54, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::Different ambassadorships, different offices. Not equivalent. You've lost me with the rest. All I infer from that is that it's ''possible'' to do A (we knew that), but nothing to imply that we ''should'' do A. ―] ] 12:14, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::Same office (Ambassador of the United States), different country:
			::::*\| ambassador_from=United States \| country=France
			::::*\| ambassador_from'''2'''=United States \| country'''2'''=the United Kingdom
			::::Same office (President of the United States), different status (incumbent and former):
			::::*\| order=47th \| '''office'''= President of the United States \| term_start=January 20, 2025 \| term–end= -> gives '''47th ]''' + '''Incumbent''' + '''Assumed office''' + '''January 20, 2025'''
			::::*\| order'''2'''=45th President of the United States \| term_start'''2'''=January 20, 2017 \| term–end'''2'''=January 20, 2021 -> gives '''45th President of the United States''' + '''In office''' + '''January 20, 2017–January 20, 2021'''
			::::Citing an ]: {{tq\|The 47th and current president of the United States is Donald John Trump.}} Seems logical to me. Oh well, good thing I reconsidered going into teaching. ]] 13:39, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::Lol. ―] ] 13:40, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::Still seems like that is one way order ''can'' be used but not necessarily how it ''should'' be. Still haven't seen any other articles that separate different terms of one office into different sections in the infobox. Again, we can just add a note somewhere if we are concerned about the order combined into one section causing confusion ] (]) 15:57, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
			:Whatcha mean? ] (]) 11:54, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
			::See my response to Mandruss. I don't know how to explain myself any better. ]] 13:39, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

			== Website ==
	That could be one possible although it's B&W. Unfortunately, most CC Donald Trump photos are not NPOV. If you think you found one suggest it. If there isn't any, I guess we can wait for his greatagain.gov site to post one. <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 18:42, 12 November 2016 (UTC)</small>
	:How is the current image not NPOV? Anyway, I really don't think we should switch to a black and white picture. ] ] 19:58, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

			Should whitehouse.gov now be added to the infobox? ] (]) 18:41, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
	*'''Oppose''' any change to infobox image before the official White House portrait is released, as a cost/benefit fail (actually I Oppose this RfC). <s>Oppose this choice in particular, for various reasons including B&W.</s> OP's NPOV argument appears to be a misunderstanding of NPOV. ―] ] 20:00, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

			:Definitely, especially considering that it is "Trump-themed" now ] (]) 19:20, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
	*No, I am saying the black and white is a possibility but I can't find anything else. I am looking for suggestions while trying to the get this picture approved from author ] (]) 20:16, 12 November 2016 (UTC)Dyl1G
	::{{ping\|Dyl1G}} Ok, but that's a misuse of the RfC process. An RfC is for asking a specific question ("Do you have any suggestions?" is not a specific question) or making a specific proposal, and seeking a consensus on the question or proposal. If your intent is to solicit photo suggestions, you should remove the {{tl\|Rfc}} template from this thread and assume that there is enough participation at this article to get a fair number of viable suggestions. ―] ] 20:24, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

			== Portrait ==

			The of Donald Trump is actually licensed under the CC BY 3.0 US license, see https://www.whitehouse.gov/copyright/ – {{tq\|"Except where otherwise noted, third-party content on this site is licensed under a "}}. The same applies to the portrait of JD Vance. ] (]) 19:01, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
	'''NOTE:''' I put the Rfc back because I found a photo which I think is good and will add more when found ] (]) 17:57, 13 November 2016 (UTC)Dyl1G
	:{{ping\|Dyl1G}} Fine. Please at least do it right. You code one Rfc template for each RfC, not two. And this is not what is meant by a Misplaced Pages proposal, so "prop" should not be coded. Finally, this is a biography, so "bio" should be coded to list this at Biographies. I fixed all this for you the first time around, this time it's your turn. ―] ] 21:00, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

	~~@Mandruss~~ ~~Fixed.~~ ] (]) 21:22, 13 ~~November~~ ~~2016~~ (UTC)~~Dyl1G~~		:I agree we should change it to those soon ] (]) 19:10, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
			:'''No'''. That is ]. The White House did not take the photograph. They do not own the copyright. It does not matter what someone other than the copyright holder says about the copyright status. Normally we would be able to trust the White House, but Trump did the same thing (stole an image) in 2017 when he took office. There is no reason to believe that the White House owns the copyright to this image, and thus they have no authority to release such copyright. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez \| ] \| ] 19:12, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
	:{{ping\|Dyl1G}} You dropped the Politics listing. Fixed. ―] ] 06:25, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
			:::This is original research and violates ] policy. ] (]) 20:24, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
			::The image is on Commons, and was ] after a deletion request. We shouldn't relitigate that here, but at Commons. -- ] (]) 19:22, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::It's already renominated and the administrator being discussed there. The administrator on commons violated their own policy by SUPERVOTING on the request and ignoring the laundering concerns. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez \| ] \| ] 19:26, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
			:So, we need to confirm that it was taken by the U.S. Government. A transition official or an official working on behalf of the official transition would count. However, I just want to note you are incorrect in the way you have cited the White House's copyright policy. The White House, legally, cannot pull a picture from the public domain if it was produced by the White House. Congress would have to amend copyright law for them to be able to do so. So, again, I agree with the above. We just need to wait on ownership confirmation. ] (]) 19:19, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
			::The WH needs to clearly label or footnote the images. doesn't help. How is anyone supposed to know which material is government-produced and which is third-party content. ]] 19:49, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
			:* '''Comment''' Whether or not it is in the public domain, this is his inaugural photo, not his official portrait, which has not yet been taken.
			:] (]) 20:20, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
			*We cannot question reliable sources and the official White House website is a reliable source. If the White House website says the portrait is public domain then that's good enough for Misplaced Pages. ] (]) 20:22, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:We can and do ] before we use it. If there is '''any''' doubt, which there is here, then the image is to be presumed copyrighted until '''proven''' otherwise by an explicit release from the photographer. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez \| ] \| ] 20:25, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
			*::You are misstating the Commons policy. The Commons policy is "significant doubt" not "'''any''' doubt" as you say. And there is not significant doubt in this case. ] (]) 20:31, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

			:Can we wait until his '''Presidential''' portrait is released before changing the image? This is merely a portrait for the inauguration, same with ]'s. ] (]) (]) 20:46, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
	*SUPPORT - Please let's replace the current photo of Trump that is in the infobox here, and on the United States 2016 President Elections page! Anything is better, as long as he is smiling and doesn't have a microphone obscuring him.--] (]) 22:46, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
			::It is a better image than the old one. No reason to wait. -- ] (]) 20:50, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::Better/worse is a matter of subjectivity which isn't the issue here. It is about selecting which picture is most appropriate for the article, and that to me is going to be his presidential portrait once it is released at some point this year. ] (]) (]) 21:30, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::When I said better I meant most appropriate for the article. There have been many discussions where editors stated that the old photo was a poor choice because it is so old. In those discussions, it seemed the consensus was that the problem was not that we have to use the official photo, but that there is not a better (more appropriate) photo that we can use on WP. I think the new photo is a better representation than the 2017 photo. -- ] (]) 21:53, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::2017 is acceptably old, to me, at this stage in life. The new photo is atrociously biased. Old photo should favored. ] (]) 13:04, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
			:The photo is used as the profile picture for the official POTUS twitter account, so it already is being used by the US government as his official photo for now for his second term ] (]) 04:36, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
			::It doesn't matter. This photo violates ] in many points. "Lead images should be natural" "also be the type of image used for similar purposes in high-quality reference works" "Lead images should be of least shock value". The new image should be reverted ASAP. If nobody bothers to answer these concerns I will do it myself. ] (]) 13:16, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::The footnote for "natural" clarifies this just means we want the natural choice. I'm not sure why you think it would be unnatural or that high quality reference works wouldn't use the image this subject has chosen to represent themselves as their official photo. I don't think users will find it shocking that the official photo released by the subject will be what we lead with. -- ] (]) 13:23, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::"this subject has chosen to represent themselves" does not matter. The MOS is pretty clear about the need for an image similar to what's used in '''reference works''', NOT self promotional works. ] (]) 13:32, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
			=== Other copies and usage ===
			: - Just FYI - ] - ].<span style="display:inline-flex;rotate:-15deg;color:darkblue">''']'''</span><span style="display:inline-flex;rotate:15deg;color:darkblue">]</span> 20:55, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
			::Indeed with should wait, until the official WH portraits come out. ] (]) 20:59, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::] <span style="display:inline-flex;rotate:-15deg;color:darkblue">''']'''</span><span style="display:inline-flex;rotate:15deg;color:darkblue">]</span> 21:01, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::Image on many articles because of ]. <span style="display:inline-flex;rotate:-15deg;color:darkblue">''']'''</span><span style="display:inline-flex;rotate:15deg;color:darkblue">]</span> 21:04, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
			Look likely that an RFC may be required, because the 'new' image looks terrible. The lighting, etc. ] (]) 22:08, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

			:Poor Commons.... So much clean up to do - . <span style="display:inline-flex;rotate:-15deg;color:darkblue">''']'''</span><span style="display:inline-flex;rotate:15deg;color:darkblue">]</span> 23:45, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
	* '''Oppose''' until an official presidential photo is released. Until then, the longstanding photo should remain, as it has undergone much discussion and survived all of them. <span style="color:#008080;">'''Chase'''</span>\|<sup><small style="font-size:75%;">]</small></sup> 23:04, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
			:I absolutelly agree with @]. This image should not be used. It doesn't have a standard neutral pose that is favored on Misplaced Pages. It is a purely promotional-emotional photograph. There is no reason to not use the more neutral photo from a few years ago. I urge editors to at least express themselves in this matter, since this is an extremely serious issue in my opinion. ] (]) 13:02, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
			::Expressing myself. I would support the 2017 official portrait over this Trump self-promotional hijack of Misplaced Pages. I wish us luck in seeking a consensus for that, between Trump-supporters and old-image-haters. Then, if anybody cares about other Trump articles, be prepared to fight the battle at each one individually. Then, be prepared for a continuous 4-year parade of drive-bys complaining about the infobox image. Consensus 1 would be amended to allow the exception; the 2017 is "''an'' official White House portrait", but it's no longer "''the'' official White House portrait" which is what #1 says. ―] ] 13:23, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::Agree with @]. This is self promotional hijack. Official portrait is not what Misplaced Pages guidelines favor. I'll repeat what I said on another comemnt. This photo violates ] in many points. "Lead images should be natural" "also be the type of image used for similar purposes in high-quality reference works" "Lead images should be of least shock value". It should be reverted ASAP. ] (]) 13:18, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::No, we have a consensus system in place and we can't declare a national emergency, call out the National Guard, and suspend normal process. "ASAP" will be less soon than we would prefer. But you can help things along by starting a new thread seeking consensus. ―] ] 13:31, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::Looking at this with more attention, the firtst consensus item is so poorly presented, because it forces editors to favor a future picture without any agency. It should have never been allowed in the first place because it basically violates the most basic rules of the editing process on Misplaced Pages. An even bigger issue in my opinion. If you think that a new thread is needed I'll open it. ] (]) 13:45, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::Water under bridge, sorry you weren't around in 2016. A new thread is needed to provide a clear consensus to link in the list item. ―] ] 13:49, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::::]. ] (]) 13:56, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

			::"It doesn't have a standard neutral pose that is favored on Misplaced Pages." Neutral trumps non-neutral, but official trumps neutral. Of course, freely licensed trumps everything else (and official stuff is usually copyrighted), but in this case, if the copyright status of the portrait has been settled... ] (]) 14:20, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

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

			There have been several edits claiming that Trump negotiated the Israel-Hamas ceasefire the day before he entered office. Last I checked, Biden was president when the ceasefire was announced. I am at my one revert already and cannot keep up with the additions. ] (]) 19:26, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
	*All I am saying is that the photo seems a bit biased in my opinion. That's all. ] (]) 01:42, 14 November 2016 (UTC)Dyl1G
			:"How the Biden and Trump teams worked together to get the Gaza ceasefire and hostages deal done" https://edition.cnn.com/2025/01/15/politics/biden-trump-gaza-ceasefire-deal/index.html --] (]) 19:28, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
	*:That's because you (like many editors, so don't feel bad) don't really understand ], as I and others have said previously. One immediately above, at 01:07. ―] ] 06:32, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
			::Yep, even bidens camp say it. ] (]) 19:29, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::And the wiki article doesnt even claim he negotiated it, just that he "helped" --] (]) 19:31, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
			:Per @], CNN reported that they both played major roles. As did the New York Times. The question is whether or not it should be in the presidency section or the transition section. It is certainly notable enough for inclusion. ''']]''' 19:40, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
			::I think you need to self-revert - the wording was challenged, there's discussion ongoing, violation of 24-hour BRD. Trump wasn't president when both sides agreed to the plan Biden first proposed in May. Envoy Witkoff clearly stated that the Biden team was in charge. Saying that Witkoff "helped" (assisted) seems appropriate to me. ]] 21:56, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::Witkoff also credited Trump with the ceasefire. He stated that whilst Biden's team were the "tip of the spear", "no one has pride of authorship". The wording in its current form seems most sensible, where no opinion on the matter is given. To satisfy due weight, we would also need to make it clear that Trump's incoming presidency expedited the process—which was at a long-standing stalemate—considerably. {{tq\|Biden officials acknowledged the deadline of Trump’s entry into office was a motivating factor in finally finding success after months of failure}}, per CNN. It's also worth noting that this article is about Trump, not the Biden administration; it's like if I were to write in ]'s article, "Di Maria won the ] and scored in ], but ] scored more goals." It is not exactly challengeable to simply state that Trump and his administration helped, which is a fact verified by several reliable sources. ''']]''' 22:27, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
			::{{ping\|Mb2437}}, see preceding edit, I forgot to ping you. ]] 21:57, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
			::And {{tq\|enacted a day prior}} is unsourced. ]] 22:01, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::"The ceasefire is now due to take effect on Sunday, when the first hostages should be released — the day before Trump’s January 20 inauguration", per ''Financial Times''. ''']]''' 22:38, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

			== Removal of "Trump's victory sparked numerous protests in major U.S. cities" in 2016 section ==
	*'''Strong oppose''' – First, per {{u\|Mandruss}}, I oppose the very ''idea'' of changing the picture at this point. Second, the proposed image looks absolutely dreadful to me, just like probably the current one looks dreadful to the OP. And we won't ever settle an ] debate, so i advocate a ] close for this RfC. — ] <sup>]</sup> 09:27, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
	*:Support said close (abort), as I said. ―] ] 09:40, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

			], you have content on the page that has been here for years. I am at my 1RR on this. ] (]) 19:32, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
	== Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 12 November 2016 ==

			:I think that the text should be kept. ] (]) 19:39, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
	{{edit extended-protected\|Donald Trump\|answered=yes}}
			::Seems it may have been reverted more than once. Cheers. ] (]) 20:00, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::Doing some digging and apparently Jack has removed this three times since January 18, , , , and had it reverted each time,, , . ] (]) 21:05, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::Mandruss , this is revert . ]] 14:56, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::You appear to have Mandruss on the brain. Look again. ―] ] 15:00, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

			== Should Trump be added to the category of "American Zionists?" ==
	In the introduction, it suggests that many of Trump's statements have been "controversial or false". While I believe that "controversial" is easily a fair assessment, labeling them as "false" comes down as a judgment call that crosses into POV territory. It would be more encyclopedic to say that they have been "controversial or even alleged falsehoods" or "accused of being false".
	] (]) 20:38, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
	:Done. This appears heavily biased, especially as all candidates speak many false statements, being aware or not. I am removing it. ] ] · ] · ] 02:49, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
	:Ugh there appears to have been a weak consensus against this; another RfC should be made now that this is receiving more attention, i.e. now that he is President-elect. ] ] · ] · ] 03:15, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
	::For future editors, ]. {{u\|Ɱ}}, I disagree with the idea of doing another RfC now. Since his campaign is over, nothing has changed that will make the outcome of another RfC any different (the previous RfC was finished in September 2016). Since it is well-sourced and undisputed that many of his statements have been false, there is nothing wrong with stating it as a fact{{snd}}no reliable sources (that I know of) are denying that "many of his statements have been controversial or false." The ] policy page says to avoid stating opinions as facts, but it ''also'' warns to avoid stating facts as opinions. Changing it to "accused of being false" would be a blatant violation of that policy. Even if one reliable source could be found that claimed all of Trump's statements were true, including it would be giving ].

			I don't think he's ever formally labelled himself as such, but he has been very pro-Israel during his political career. ] (]) 22:45, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
	::Most importantly, the word "false" is used many times throughout the article in reference to numerous statements Trump has made throughout his campaign, and all those occurrences would need to be changed before the lead could be changed. ''(Imagine if the article said: "Trump publicly acknowledged that Obama was born in the U.S., and <s>falsely</s> claimed that rumors to the contrary had been started by Hillary Clinton during her 2008 presidential campaign. <u>His statements were accused of being false.</u>")'' ] (]) 04:13, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
			:{{Ping\|NesserWiki}} absolutely '''NO''', supporting Israel militarily '''doesn't mean''' being Zionist. ] (]) 11:45, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
	:::No, that's not how it works. The lede is for the most notable information. It's notable that Trump makes controversial statements, which most politicians don't, but it's not notable that Trump has lied or spoken falsely, which most politicians do. ] ] · ] · ] 17:13, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
			:Seconding JacktheBrown's opinion. While Trump ''is'' pro-Israel, he is not necessarily a Zionist, unlike ] who very and is the main reason that category applies to Joe but not Donald. ] (]) 23:58, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
	:::So it doesn't matter that there are many people out there that believe his reputedly false statements? Isn't it sort of one-sided to say that there aren't enough reputable sources that say his statement ''aren't'' false? Are there even sources that take the time to mention that something is particularly ''not'' false? It seems like this is set up to be a self-fulfilling prophecy.] (]) 23:53, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

			== Mass deletions from article ==
	== What is the page curation utility doing on this page? ==

			I noticed that a very large amount of information was just from the article. Included in this deletion was the religion section. Religion played a particularly large role in the election of Donald Trump to the presidency and having a few sentences that describe his religious views is not undue. I hope this helps. With regards, ]<sup>]</sup> 02:15, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
	If you haven't noticed, the page curation tool is up on this page. This article is not newly created or unreviewed, odd as to why it is on here? Or is this just me? - ''']''' <sup>(]) (]) (]) </sup> 22:00, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
			:That editor has been previously advised: If you edit en masse, don't complain if you are challenged by reversion en masse. That edit could've been split into five or six, making things considerably easier for their colleagues. I'm not going to challenge because I don't care about that content, but I would support anybody who saw fit to do so. ―] ] 02:27, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
			::There are multiple reliable sources indicating that Rev. Normal Vince Peale had a significant influence on Donald Trump. Also, Trump switched from Presbyterian to nondenominational Christianity which is a type of evangelical Christianity. And Trump has won elections through courting the evangelical vote. So I am very firmly against taking out the religious section of the article given religion's influence on Donald Trump. ] (]) 02:35, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

			:], regarding your edit summary , where did you obtain consensus for that edit? ] (]) 02:36, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
	:{{ping\|Champion}} Educate me. What is it, where is it, and why do we care whether it's on this page? ―] ] 22:35, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
			::Following Mandruss, the edits by Nikkimaria should have been made into five or six so it'd be easier to analyze. That being said, the religion sub-section does deserve inclusion in the article given the role of faith in Donald Trump's life, and also its role in American politics in general. A significant share of the American population wouldn't vote for an atheist president. ] (]) 15:03, 21 January 2025 (UTC)U to
	::{{ping\|Mandruss}}See ] It was on the right side of the page when I posted the original comment and remains there, and it is only meant to appear on newly created or unreviewed articles, but it is not the case here. - ''']''' <sup>(]) (]) (]) </sup> 22:57, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
			:::User:Nikkimaria, thanks for your comment. I started this discussion on the talk page in order to determine whether the information should be kept or restored. Thus far, it looks like consensus has leaned towards the former. I did see that you also removed information about where Trump went to Sunday School, though I did not restore that yet. Would you be able to explain why you removed that short clause? I look forward to hearing from you. I hope this helps. With regards, ]<sup>]</sup> 19:16, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
	:::FYI I have inquired about it at ] and it turns out it was vandalized after being moved into draft space and is caused by a bug in the tool. - ''']''' <sup>(]) (]) (]) </sup> 06:17, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
			::::Actually User:Nikkimaria, nevermind. It looks like ] restored the clause regarding Sunday School, which I thought was helpful to have in describing Donald Trump's upbringing. The source text, ''Historical Dictionary of the Donald Trump Administration'' (published by Rowman & Littlefield) included both his primary education at Kew-Forest School, as well as his religious education through Sunday School at First Presbyterian Church in the paragraphs describing his upbringing. I believe that we should do the same. I would love to hear your comments as well User:FMSky. Thanks, ]<sup>]</sup> 21:01, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
	::::It's not a bug at all. See the page's logs; a series of compromised admin accounts (including Jimbo's!) vandalised the Main Page, and several of them vandalised this by moving it to ] or the like (one did the same to Hillary Rodham Clinton's, too), so several times it had to be moved back to this title. Page Curation is set up to appear on any page that's recently been moved from draftspace to mainspace, as this one was. Programming it to ignore pages that have spent a long time in mainspace would maybe be a good deal of work, and since sometimes existing articles are moved to userspace or draftspace because they're really bad quality (as an alternative to deletion), we can't guarantee that even a longtime-in-mainspace draft should necessarily be exempt from Page Curation. The big issue is that pagemove vandalism of articles like this to draftspace is exceptionally rare, and since Page Curation doesn't hurt anything, we don't need to worry about accounting for it. ] (]) 13:03, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
			:::::But you restored the content before starting this discussion.
			:::::This article is overly detailed, and is only becoming more so with each passing day. Per ], the best approach to addressing that is keeping a high-level overview here, and deferring detail to subarticles. That means things like his Bible (]) and his Bible collection should be included elsewhere.
			:::::By the same token FMSky's revert should be undone. ] (]) 00:30, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::The current consensus now supports the presence of the section in the article and I agree with User:FMSky's edit that reinstates the location of his Sunday School. As has been pointed out, religion plays an important role in the United States and a short section is helpful in this article. I just noticed that a large amount of information was just to the article. If detail is to be removed, it can start there or elsewhere but a few sentences on Donald Trump's basic demographic information and upbringing should be mentioned in this article. I might recommend trimming information about his views on exercise, sleep time or golfing interest, all of which has less bearing on the biography than the role that faith plays in his life (and in the election). The inauguration itself, which was held yesterday, was shrouded in religious imagery and wishing to remove it seems short-sighted. I am open to seeing what others might have to say. ]<sup>]</sup> 03:16, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

			:::::::By all means propose removal of other extraneous details - that would be a great improvement. But in any event the Bibles should go. ] (]) 03:47, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
	== Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 12 November 2016 ==
			::::::::As a ], I could agree to removal of the just the sentence "Trump himself has a personal collection of Bibles", provided that there is another suitable place on Misplaced Pages where this information could be reinstated. Let me know your thoughts. Kind regards, ]<sup>]</sup> 12:47, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

			== Should we include Trump's mass pardon of January 6th convicts in the lead? ==
	{{edit extended-protected\|Donald Trump\|answered=yes}}

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

			:It has been noted in the articles for his second presidency and the J6 attack ] (]) 03:33, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
			:As someone who is appalled by the pardons, I don't think so. The reference to "his involvement in the January 6 Capitol attack" seems sufficient for the lede. ] (]) 03:14, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

			== Remove top article wording ==
	] (]) 23:25, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

			@] we should remove the felon part, while he is that’s not appropriate for the top line summary of a living person considering he is the current POTUS ] (]) 03:02, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
	Donald Trump was born in Queens, NY not New York, NY (He was actually born in Jamaica, NY)
			:I reverted. ―] ] 03:05, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
			::{{resolved}} ] (]) 03:20, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

			== This is the most biased article in the entire Misplaced Pages ==
	The address is 85-15 wareham Rd Jamaica, NY you can search for this anywhere
			{{atop\|The essential point here is that, if done correctly, this thread would've been handled per consensus 61; i.e. immediately closed with a link to ], then archived after 24 hours. That fact that that was not done is not a reason to hijack the thread. It has been agreed to start new thread(s) for the new issue (s). Eligible for manual archival after this time tomorrow. ―] ] 17:45, 22 January 2025 (UTC)}}
	:Hi Howardform, the article infobox lists New York City, New York as his birthplace, which is actually correct. ] ] · ] · ] 02:48, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
			{{atop\|Propose specific edits then ] ] 05:11, 21 January 2025 (UTC){{pb}}Please read ]. ―] ] 06:17, 21 January 2025 (UTC)}}
			At least the introductory paragraphs should be written in a neutral tone. Mention some positives. He is the President of the United States and a loved and respected leader around the world. ] (]) 05:01, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

			:While I disagree with the later half, the top section before the info box should be concise and neutral, the part of Cleveland and his felony conviction shouldn’t be at the top ] (]) 05:09, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
	== Immediate back flip on main stance straight after election ==
			{{abot}}

			], please stop shutting down discussion. It is appropriate on WP pages to discuss ways to improve the article, even if you disagree. ] and ], please feel free to ignore the warning above and continue discussion. --] (]) 16:51, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
	With the change from Ill get rid all off illegals to ALL THE ILLEGALS CAN NOW STAY. Was it all just a trick to get the ignorant white trash vote? The ones who voted for their pay to be cut..... After all who is going to work for trumps 4$ an hour? Only the illegals.--] (]) 00:24, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
			:All we ask. If anyone believe the article is biased, please propose a change. ] (]) 16:53, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
	:Um... talk pages aren't ''general'' forums... We just cite stuff. ] ] 00:52, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
			::Sounds good, let's talk about it. That's what this page is for I think. -- ] (]) 16:58, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::OK, then tell us one thing we say that is wrong. ] (]) 16:59, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
			:As I advised you on your talk page, this one qualified for handling per consensus 61, but that didn't happen because the editor who got to it first (an admin by the way) was not aware of 61 or had forgotten about it. We conform to our consensuses {{tq\|even if you disagree}}. I don't think this is a hill you want to die on. ―] ] 17:02, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
			::Are you saying that a consensus on a page that you give a special number to means that further discussion about it is verboten? No one is required to conform to "our consensuses," the article conforms to the consensus of editors formed on talk pages. -- ] (]) 17:08, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::No, it means there has to actually be a meaningful request not just "this page is biased", we need to have something we can say yes or not to. ] (]) 17:10, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::A civil and productive way to respond would be to say that, rather than closing discussions before they start. -- ] (]) 17:15, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::{{tq\|No one is required to conform to "our consensuses,"}} Well that's just patently false, unless we've been doing it wrong for the past 10 years. Hundreds of experienced editors have come and gone during that time, and you're the first to say anything remotely like that. Consensus is consensus. ―] ] 17:12, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::I mean that no one is required to conform their opinion to some consensus and never express disagreement. ] -- ] (]) 17:14, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::Absolutely. So open a thread to propose a change to consensus 61 and see how far you get. Until that passes, consensus 61 remains in effect and is respected. Thank you. ―] ] 17:16, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::What I'm reacting to is your disruptive and uncivil behavior of closing discussions. It violates ] and it discourages editors from discussion. -- ] (]) 17:21, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::::Its not policy, but just saying "this page is biased" adds nothing and can be seen as ]. After all I have to say is "not its not", and discussion stops. users need to make constructive comments. Or we just get a circular discussion of "Ohh yes it is, Ohh no it isn't". Which just wastes space and user's time in having to read it. For example, in the last 10 minutes what (constructive) has come out of this, have you (for example) made one concrete suggestion? ] (]) 17:21, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::::My suggestion is to stop closing discussion. If someone is soapboxing, there are ways to deal with that. They might ultimately end in closing a discussion, but what was done here makes Misplaced Pages look like it has thought police. -- ] (]) 17:24, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::::::My suggestion is for users to read the FAQ and stop wasting our time. ] (]) 17:27, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::::::::The FAQs can be helpful, but treating them like the approved narrative, where disagreement means your comment is hatted and you're accused of wasting the VIP Wikipedians' time makes us look bad. -- ] (]) 17:30, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::::::::For the umpteenth time, this is not about any FAQ despite what Steven says. It's about a long-standing consensus at this article. ―] ] 17:33, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::::::::::Editors should also be allowed to challenge the long-standing consensus. -- ] (]) 17:35, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::::::::::For the love of Pete, did I not already respond to that point?? ―] ] 17:39, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::::::::::::I'm not sure I follow if you did. Are you saying that the only approved way to complain about bias on this page is to go to that special page and say "I hereby challenge Consensus 61" and give my reasons? That's not how this works. -- ] (]) 17:47, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::::::::::::For illustration of how we propose changes to consensus, see ] and ]. ―] ] 17:54, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::::::So I gather you disagree with consensus 61. I have already told you what you can do about that. This is not it. ―] ] 17:28, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::::::I haven't read it, so not sure. -- ] (]) 17:31, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::::::::Then how can you disagree with it? ] (]) 17:35, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::::::::You haven't read the consensus item, or the supporting discussion? If the latter, you really don't need to read the supporting discussion unless you suspect that the consensus item does not accurately reflect it. If the former, why are you raising such a fuss when you don't even know what we're talking about? ―] ] 17:36, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::::::::I am raising a fuss over editors and apparently an admin hatting peoples conversations for disagreement with the approved narrative. -- ] (]) 17:38, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::::::::::Aka complying with consensus. This is truly getting tiresome. ―] ] 17:41, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::::::::::Complying with consensus means that the article complies with consensus. Commenting on a talk page in a way that does not agree with the consensus should be encouraged. -- ] (]) 17:44, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::::::::::::That's a departure from how we've done things since #61 was established in May 2023. You're welcome to propose a change to that as well. Not in this thread. ―] ] 17:47, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::::::::::::Wow, all this time I assumed "Concensus 61" was something about the page not being biased against Trump. I apologize for the confusion. I disagree with that procedure and I believe it violates ], but I guess you're right that it needs to be dealt with a different way. -- ] (]) 17:56, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::::::::::::::So, all this could have been avoided if you had bothered to follow the link I provided for your convenience ? Sigh. ―] ] 18:04, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::::::::::::::Yes, that was dumb and I do apologize for wasting time. I assumed it was a content thing and not a procedure thing. Not a total waste of time because I do think this page is being handled in an Orwellian way and reflects badly on the project. -- ] (]) 18:07, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::::So, let's see one suggested edit, just one we can discuss. ] (]) 17:22, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::I did not close this discussion; it was closed by admin EvergreenFir. I reverted your incorrect attempt to reopen it. ―] ] 17:23, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::::I do apologize for that misunderstanding. -- ] (]) 17:26, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

	== First Sentence ==

	~~Can~~ we ~~stick~~ ~~with~~ ~~one~~ ~~introductory~~ ~~sentence?~~ It ~~keeps~~ ~~changing~~. ~~It should read,~~ "Donald Trump is ~~an American businessman~~ and ~~politician~~ ~~who~~ is ~~the~~ ~~President-elect of the United States.~~" ~~This~~ is ~~the~~ ~~standard~~ ~~format~~ ~~for~~ ~~every~~ ~~president:~~ So ~~and~~ So is a ~~politician~~ ~~who~~ ~~served as the president, etc.~~ ] (]) 06:15, 13 ~~November~~ ~~2016~~ (UTC)		OK lets demonstrate "This page is biased", not a good post. "Donald Trump is X and we need to say this" is as it clearly states what needs to be done. Does that make it clear? ] (]) 17:32, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

	:~~Saying~~ ~~he's~~ a ~~politician~~ ~~who~~ is ~~President-elect~~ is ~~redundant~~.--] (]) 06:36, 13 ~~November~~ ~~2016~~ (UTC)		:The editor said more than "this page is biased," and many productive talk page discussion start with a vague concern which is developed into a concrete proposal through discussion. -- ] (]) 17:37, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
			::OK, so lets treat it as valid, "Trump was the first sitting U.S. president to enter North Korea; he met with its leader Kim Jong Un without progress on denuclearization. " is that not a positive? ] (]) 17:41, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
	:::I feel like we should have an RfC on this matter. - ''']''' <sup>(]) (]) (]) </sup> 06:38, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
			:::Hi {{u\|Slatersteven}}, two comments on this excerpt that I'd like to hear your thoughts on.
			:::*{{tq\|Progress on denuclearization}}: Putting in ] that denuclearization constitutes progress is inappropriate.
			:::*The text reads ambiguously on Trump's responsibility for the lack of ensuing denuclearization, naturally reading as him being responsible. At a minimum, this is contested (e.g. ) failing ].
			:::Best, ] (]) 23:29, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
			Using this post as another opportunity to flag an issue, for others or myself if I can get around to it. Readers have flagged that the page reads as blaming Trump for bankruptcies, and it spends hundreds of words covering them. Yet, according to the page already cites, this is misleading:

			"Experts told us during the primary season Trump alone didn’t cause the bankruptcies. While six in 25 years is a lot, five were tied to a struggling gaming industry.
	:{{tq\|Can we stick with one introductory sentence? It keeps changing.}} Nothing wrong with change in itself, that's how things are improved. We don't always get it right the first time, or the second, or the third, or the fourth. Also there is no such thing as a "standard format for every president". {{tq\|I feel like we should have an RfC on this matter.}} Why not, we're having an RfC on almost everything else. ;) ―] ] 06:46, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

			Trump was acting, they said, as any investor would." ] (]) 15:17, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
	:It sounds odd because he has never (even now) held elective office. But that is because we think of him as a non-politician who ran for office and had he lost we would not call him a politician. Note ] says, "was an American politician and general who served as the 34th President of the United States," while ] says he "was an American lawyer and corporate executive, and the 1940 Republican nominee for President." Maybe phrase like willkie for now and transition to Ike's phrasing on Jan. 20. ] (]) 06:50, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
			::{{ping\|Rollinginhisgrave}} Thanks for the smear. You're reading something into our text that isn't there. No idea how a 2016 factcheck of something Hillary Clinton said ended up as the source for this sentence: {{tq\|Between 1991 and 2009, he filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection for six of his businesses: the Plaza Hotel in Manhattan, the casinos in Atlantic City, New Jersey, and the Trump Hotels & Casino Resorts company.}} Thia is a newly created issue by editors new to the article and its subject condensing and trimming content without attention to the sources. Here's a as it used to be, with the RS supporting our allegedly misleading text that Trump filed for Chapter 11 protection six times. I'll fix the problem as soon as I get around to it. Might be a while what with hundreds of edits every day. ]] 15:51, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::The smear? I don't know what you mean by that, I was trying to be helpful, I apologise if I'm missing something. ] (]) 15:59, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::Ah, I see you edited the text while I wrote to clarify, thankyou. I do disagree that I'm reading something into the text that isn't there, it's a natural reading of highlighting Trump's bankruptcies by themselves to assume he was incompetent in some way, indeed that is a major point of the Politico piece. The context omitted is an issue for ]. ] (]) 16:05, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::"Flagging an issue" by adding it to a section with the heading "This is the most biased article in the entire Misplaced Pages" — that's saying "while we're on the subject" of bias. {{tq\|Readers have flagged that the page reads as blaming}}, {{tq\|it's a natural reading of highlighting Trump's bankruptcies by themselves}} — how do you suggest we describe e.g. the six bankruptcies so that readers will assume competency? ]] 16:53, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::"Companies owned by Trump filed for..."? ] (]) 16:55, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::Sole owner, and he personally for them: {{tq\|What I’ve done is I’ve used, brilliantly, the laws of the country. And not personally, just corporate. And if you look at people like myself that are at the highest levels of business, they use – many of them have done it, many times}}. ]] 17:04, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::::So Trump sees this as a positive achievement? ] (]) 17:07, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::::: {{tq\|And I made a lot of money in Atlantic City and I'm very proud of it.}} ]] 17:21, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::I can create a new section in the future. The text in this instance is meaningfully skewed against Trump, as a product of failing ]. It's not about assuming competency, it's about not assuming incompetency. This can be done by giving DUE weight to what Politico describes as experts describing Trump's conduct as "acting as any investor would". ] (]) 17:09, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::So, opinion good, as opposed to ? But yes, not piling on to these general anti-Trump bias comments would be an improvement. ]] 17:25, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
			:{{tq\|Using this post as another opportunity to flag an issue,}} - Why? Your "opportunity to flag an issue" is the "New section" link at the top of this page. Can you say "hijack"? This thread should already be in the archive. ―] ] 17:27, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
			::{{u\|Mandruss}} I did it based off {{u\|Slatersteven}}'s comment above: {{tq\|OK, so lets treat it as valid, "Trump was the first sitting U.S. president to enter North Korea; he met with its leader Kim Jong Un without progress on denuclearization. " is that not a positive?}}. I took from this that this thread would be used for discussing examples of potential NPOV issues. ] (]) 17:31, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::Lol. No. Offensive to any concept of organization. ―] ] 17:33, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::No worries, I can start threads for each issue. ] (]) 17:35, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::No, it was an example of why this approach does not work, as we are now moving onto other issues as well. Discussions need to be focused on specific issues, not random free-for-alls. ] (]) 17:34, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
			{{abot}}

			== Infobox image - which official portrait? ==
	::We previously had a RfC that concluded he was a politician. We don't need to go through that again. I think it's redundant to say someone is a politician who was President-elect (or President). But other articles say that. Do we need to follow them into the swamp of tautology???--] (]) 07:33, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

			The current "consensus" at the top of this page links to the 2017 portrait, but the article uses the 2025 one. ] (]) 05:42, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
	:::I think I missed that RfC. Did we conclude that he is a politician, or that we should say he is a politician? If the latter, we should say that or run another RfC. If the former, I don't see the point of such a consensus. ―] ] 07:43, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
			:I have as unnecessary and currently problematic. ―] ] 05:56, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

			== No sources in intro? ==
	::::It was a while ago: .--] (]) 22:33, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

			Hello, I’ve noticed that there are many potentially controversial claims in the intro section of the article, but there are no sources to back them up. We should find appropriate reliable sources to justify these claims, or remove them if no such sources can be found. ] (]) 07:16, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
	:::::Thanks. Appears to be "the latter". ―] ] 06:39, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
			:THey are cited in the body. ] (]) 09:35, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
			:]: "The necessity for citations in a lead should be determined on a case-by-case basis by editorial consensus." We have yet to reach a consensus for a case in the lead that needs a cite. Cite numbers add clutter, we strongly favor readability in the lead over saving a reader the effort of finding the related body content, and we believe that readers wanting to read the source for something they read in the lead are fairly rare. ("We" means a majority of this article's regular editors.) All this said, there is nothing preventing someone like you from proposing a certain citation or two and seeing if the proposal flies. If you do that, please do it in a separate thread. ―] ] 09:47, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

			== End birthright citizenship? ==
	== WP Neutral Point of View Policy (Social Issues, Abortion) ==

			The main article says for children of illegal immigrants, which makes more sense. It seems pretty weird to just put 'end birthright citizenship' on this page, so could anyone add 'end birthright citizenship ' as is done on the main page? ] (]) 07:34, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
	WP has a clear ] policy. The abortion section must not be tinged with flagrantly biased language. Therefore, the prefix ''anti'' will not be used, as it carries with it severe negative connotations. Instead, in order to establish balance, the terms pro-life, and pro-choice will be used respectively. We will not be using the terms "anti-abortion, anti-life, anti-fetal rights, anti-choice", etc. as these are deliberately incendiary and biased terms. Please do not reintroduce biased language. Instead, discuss terms on the talk page. ] (]) 18:36, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

			== Proposed: Use 2017 portrait for the infobox <span class="anchor" id="Challenge consensus item 1"></span> ==
	==Current Trump picture violates policy==
			{{small\|Original heading: "Challenge consensus item 1" ―] ] 14:11, 21 January 2025 (UTC)}}
	The present "long standing" picture of Trump is a clear violation of ] as the image shows Trump with a frown and eyes shifted to his left. There were other more favorable images used in the Trump biography before this one came along. Consensus can not override POLICY. The image is clearly "disparaging". Are Misplaced Pages administrators, etc, just going to sit there and let this continue? Currently we have ] for a better image, while there should be overwhelming agreement that Misplaced Pages not be used to express political POV's. Again, how many people have to weigh in before someone does something around here, and then, how much longer will the debate continue?? At this rate, with all the foot dragging and arguing, the current picture will still be in place when Trump is sworn in. (!) WP credibility is sinking fast in the eyes of at least half of Misplaced Pages's readership, as I know there are a lot of Clinton supporters that have not stooped to using Misplaced Pages to express their particular political peeves. Can we please treat the Trump biography like any other and include a favorable and formal pose? -- ] (]) 19:02, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
	:Nice try, but the policy you pointed to says that a photo cannot be "misleading." The current photo is not "mislading" at all. If you were to randomly bump into Donald Trump, that's what he would look like. --] (]) 20:17, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

			] item
	:Many editors disagree in good faith with your premises, including me. Your policy interpretation here is exactly that, ''your policy interpretation''; I see no such explicit prohibition against this image in Misplaced Pages policy. Your perception of the image is exactly that, ''your perception''; I see no frown. I do see a serious and sober expression. Unlike you, I recognize my perception as my perception, my interpretation as my interpretation. And I don't go around accusing fellow editors of bad faith or incompetence en masse.<br />Yes, I suspect Misplaced Pages administrators, etc, are just going to sit there and let this continue, because this is how the Misplaced Pages collaborative process is designed to work. If I'm not mistaken we have a hard-fought RfC consensus for the current image, and that consensus will not be overridden by a relatively few editors outside RfC with significant opposition. I believe there is still a thread on this page soliciting suggestions for good replacement photos. ―] ] 20:47, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
			This poorly presented consensus item as led to Trump dictating the image used on the Misplaced Pages page. The 2025 White House portrait blatantly violates ].

			- "Lead images should be natural (Natural means the obvious or usual type of image.)"
	As I do agree it's not the best photo choice it does not seem to violate the policy. If you are going to complain about it at least suggest a new one.... ] (]) 21:24, 13 November 2016 (UTC)Dyl1G
			- "also be the type of image used for similar purposes in high-quality reference works"
			- "Lead images should be of least shock value"

			This photo of Trump is extremely emotional and aggressive, even the lighting is heavily fabricated and does not reflect "natural" photos used in most articles. The shock value is undeniable to me. It should be reverted to the 2017 as soon as a consensus is reached. ] (]) 13:55, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
	* {{ping\|Proud User}}"Nice try"? The BOLP policy I refer to says ] It would have helped if you clicked on the link and read the item. Trump's expression is clearly disparaging, not at all the best picture to represent him with. The image looks like a media sniper shot, typically taken by photographers who lie in wait to capture the worst possible expression. They did it to Hillary also.
			*'''Support''' per proposer, but the consensus item is not the problem here. Without it, we would still need consensus to stabilize the choice of infobox image. ―] ] 14:00, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:Which is fair, and part of the Misplaced Pages process. But imagine we get to a proposal that say "use the image used in the most viewed article of that year by the NYT on the subject". That would sound atrocious. Might as well make pages edited directly by an AI algorithm at that point. ] (]) 14:05, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
			*::I'm changing your heading to something that will attract more attention. Not everybody knows what #1 is, and the fact that this seeks to amend #1 is incidental. ―] ] 14:11, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:::seems ok. ] (]) 17:51, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
			*'''Oppose''': Yes, the image ''is'' natural, the man is posing for the photo. Being an official image, it will surely be used by high-quality reference works. And "shock value" is for things like nudity or violence, not for a mere way to look at the camera. ] (]) 14:26, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
			*'''Comment''' - reiterating my regarding the current image. Again, we are not bound by official images, and we often use them as a matter of convenience because US Government works are free, high quality, and unremarkable/routine with regard to pose, lighting, composition, etc.. I would argue that the latter point comes into question here. Do we have any more recent alternatives, given the first White House portrait is now 7 years old? ] (]) 15:35, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
			** That's not exactly a good argument. If were bound to use official images, we wouldn't be having this discussion to begin with. We don't try to use official images because of being bound to do so, but because the official image is in most cases the most easily recognizable image of a topic. ] (]) 15:52, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
			*'''Questions''' - I'm a bit confused here. All U.S. presidents' articles since FDR are using the last official portrait. Is this a Wiki-wide consensus if it's not in the rules? And, if so, why change it? ]] 15:37, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:There is no "wiki wide consensus" to enforce anything of the sort. The reason for the change are in my original post. ] (]) 17:53, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
			*'''Support''' per proposal, revert to the status quo 2017 White House portrait. The 2024 version is very jarring and unnatural to the reader due to the lighting's attempt to replicate the notoriety of his mugshot. The 2017 is a better reflection of his entire life. ] (]) 16:08, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:'']'', the official image of his from this year is probably a more accurate summary of his most important moments in life. <span style="text-shadow: #E9967A 0em 0em 1em;">]]</span> 16:13, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
			*'''Comment''', the result of this discussion should apply to the JD Vance lede image as well. ] (]) 16:09, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:Negative. Changes to ] are discussed at ]. Discussion there can refer to discussion here, but that isn't binding. ―] ] 16:15, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
			*'''Support''' - restoring the 2017 image, until we get an updated standard looking image from the White House. ] (]) 16:17, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
			*'''Oppose''': the MOS says that the image should be natural. This image is completely authentically Trump. It also says images should be neutral. ] explains why content expressive of a less-than-ideal outlook of a subject is allowed, because it is reality. It's a reality that this 2025 photograph expresses the harsh reality of Trump to the best of Daniel Torok's ability. <span style="text-shadow: #E9967A 0em 0em 1em;">]]</span> 16:20, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:"harsh reality"? This is a promotional photo released by Trump itself. ] (]) 17:55, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
			*'''Oppose.''' What could be more natural than to use the image the subject has chosen as their official portrait? Does anyone really think it's shocking to find the subject's official portrait at the top of their page? The examples used in the MOS for shocking images are of the Holocaust and genitalia. -- ] (]) 17:04, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:The subject itself has no priority on Misplaced Pages decisions. Misplaced Pages gives priority to other sources. the manual of style regarding lead images explains this well enough. ] (]) 17:57, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
			*'''Support''' changing back to 2017. New portrait is jarring and clearly politically charged with odd, unnatural lighting and an expression clearly imitating his mugshot. Not very inviting for a Misplaced Pages article. ] (]) 19:29, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
			*'''Oppose''': I fail to see your point with "The shock value is undeniable to me". There is 0 shock value here. Its just a man staring at the camera. Calling it "extremely emotional and aggressive" is also a huge stretch. ] (]) 19:30, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
			* '''Oppose''' reverting to 2017 image. ] (]) 21:23, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
			*'''Support 2017 image'''. Misplaced Pages is not to be used as a propaganda venue for Trump. The new image, putting all copyright concerns (still unresolved) aside, is intended to be propaganda. That's not uncommon or limited to Trump - other presidents have used their inauguration materials to advertise themselves as "ready to get to work" or similar. His official image from 2017 is much more natural - note that natural does ''not'' mean "how this person always appears", but instead means "without any unnecessary emotion" and similar. The new image is not neutral - it is intended to invoke his mugshot from his booking in a civil criminal case, which itself was intended to be propaganda. Revisit if/when a new official portrait is issued, '''iff''' it is as neutral as his old one. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez \| ] \| ] 21:29, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:{{tq\|Misplaced Pages is not to be used as a propaganda venue for Trump}}. I'm afraid that ] months ago. ] (]) 22:57, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:Thank you for describing this in detail. This is blatantly constructed advertisement material. It has no place on a[REDACTED] article, nor for Trump or any other political figure. ] (]) 17:59, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
			*'''Oppose''': This is his official portrait, official portrait of the President of the United States. So why not, I am sure he is proud of this photo. ] (]) 22:06, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:It is not his official portrait as President. This was an image he had taken on his own accord before he was inaugurated. Official portraits are an entirely different thing, regardless of what Trump calls it. Regardless, Misplaced Pages does not care whether an image is "official" or not. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez \| ] \| ] 22:10, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
			*::wait, this isn't even the official portrait? then it should not even be favoured by consensus item 1! ] (]) 18:02, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:I'm pretty sure Misplaced Pages does not care whether he's proud of it, either. ―] ] 22:19, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
			*'''Oppose''' Feelings for or against the subject do not matter. If the White House says today that this image is the official portrait, then it is the official portrait, as far as I'm concerned that is the end of the discussion for now. If in a few weeks they have Trump sit for a more traditional style and pose, then we'll switch to that one. The beauty and joy of being a non-paper encyclopedia. ] (]) 22:55, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:Misplaced Pages does not have to follow the White House choices for lead images. What is "end of discussion" for you is not an argument here. ] (]) 18:03, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
			*'''Oppose''' - wishing to change the article image to one that is eight years old for what seems, from most supporters, to be admittedly political reasons, is a bizarre perversion of MOS policy.{{pb}}This policy has been determined by RfC in the past, and would most appropriately be challenged in the same manner.{{pb}}I'd also note that there have been half-a-dozen discussions on the use of this image here over the last week. I don't see it as great practice to just start a new discussion when you don't agree with an existing one.{{pb}}To those saying this portrait is not 'official', you are explicitly contradicted by the White House. Do you think there's some legal prescription for an official portrait? Like it only counts if the Secretary of Photography takes it with the Presidential Camera on Presidential Portrait Day? Ridiculous.{{pb}}I can guarantee that changing the image will open this talk page up to a torrent of objections from casual readers, as well as (justified) external criticism of Misplaced Pages's bias problem, which we just can't seem to resolve. ] (]) 22:51, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:{{tq\|I'd also note that there have been half-a-dozen discussions on the use of this image here over the last week. I don't see it as great practice to just start a new discussion when you don't agree with an existing one.}} Well then feel free to blame me for that: ―] ] 23:06, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:Before opening an RFC a full discussion has to take place. This photo does not correspond to the photos usually used in reference material about the subject, this is a fully doctored image, if this is for you a "political reasons" to remove it then everything is political, even MOS. ] (]) 18:07, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
			* '''Weak oppose.''' Both images essentially show the same thing, and both were authorized by Trump himself (he seems to be somewhat fond of looking "serious" and "tough" on pictures, as he has used similar photos on his social media accounts for many years, and that is how he chose to look even on his mugshot). In my view, both images have roughly the same validity to be on the infobox, but perhaps the most recent one should be used. ] (]) 02:46, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

			== Changing the section header for 2021-2025 to "Inter-presidency (2021-2025)" ==
	*{{ping\|Mandruss}} We're not debating whether the image looks like Trump. I respect your concern for established consensus but it was almost entirely established before Trump was elected. Since then there are new and important things to be considered, esp since consensus is now marginal and clearly split for obvious reasons. Given this situation, all personal opinions should be set aside, and the biography be allowed to receive the same treatment as the others. This has not happened, even after repeated objections to the current photo. We now have two sides arguing, and it looks like there will never be any resolution until long after Trump is sworn in and an official government photo is made available. We can belabor about what Trump's expression is, i.e. frown, or sober and serious, and prolong resolution indefinitely if that is your intention. The fact remains, there are far better images available, yet we have a marginal consensus not to use them. Good faith or not, that is a fact. Personal opinion aside, Trump has not received the same formal and favorable image Clinton and other famous living people have received, all the while such photos are available. -- ] (]) 22:25, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

			I think that this would be simpler than "first post-presidency" or "between presidential terms". ] (]) 15:32, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
	*:{{tq\|Since then there are new and important things to be considered}} That's a fair reason to seek a new consensus via a new RfC (I would oppose such an RfC at this point for the reason I have given in the existing RfC, but it would at least be a legitimate use of established process). Not a legitimate reason to argue for a new consensus in unstructured, open discussion which would be unlikely to involve more than 6 or 8 editors. RfC consensuses generally require RfCs to change, and that is especially true for RfCs that had such high participation and involved so much debate. We don't so easily throw out the result of that much editor time and energy. ―] ] 11:59, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

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

			:'''Oppose'''; I feel like labeling 2021-2025 as the "inter-presidency" implies that it was a planned break rather than an unsuccessful reelection, and that he was entitled to have another administration. I think for neutrality's sake we keep it as "between presidencies", as was done with Grover Cleveland. ] (]) 03:25, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
	: I agree. It does seem odd and out of place for a U.S. Presidential politician to have an unflattering frowning photograph on a WP page. Compare this to ], ], ], and ]. All other U.S. Presidents have a smiling photo of them, with an American flag in the background. Even the ]'s photograph has an American flag in the background with her smiling. Gwillhickers, I encourage you to find a smiling photo of President-elect Trump, with a U.S. flag in the background, and replace this controversial image. ] (]) 01:46, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
			::With all due respect, I don't see how inter-presidency implies such. To me at least, it's just the time between Trump's two non-consecutive presidencies. ] (]) 15:01, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
			:'''Oppose'''. As Tantomile said, it sounds as if it was one presidency with an intermission. The current heading "Between presidencies" is the best option, short and to the point. ]] 15:19, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

			== “Inaugural” vs “official” portrait ==
	:: Fine, so go !vote in the existing RfC. Participate in the process. This thread is out of process. And following your suggestion would be a clear violation of the ArbCom restrictions in effect at this article, making a consensus-free edit already known to be highly controversial. You have given exceedingly bad advice. ―] ] 06:43, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
	::: ] : I agree that the current image is a disaster but you should be voting ]. We already have better, more flattering images of Trump, one of which even has a US flag in the background. ] (]) 09:09, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

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

			:'''Support''' ] (]) 16:49, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
	Thanks to ] for closing the RFC at the top of this talk page. The RFC close says: "there's no consensus about whether the topic should appear in the lead." And, a template at the top of this talk page says, "Consensus required: All editors must obtain consensus on the talk page of this article before reinstating any edits that have been challenged (via reversion)." So it sounds to me like anyone can remove the material in question and it must then stay removed. Is that correct? I'm not going to remove it, and did not support removal during the RFC, but still it would be good to have some clarity here in case it is removed by someone else.] (]) 21:12, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
			:It's on . I believe that's the definition of "official". ―] ] 16:50, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
	:I removed the "material" in question since there was no clear consensus for inclusion(in the lead that is). --] (]) 15:53, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
			:There was an attempt to change the caption to "Official inaugural portrait, 2025" per the Description on , but that was reverted. ―] ] 16:54, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
	::It has been restored without consensus.] Why do you think that's acceptable, ]? In the same edit, you also defied consensus ], right?] (]) 16:22, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
			:Agree. According to the , it's the "Official Inaugural Portrait of Donald Trump" from the "Official 2025 Inauguration Invite". But good luck trying to add that. I did, and 's what happened. ]] 16:55, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
			::{{tq\|According to Wikimedia}} - Could be wrong, but I don't think MediaGuy768 equates to Wikimedia. ―] ] 23:34, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::{{Oldsmiley\|teeth}} ]] 14:11, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
			:Exactly, I feel like the evidence is not clear enough yet to call the portrait his official one. (] ] ]) 18:16, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
			:It is the official portrait until the White House states that it isn't. Trying to qualify it as "not really official" or "just the inaugural portrait" seem to be based on feelings and not facts. ] (]) 22:50, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
			::"Seem to be based" — was there a statement declaring the image to be the official portrait? It doesn't have a caption where it's sitting next to a few lies about landslide victories and extremist policies of the radical left. We couldn't keep the official Fulton County Jail "portrait" because of WP policies, so now we have an official, even if somewhat airbrushed, imitation, so yay. ]] 14:34, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
			:The describes it as his official portrait, explicitly, rather than his inaugural one. The BBC probably would not make this claim and make it the basis of an article if they hadn't rigorously verified it. The wording in the article also shows that they believe it to be "official", contrasting it with the October 2017 portrait: "{{tq\|The portraits were released by the Trump transition team just days before Trump and Vance's inauguration on 20 January. The official portraits of Trump and his former Vice-President Mike Pence were not released until nine months after they were both sworn in.}}" ] (]) 22:53, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
			::Sounds sufficient per WP. Thanks for linking this. ] (]) 02:38, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::This is not the official portrait clicked or shot by the White House. It is just the portrait clicked by Trump's campaign team and Inaugural committee. The new portrait might be taken soon and released through the website and social media platforms of the President of the United States and the White House. In another news from BBC page, it shows that it is the portrait of President-elect and not of the President. Please see it - https://www.bbc.com/culture/article/20250120-donald-trumps-official-portrait-the-17th-century-painting-that-unlocks-this-mysterious-image . So I don't think to keep the new portrait right now. I propose to keep the old portrait of 2017 until a new portrait is issued. ] (]) 15:36, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::Strangely the BBC seem to have written several articles on this image. it is also explicitly compared to other official portraits, such as ] of Bush the Younger. ] (]) 15:47, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::Another article from ] also shows that this is the portrait issued by Trump-Vance inaugural committee and not by the White House. Please look into it - https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2025/jan/16/donald-trump-jd-vance-official-portrait . Change it in old format. ] (]) 17:17, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

			== Local policies and guidelines, e.g. Consensus item #61 ==
	== ] endorsement : 'Trump is really a centrist liberal' ==
	That sounds like a interesting characterization by one of the leading philosophers globally.



	Where to mention it in the article? Polentarion ] 21:40, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
	: That is a good find, Polentarion. Žižek is not alone in making that assessment. There are GOP politicians in the US who concur with Žižek as well as people who are more centrist. I will look for some other sources and try to insert something about Žižek's views. Thank you!--] (]) 22:19, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
	:: Youre welcome. I added some other links, from Slate till ]. I like as well well the joke about both being interested in slowenian women with a 30 years age difference ;) I added a section in Žižek's article but I am more cautious about editing this honey pot. Polentarion ] 23:10, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
	::: Interesting theory but at this point I think it qualifies as an interesting ''fringe'' theory. None of those publications are regarded as mainstream, nor do they so regard themselves, as far as I know. --] (]) 00:30, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

			I noticed there was a discussion regarding Consensus item #61. Misplaced Pages has policies and guidelines regarding editor behavior. If editors here think these should be more restrictive, for example suppressing some discussions that don't violate them, it seems that those editors should take their case to the policy or guideline talk page instead of making their own local policies and guidelines. Such a restrictive local policy or guideline might be considered contrary to the guideline ], "Disruptive editing is a pattern of editing that disrupts progress toward improving an article or building the encyclopedia." Criticism of an article is part of the process of making progress towards improving it. One can take it or leave it. It seems improper to restrict criticism that doesn't violate Misplaced Pages policies or guidelines. If it is thought that such criticism should be suppressed, then one should try to incorporate that into the appropriate Misplaced Pages policy or guideline. On the other hand, if such discussions do violate a Misplaced Pages policy or guideline, then stating so in the consensus item would legitimize it. I would appreciate your thoughts. Regards, ] (]) 19:42, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
	== Muslim ban in lead is incorrect ==
			:Consensus 61 was a solution to the ongoing problem of bias complaints from readers who knew nothing about Misplaced Pages content policy. Problems effectively addressed by #61 included:
			:*The very significant amount of editor time consumed, time that editors could have spent improving the article.
			:*Inconsistent, always incomplete, often disrespectful, sometimes just plain incorrect responses attempting to explain policy, now replaced by ].
			:As for PAGs and our authority to do this:
			:*Why has no admin ever commented about that? Why has this issue never gone to ]?
			:*There is no Misplaced Pages policy prohibiting #61. Therefore it was within our discretion to do it. We used that discretion. It's called innovation.
			:AFAIK, most editors agree it has achieved its goals; at least I've heard positive feedback from a number of editors and negative feedback from none except you. I propose we not turn back the clock to that more primitive day. The consensus 61 discussion is at ] for your review. ―] ] 20:05, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
			:{{tq\|Misplaced Pages has policies and guidelines regarding editor behavior.}} Are you suggesting that ] should anticipate the problem we were facing and explicitly authorize immediate closure of bias complaints from readers who don't understand Misplaced Pages content policy, provided they are provided explanation on a separate page? I don't think that's a reasonable expectation. Regardless, if necessary I have no problem invoking ] in this case: "If a ] prevents you from improving or maintaining ], '''ignore it'''." ―] ] 20:36, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
			:I suspect you still believe, after all these years, that general discussion about bias at this article is a legitimate use of this page. It still is not; it still violates at least the spirit of ]. I believe I recall that you have been asked multiple times in the past to go to Village Pump to ask whether your belief is correct, and you have yet to do so. Refusal to do that is practically an admission that you know you're wrong. If you went to VP, they would tell you you're wrong, that would be on the record in the VP archive, and you would have to cease bringing this up periodically. You need to go get a community answer or stop flogging that horse carcass. ―] ] 21:23, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

			:One has to wonder how many times over the years this user has posted something of this nature, and how many times has it led to a course change. As some point, the complaining itself becomes tendentious. ] (]) 22:47, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
	It states it's now a ban on countries with a proven history of terrorism, and links an old Trump webpage. It has been updated in October to "extreme vetting'; The muslim ban is off the table, it's now extreme vetting. http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/300132-trump-muslim-ban-morphed-into-extreme-vetting
			::~8 and 0. ―] ] 00:05, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::I don't think anyone can argue that the article isn't at least a little bit slanted. Is there some way we can address that here, rather than in a grand Wiki-wide project? I see it as one of the most fundamental issues with this article, which is consistently one of the highest-traffic on the site. One suggestion could be that we agree not to blanket-ban deprecated right-leaning sources. ] (]) 03:37, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::{{ping\|Riposte97}} How about a new subpage of this page for that purpose? Then advertise it here a la a normal discussion notice (just a heading and a wikilink), with the possibility of pinning if you don't get enough participation in 6 days. ―] ] 03:45, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::And I've already offered my UTP for that purpose, but I don't know how its 172 watchers would feel about that. ―] ] 06:04, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::{{tq\|I don't think anyone can argue that the article isn't at least a little bit slanted}} which just brings us back to the oft-quoted "Reality has a well-known liberal bias." The Misplaced Pages follows the sources, if you don't like that then go take that up with reality. ] (]) 14:26, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::I wouldn't go that far. ―] ] 14:29, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::Was thinking exactly the same thing earlier today, but it sets a terrible precedent and could do more damage to the encyclopaedia as these were deprecated for good reasons. It’d be good to balance the narratives from the two sides though, just not use them for facts. It’s worth exploring ] (]) 20:07, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::I perhaps should have been more precise, and referred to sources labelled 'biased'. I have noticed that in the past at this page, some right-leaning sources are dismissed out of hand as being biased (based sometimes on rather flimsy reasoning at RSN). They are routinely removed. However, the article is riven with left-leaning sources that are arguably equally biased. A good example is provided by Rollinginhisgrave ]. That is definitely something we can address with sufficient attention.
			:::::<br>
			:::::], thanks for the suggestion. I don't mind it. To be clear, is it to workshop alternative wording at a subpage, or discuss structural interventions? ] (]) 21:50, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::It's to keep general article bias discussions off this page (such as the recent comments in this very thread). Otherwise, whatever people think is useful. ―] ] 21:59, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

			== Second nonconsecutive presidency/Grover Cleveland in the lead ==
	Can someone change this, because it isn't correct. ] (]) 23:13, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

			was for the umpteenth time. Thoughts? ]] 18:04, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
	== Proposed War Crimes ==
			:And, since it's a bold edit that was challenged more than once, could someone please remove it unless and until there's a consensus to add it? I've used up my 3RR for the day. ]] 18:06, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
			::{{done}} – ] (]) 18:18, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

			== Slight changes to lead section (proposal) ==
	Why isn't there any mention of Trump's ''much''-discussed proposal that the United States military target and kill the families of terrorists, an action that would be considered by most to be a war crime? Seems like such a significantly controversial part of his campaign, that it probably ought to be mentioned in the article's ''lead'', alongside his proposed ban on allowing Muslims to immigrate to the United States - but I can't find anything about this proposal ''anywhere'' in the article. --] (]) 23:23, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
			{{atop\|There's already an ] about the first sentence. Please contribute there. ]] 18:23, 22 January 2025 (UTC){{pb}}Sentences 1 and 2, to be precise. ]. Eligible for manual archival after this time tomorrow. ―] ] 18:27, 22 January 2025 (UTC)}}
	: {{reply to\|Jpcase}} I believe Mr. Trump has made more than one "''much-discussed''" "''significantly controversial''" proposal. --] (]) 00:17, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
			'''Donald John Trump''' (born June 14, 1946) is an American politician, media personality, and businessman who has served as the 47th ] since 2025. A member of the ], he previously served as the 45th president from 2017 to 2021.
	: This definitely wouldn't be the article for it. Something like ] or the one for his presidential campaign might be more appropriate.] (]) 00:53, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
	::Agree. And even there subject to policy, and I don't know the details. ―] ] 07:52, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
	:::{{ping\|Dervorguilla}} {{ping\|Volunteer Marek}} {{ping\|Mandruss}} I won't push this - but if Trump's proposed ban on Muslim immigration is notable enough to be mentioned in the ''lead'' here, then why wouldn't a proposal of his that the United States military commit a war crime be notable enough for mention ''anywhere'' in this article? Shouldn't there at least be a brief mention? --] (]) 15:36, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
	::::My guess is that that paragraph will be dramatically trimmed or eliminated now that the election is over. Many of us are still in post-election shock, so I'd give it a little time. ―] ] 15:43, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

			I think that this format is more grammatically correct and in general, flows easier. ] (]) 18:10, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
	== Bring up the "President-elect" thing again ==
			{{abot}}

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

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

			{{u\|Space4Time3Continuum2x}} The two sources I flagged there for opinion were:
	:You're right, it's been addressed previously. Multiple times. Have you read all of it? Do you have a new argument, or a counter to the consensus argument? If not, why did you bring it up again? ―] ] 06:35, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
			* verifying "His campaign was initially not taken seriously by political analysts"
			**Described at ] as "Most editors consider The New Republic biased or opinionated. Opinions in the magazine should be attributed." The article was an opinion piece by a non-subject matter expert, in a source flagged for bias and unattributed. Hence I tagged it as insufficient for verifying the claim.
			* verifying " frequently made claims of media bias."
			**Analysis by ], whose analysis has received a ]. It is unattributed, and on a ] hosted by the Washington Post, without apparent editorial control. You may assess this as sufficiently reliable, but I think an argument can be made for it being insufficiently reliable so as to warrant being tagged, and the source being replaced with one without such concerns.

			The opinion at hand: cescribed in non-opinion reporting by a third party, in a reliable source with substantially less bias concerns (and ] should mean the article should be biased against Trump), multiple subject-matter experts are surveyed, and a consensus is reported, that simply presenting the number of bankruptcies misleads readers about Trump's incompetency. ] (]) 18:11, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
	:{{u\|YourAuntEggma}}, please consider reading ], which provides a helpful explanation of how our ] policy is applied in these types of situations. ---] (]) 07:07, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
			:I have a headache and Jim Beam, signing off for today. I'll get to this tomorrow. ]] 18:25, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
			::No worries, enjoy your evening, I hope you feel better with rest. ] (]) 18:29, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
			:Clearly simply noting the number of bankruptcies is misleading as it is a small portion of his failed businesses. And the casino industry was not having difficulties when his three casino businesses went under. ] (]) 22:02, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

			== Format of Second presidency early actions ==
	== White nationalists ==

			]
	I added the following a few days ago:

			Does anyone else think a 171-word sentence is a bit excessive? I'd favor a bulleted list in this case, which I think would be better than sentence-splitting. Let us ignore specific content details here; this is about format.
	According to the ]:{{quote\|Throughout the campaign white nationalist support for Trump was steadfast and came from all corners of the movement. For his part, Trump not only ran an openly nativist campaign but he, or the people around him, gave interviews to white nationalist radio shows, retweeted open racists, and refused to quickly denounce the endorsements of hate group leaders.}}

			{{tq2\|
	It has been removed and replaced with: "Trump was accused of pandering to white nationalists." This might be a fair summary of any one of the points mentioned in the deleted material, but clearly not all of them, each of which is unique and noteworthy for any presidential campaign or candidate. So the full summary should be restored. ] (]) 06:58, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
			Upon taking office, Trump:
	:What you added was not acceptable. It was reverted according to policy. ] ] 07:35, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
			*signed a ] that ] and ]<ref>{{Cite web \|date=2025-01-20 \|title=Trump signs executive order directing US withdrawal from the Paris climate agreement — again \|url=https://apnews.com/article/trump-paris-agreement-climate-change-788907bb89fe307a964be757313cdfb0 \|access-date=2025-01-21 \|website=AP News \|language=en}}</ref>
	::Source quoted: "White Nationalists and the Alt-Right Celebrate Trump’s Victory"
			*] of any genders outside male and female<ref>{{cite news \|title=Trump rolls back trans and gender-identity rights and takes aim at DEI \|url=https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/jan/20/trump-executive-order-gender-sex \|access-date=21 January 2025 \|work=The Guardian}}</ref>
	::More detailed: "How White Nationalists Learned To Love Donald Trump"
			*froze new regulations
	::Countless other RS available, of course. ] (]) 07:53, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
			*froze hiring of non-military federal workers
	:It fails the ] aspect. "All corners of the movement". Sure. ] ] 07:55, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
			*founded the ]
	::"All corners of the movement" is fair and accurate, according to RS. The advantage of a quote from a RS is that it avoids such quibbling arguments about wording. If you want to hammer out an equivalent passage in your own words covering this material, that is fine, but in the meantime the quote should remain. ] (]) 08:16, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
			*barred federal involvement in criminal investigations of political adversaries
	:I'm not going to debate NPOV with you. You're either going to get it or you are not. ] ] 08:28, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
			*prevented federal censorship of free speech
	::Apparently, you don't seem to get that it is not NPOV to delete stuff just because it doesn't support your POV. ] (]) 08:33, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
			*reversed the withdrawal of Cuba's designation as a ]
	:Yeah, ok. As I said, I don't have to explain policy to you. If you add something that is against policy that gets removed, and you don't like it: tough. ] ] 08:37, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
			*reversed sanctions on Israeli settlers
	::Is that you "debating NPOV", then? I think you'll find that neutrally reporting what RS discuss is NPOV. And furthermore, deleting it is "against policy". ] (]) 08:40, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
			*issued a mass pardon of approximately 1,500 ]<ref>{{cite web \|title=Trump commutes sentences of Jan. 6 extremist group leaders; Tarrio gets pardon \|url=https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/5097034-trump-commutes-jan-6-sentences/ \|website=thehill.com \|publisher=The Hill \|access-date=21 January 2025}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web \|date=2025-01-21 \|title=Trump pardons roughly 1,500 criminal defendants charged in the Jan. 6 Capitol attack \|url=https://www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/rcna187735 \|access-date=2025-01-21 \|work=NBC News \|language=en}}</ref>
	:You're clearly not editing this article in good faith. Your block log indicates that you are not going to understand NPOV. You really should find another article to edit. ] ] 08:53, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
			*designated Mexican drug cartels as foreign terrorist organizations
	::Since personal attacks are all you have to offer, you should probably stop commenting at this point. ] (]) 08:57, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
			*attempted to end ] for new children of undocumented immigrants
	:Duly noted. Wouldn't want to dig myself into a deeper hole. ] ] 09:02, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
			*renamed ] back to Mount McKinley<ref name=Renames>{{Cite news \|last=] \|date=January 20, 2025 \|title=Restoring Names That Honor American Greatness \|url=https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/01/restoring-names-that-honor-american-greatness \|access-date=January 20, 2025 \|work=] \|via=]}}</ref>
	::I think it's plain that someone who reverts the totally uncontroversial wikilinking of "]s" should not be discussing the topic. ] (]) 09:08, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
			*renamed the ] to the Gulf of America<ref name=Renames/>
	:If ] endorsed Trump, it would not reflect on him logically. After all, he has absolutely no control over whichever whacko groups pledge their support for him. Duh. You have an agenda, and it is clear. It's not coming from a NPOV. ] ] 09:12, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
			*granted ] a 75-day pause before it would be banned<ref>{{cite web \|title=Trump signs slew of executive actions after being sworn in \|url=https://www.cnn.com/politics/live-news/trump-inauguration-01-2025/index.html?t=1737420903107 \|work=CNN \|access-date=21 January 2025}}</ref>
	:{{re\|Signedzzz}} I'm the one who cut the quote, as part of a general drive to reduce the size of the article, which many editors have pointed out is overly bloated for a main biography. I did summarize your point in as few words as possible. Readers who want detail can read your source. You could also bring more detail to articles focused on the campaign instead of Trump's main bio (although those are immensely bloated as well). — ] <sup>]</sup> 09:21, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
			*declared a national emergency on the southern border that would trigger the deployment of armed forces<ref>{{cite web \|title=Trump signs the first executive orders of his new administration \|url=https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/trump-prepares-slew-day-1-orders-immigration-gender-rcna187164 \|work=NBC News \|access-date=21 January 2025}}</ref>
	::I know, and as I said it would be a fair summary of any one of the various aspects - therefore, inadequately and misleadingly short and vague to cover the entirety. In my opinion, that was one thing that did not need further summarizing. My impression is that it is widely seen as a unique and noteworthy part of Trump's campaign (and of course there is much more detail which should be added to the campaign article). As such a few sentences to summarize it here is not unreasonable. ] (]) 09:33, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
			*granted ] a full and unconditional pardon<ref>{{Cite web \|last=Doherty \|first=Brian \|date=2025-01-22 \|title=President Donald Trump pardons Silk Road founder Ross Ulbricht \|url=https://reason.com/2025/01/21/president-donald-trump-pardons-silk-road-founder-ross-ulbricht/ \|access-date=2025-01-22 \|website=Reason.com \|language=en-US}}</ref>
	::: I bet every last sentence in this article feels super important to ''someone''. Cutting the bloat is however important to ''everyone''. {{p}} — ] <sup>]</sup> 14:56, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
			}}―] ] 21:39, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
	::::In this case, "cutting the bloat" means requiring the reader to click on the link to find out what the hell is being referred to - which a couple of sentences more would explain perfectly well. I think it is obvious that more than half a paragraph would not be undue, in any case (you currently have a dedicated section heading and 3 paragraphs for the "Sexual misconduct allegations", for example). It looks like an RFC will be necessary. ] (]) 15:52, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
	:I have my doubts that the SPLC is a reliable source based on their use of ]. ] ] 09:38, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
	:: SPLC is just as reliable as Der Stürmer and should be taken as seriously.] (]) 15:27, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
	:::This has been discussed several times. SPLC is a reliable source, although it should be attributed.] (]) 16:10, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
	:::On the substance, I think JFG's current summary is fine, and the extended text is probably better for the Donald Trump campaign article.] (]) 16:21, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

			{{sources-talk}}
	== NEW PHOTO ==

			== Duplicate section headings ==
	] has agreed, ] has agreed, ] has agreed, ] has agreed. So why are we STILL using a low-quality 2015 photo of Trump here???? Can we just finally agree here, for once and for all, to change the lead image to this:

			] says section headings need to be unique. Just for starters, section links in the page history and contribs should be reliable. There is currently no way to link to "Foreign policy" under "Second presidency"; try this and see: ].{{pb}}I already "disambiguated" "Early actions", but the following remain and this list is sure to grow. Foreign policy, Trade, Middle East, Israel. ―] ] 20:25, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
	]

	~~:Sigh.~~ ~~Summoning~~ ~~strength~~ ~~(or~~ ~~trying~~ ~~to)~~, ~~considering~~ ]. ―] ] 16:22, 14 ~~November~~ ~~2016~~ (UTC)		It's either "First presidency foreign policy" and "Second presidency foreign policy", or "Foreign policy 1" and "Foreign policy 2". Et cetera. I see no other alternative. ―] ] 20:30, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 22:02, 22 January 2025

Editing of this page by new or unregistered users is currently disabled until January 24, 2025 at 08:06 UTC, to promote compliance with Misplaced Pages's policy on the biographies of living people.
See the protection policy and protection log for more details. If you cannot edit this page and you wish to make a change, you can request unprotection, log in, or create an account.

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

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

Article policies

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

Warning: active arbitration remedies

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

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

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

Further information

Enforcement procedures:

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

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

If you are unsure if your edit is appropriate, discuss it here on this talk page first. Remember: When in doubt, don't revert!

Want to add new information about Donald Trump?
Please consider choosing the most appropriate article, for example:

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

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

This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.This page is about a politician who is running for office or has recently run for office, is in office and campaigning for re-election, or is involved in some current political conflict or controversy. For that reason, this article is at increased risk of biased editing, talk-page trolling, and simple vandalism.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.

This

level-4 vital article is rated B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.

Biography: Arts and Entertainment / Politics and Government

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography
	This article is supported by the arts and entertainment work group (assessed as Mid-importance).
	This article is supported by the politics and government work group (assessed as Top-importance).

Business Mid‑importance

	Business portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Business, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of business articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BusinessWikipedia:WikiProject BusinessTemplate:WikiProject BusinessWikiProject Business
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Climate change High‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Climate change, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Climate change on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Climate changeWikipedia:WikiProject Climate changeTemplate:WikiProject Climate changeClimate change
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
If you are looking for ways to improve this article, we recommend checking out our recommended sources and our style guide

Conservatism High‑importance

	Conservatism portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Conservatism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of conservatism on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ConservatismWikipedia:WikiProject ConservatismTemplate:WikiProject ConservatismConservatism
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Crime and Criminal Biography Top‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Crime and Criminal Biography articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Crime and Criminal BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyCrime-related
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

New York City High‑importance

	New York City portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject New York City, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of New York City-related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.New York CityWikipedia:WikiProject New York CityTemplate:WikiProject New York CityNew York City
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Politics: American / Political parties Top‑importance

	Politics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by American politics task force (assessed as Top-importance).
	This article is supported by Political parties task force (assessed as High-importance).

Television: American Mid‑importance

	Television portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to develop and improve Misplaced Pages articles about television programs. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join the discussion. To improve this article, please refer to the style guidelines for the type of work.TelevisionWikipedia:WikiProject TelevisionTemplate:WikiProject Televisiontelevision
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the American television task force.

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

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Television portal This article is supported by American television task force (assessed as Mid-importance).
	This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. presidential elections (assessed as Top-importance).
	This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. Government (assessed as High-importance).

United States Presidents: Donald Trump Top‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States Presidents, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of United States Presidents on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.United States PresidentsWikipedia:WikiProject Presidents of the United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United States PresidentsUnited States Presidents
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Donald Trump task force.

University of Pennsylvania Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject University of Pennsylvania, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of University of Pennsylvania on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.University of PennsylvaniaWikipedia:WikiProject University of PennsylvaniaTemplate:WikiProject University of PennsylvaniaUniversity of Pennsylvania
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

2010s Top‑importance

	2010s portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject 2010s, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of 2010s on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.2010sWikipedia:WikiProject 2010sTemplate:WikiProject 2010s2010s
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the importance scale.

Page history

Donald Trump was a Social sciences and society good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
June 2, 2006	Good article nominee	Not listed
February 12, 2007	Good article nominee	Not listed
September 17, 2016	Good article nominee	Not listed
May 25, 2017	Good article nominee	Not listed
December 2, 2018	Good article nominee	Not listed
July 15, 2019	Good article nominee	Not listed
August 31, 2019	Featured article candidate	Not promoted
April 29, 2020	Peer review	Reviewed
Current status: Former good article nominee

Health of Donald Trump was nominated for deletion. The discussion was closed on 13 June 2019 with a consensus to merge. Its contents were merged into Donald Trump. The original page is now a redirect to this page. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected article, please see its history; for its talk page, see here.

This article has been mentioned by multiple media organizations:

Cuozzo, Steve (November 16, 2013). "Don't Trust Anything on Misplaced Pages". New York Post.
Popper, Ben (July 22, 2015). "Someone just deleted Donald Trump's entire Misplaced Pages page". The Verge.
Merrill, Jeremy (February 1, 2016). "On Misplaced Pages, Donald Trump Reigns and Facts Are Open to Debate". New York Times.
Germ, Erik (May 28, 2016). "5 Secretly Bizarre Sections Of Websites You Use Every Day". Cracked.com.
Guo, Jeff (October 25, 2016). "Misplaced Pages is fixing one of the Internet's biggest flaws". The Washington Post.
Alcantara, Chris (October 27, 2016). "The most challenging job of the 2016 race: Editing the candidates' Misplaced Pages pages". The Washington Post.
Staff Writer (December 21, 2016). "Most-edited Misplaced Pages pages of 2016 revealed". BBC News.
Gartenberg, Chaim (January 20, 2017). "Misplaced Pages editors can't decide if Trump is the president yet". The Verge.
Wyrich, Andrew (June 5, 2017). "Someone is trying to get Trump's official portrait deleted from Misplaced Pages". The Daily Dot.
Warren, Tom (22 November 2018). "Siri thinks Donald Trump is a penis". The Verge.
Blumenthal, Eli (22 November 2018). "Misplaced Pages vandalizing causes Siri to show a lewd image when asked about Donald Trump". USA Today.
Griffin, Andrew (23 November 2018). "Asking Siri for information about Donald Trump shows explicit image after Misplaced Pages edit". The Independent.
Gander, Kashmira (23 November 2018). "Someone hacked Donald Trump's Misplaced Pages page, replaced photo with image of penis". Newsweek.
Martin, Alan (26 November 2018). "The Trump penis Misplaced Pages war has kicked off again". The Inquirer.
Brandom, Russell (December 3, 2018). "Misplaced Pages engages the 'nuclear option' after Trump penis hack". The Verge.
Mak, Aaron (May 28, 2019). "Donald Trump's Misplaced Pages Entry Is a War Zone". Slate.
Pasternack, Alex (March 7, 2020). "How Misplaced Pages's volunteers became the web's best weapon against misinformation". Fast Company.
Flood, Brian (May 21, 2020). "Misplaced Pages co-founder Larry Sanger says online encyclopedia scrapped neutrality, favors lefty politics". Fox News.
Evon, Dan (November 19, 2020). "Does Loser.com Redirect to Trump's Misplaced Pages Page?". Snopes.
Williams, Zoe (October 23, 2023). "Why is Elon Musk attacking Misplaced Pages? Because its very existence offends him". The Guardian.
Hays, Gabriel (May 31, 2024). "CNN host suggests Trump conviction not mentioned prominently enough on former president's Misplaced Pages page". Fox News.
Harrison, Stephen (June 4, 2024). "The Most Heated Debate on Trump's Felony Conviction Is Happening on ... Misplaced Pages?". Slate.
Sam Wineburg and Nadav Ziv (October 17, 2024). "Go ahead and use Misplaced Pages for research". The Boston Globe.

This article has been viewed enough times to make it onto the all-time Top 100 list. It has had 233 million views since December 2007.

This article has been viewed enough times in a single year to make it into the Top 50 Report annual list. This happened in 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020, 2021, 2023, and 2024.

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

Other talk page banners

Section sizes

Section size for Donald Trump (92 sections)
Section name	Byte count	Section total
(Top)	9,428	9,428
Early life and education	3,813	3,813
Business career	149	35,384
Real estate	4,555	15,956
Manhattan and Chicago developments	6,170	6,170
Atlantic City casinos	3,610	3,610
Clubs	1,621	1,621
Licensing the Trump name	1,364	1,364
Side ventures	7,220	7,220
Foundation	5,025	5,025
Legal affairs and bankruptcies	2,315	2,315
Wealth	3,355	3,355
Media career	3,445	5,107
The Apprentice and The Celebrity Apprentice	1,662	1,662
Early political aspirations	4,444	4,444
2016 presidential election	18,734	18,734
First presidency (2017–2021)	903	175,480
First presidency early actions	2,747	2,747
Conflicts of interest	3,372	3,372
Domestic policy	20,094	20,094
Race relations	6,410	6,410
Pardons and commutations	2,574	2,574
Immigration	3,112	20,420
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	35,970
Trade	2,517	2,517
Russia	4,226	4,226
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	30,415
Initial response	7,145	7,145
White House Coronavirus Task Force	4,747	4,747
World Health Organization	2,673	2,673
Pressure to abandon pandemic mitigation measures	7,799	7,799
Political pressure on health agencies	2,690	2,690
Outbreak at the White House	2,667	2,667
Effects on the 2020 presidential campaign	2,403	2,403
Investigations	1,079	26,089
Financial	3,111	3,111
Russian election interference	6,491	6,491
FBI Crossfire Hurricane and 2017 counterintelligence investigations	2,573	2,573
Mueller investigation	12,835	12,835
First impeachment	10,209	10,209
Second impeachment	3,398	3,398
2020 presidential election	34	23,357
Loss to Biden	6,907	15,674
Rejection of results	8,767	8,767
January 6 Capitol attack	7,649	7,649
Between presidencies (2021–2025)	5,214	25,236
Legal issues	21	20,022
Classified documents	4,968	4,968
2020 election	5,411	5,411
2016 campaign fraud case	3,167	3,167
Civil lawsuits and judgments	6,455	6,455
2024 presidential election	17,780	17,780
Second presidency (2025–present)	1,498	7,666
Second presidency early actions	4,206	4,206
Foreign policy	21	1,962
Trade	673	673
Middle East	20	1,268
Israel	1,248	1,248
Political practice and rhetoric	7,985	52,107
Racial and gender views	9,362	9,362
Link to violence and hate crimes	9,369	9,369
Conspiracy theories	3,317	3,317
Truthfulness	10,483	10,483
Social media	5,810	5,810
Relationship with the press	5,781	5,781
Personal life	18	7,710
Family	1,323	1,323
Health	3,697	3,697
Religion	2,672	2,672
Assessments	18	6,969
Public image	4,516	4,516
Scholarly rankings	2,435	2,435
Notes	136	136
References	30	30
Works cited	18	12,050
Books	3,216	3,216
Journals	8,816	8,816
External links	5,713	5,713
Total	411,144	411,144

Current consensus

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Racially charged

This section is pinned and will not be automatically archived.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Support removal, per Goszei's comment (they've already written everything). JacktheBrown (talk) 18:37, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

Tracking lead size

Word counts by paragraph and total.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tracking article size

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

05 Nov 2024 — 15,818 – 421,592 – 103

12 Nov 2024 — 15,883 – 427,790 – 046

19 Nov 2024 — 15,708 – 430,095 – 012

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

10 Dec 2024 — 15,279 – 404,464 – 122

17 Dec 2024 — 15,294 – 405,370 – 080

24 Dec 2024 — 14,863 – 402,971 – 190

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

14 Jan 2025 — 14,756 – 403,398 – 191

21 Jan 2025 — TBD – 422,683 – 095

RfC on describing Trumpism in lead

Consensus AGAINST expanding the lead's mention of Trumpism, which is: "Trump's politics led to the Trumpism movement."Uninvolved non-admin closure. Discussion has been open for 36 days. Numbers are 14–8. I gave equal weight to normal and weak; had I given half weight to the three weak opposes, the numbers would have been 12.5–8. There is no clear policy basis for either side, so there is no reason to override the numbers. I'm supposed to summarize the arguments, but I'm lazy; this closure is revertable if anyone feels that's a significant problem.Eligible for manual archival after this time tomorrow. ―Mandruss ☎ 05:40, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

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

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)

Support with changes It seems odd to not include his major political positions in the lead. I would move those categorisations into a separate sentence explaining his political views, rather than about 'Trumpism' itself. Too much focus on words, not on policy and stances that will bear historical weight. MB 2437 02:48, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Oppose, the wikilink is sufficient (they were created for a reason), it's not necessary to write the definition on the Trump page. JacktheBrown (talk) 06:46, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
Weak Oppose The topic is already well described in the Trumpism article, so a simple mention of it with a wikilink will suffice. If consensus ends up supporting inclusion, it should be only a single sentence, this page is long enough. Mgasparin (talk) 09:28, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
+1, it's exactly what I wrote (only more expanded). JacktheBrown (talk) 11:55, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

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

Edit War

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

You know, that sounds like a good idea.

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

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

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

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

Well, sounds good to me.

Ok, what should the next steps be?

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

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

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

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

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

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

Looks like you made this change re archiving . Bob K31416 (talk) 07:19, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

"Whatever you want to do is fine with me." 2601:483:400:1CD0:324A:DECE:5253:C8FB (talk) 17:06, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

Making a section heading change

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

from First post-presidency (2021–2025)

to Between presidential terms (2021–2025).

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

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

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

Use the Grover Cleveland page, as a model. GoodDay (talk) 05:54, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

We don't use RfC unless we fail to reach consensus without RfC. I don't think we have attempted the latter as of yet. ―Mandruss ☎ 05:58, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Yeah, although I made the edit per Bob's suggestion above, Interpresidency might be better. Riposte97 (talk) 11:31, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

New official portrait

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

I think it makes sense to replace it to the new one once it becomes available. Current official picture should be then moved to the section about his first presidency. Onikaburgers (talk) 21:11, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

Yes I also think it's reasonable to replace the current portrait with the 2025 version once it's available. 2A02:1406:10:ED6A:0:0:369E:4EDF (talk) 00:19, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

The 2025 portrait is now available. Hopefully someone can update it. 2600:6C4A:4B7F:DBC0:81AF:2AD8:9DD7:F170 (talk) 17:41, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

No, it is not. That is a photograph taken by a private individual, not a government portrait. There is no evidence that the photographer of this photograph has or ever will release it under an acceptable free license. It does not suddenly become public domain just because Trump wants to use it. Nobody other than the photographer or someone they sign rights away to, not even the President, can release copyright on an image they did not take. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 18:28, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

Photos for both President Trump and Vice President Vance have been listed on the official White House website, is it good to now post them on the wiki page?

https://www.whitehouse.gov/administration/donald-j-trump/

https://www.whitehouse.gov/administration/jd-vance/ Pizza noob 65 (talk) 18:11, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

The previous image is more suited for his[REDACTED] page, dare I say even worth breaking precedent for. The new image is not suitable for the far future. Pharaoh496 (talk) 07:53, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

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

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

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)

I couldn't really find any actual pages that are full protected but there are some portals I've seen that get full protection such as the current events portal. Though while looking I found it funny that for the Israel-Hamas war page it is on such tight lockdown even the talk page has extended-protection which I honestly find pretty dumb considering the talk page is a place for editors to discuss changes and thus doesn't really need protection but I don't make the rules. For this page in particular I think the level of protection is enough though to deter all but the most determined who attempt to sabotage it so making it full protected seems like overkill. Plugshirt (talk) 02:07, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

ok, but trump supporters are really dedicated (january 6th attacks)

maybe some people might spread misinformation?

im just worried that some dedicated supporters might try to change information on here thekingpachy (talk) 12:32, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

We can take care of that through the normal means. Full protection would make it impossible for us regulars to update and improve the article without calling in an admin for help. QuicoleJR (talk) 13:58, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

It is likely there will be some people with enough dedication to try and still vandalize the page even with the level of protection it has now. The best way to counter this though is to remain vigilant ourselves in making sure the article stays as objective and non-biased as possible. The edit history makes it clear what changes are made so it isn't extremely difficult to monitor and with how prevalent this page is I doubt there will be a shortage of people willing to keep checked in on it to make sure no misinformation is allowed to stay here. With his upcoming presidency there is a need for people capable of editing the article as a great amount of new information will undoubtedly need to be added as it progresses so it wouldn't really be feasible right now to lock it down completely. The only real solution left for us is to simply monitor the page constantly and make sure nothing slips through the cracks. Plugshirt (talk) 02:01, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

all right. still, we can't be constantly vigilant. could we make a backup article, just in case something goes really wrong? thekingpachy (talk) 22:29, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

Self-quote from below: In the absolute worst case, we could always restore a days-old revision. Every edit creates a new revision, and every revision is a "backup article". I could revert the article to January 15, 2015 with a few clicks. Very little is not easily reversible at Misplaced Pages. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:40, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

ok, then it wont be necessary to make it fully protected thekingpachy (talk) 09:54, 16 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)

Proposal to supersede consensus #50

This section is pinned and will not be automatically archived.

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

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

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

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

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

Support His sentencing today has met WP:BLPCRIME requirement that a conviction has been secured for that crime, support adding and criminal in the lede sentence per consistency with other WP:CRIMINAL articles.Kenneth Kho (talk) 16:39, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- As in: "Mark Robert Michael Wahlberg (born June 5, 1971), formerly known by his stage name Marky Mark, is an American actor, former rapper, and criminal"?
—Alalch E. 16:55, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Or: "Marshall Bruce Mathers III (born October 17, 1972), known professionally as Eminem (stylized as EMINƎM), is an American rapper, songwriter, record producer, and criminal.—Alalch E. 16:58, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
  Eminem "criminal"? Is this a joke? JacktheBrown (talk) 20:53, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
  He pleaded guilty to weapons charges for two incidents in 2000, got probation both times. It's mentioned in Eminem#Legal issues. He wasn't running for president at the time . Space4Time3Continuum2x 🖖 21:08, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
  @Space4Time3Continuum2x: in the sense: almost all American rappers who started rapping between the early 90s and early 2000s committed criminal actions, so Eminem (like many other rappers) isn't a correct example for this talk page. JacktheBrown (talk) 21:30, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
  I think Alalch was just referring to the OP's consistency claim by pointing out that the article on Eminem, who had pleaded guilty to a felony, also doesn't call him a felon or criminal in the first sentence (or anywhere else, AFAIK — I just skimmed the article). WP says we should avoid labels and, instead, describe what happened. Space4Time3Continuum2x 🖖 12:59, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
  
  That would be undue, his criminal characterization has not received sustained widespread coverage, unlike the president-elect. Kenneth Kho (talk) 17:00, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
  Criminal characterization? What does that mean? —Alalch E. 17:04, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
  
  @Alalch E. Ridiculous and fallacious, as in the slippery slope fallacy, or a WP:FALSEBALANCE as you are creating here.
  
  How many celebrities or even gangster rappers do you know that have been convicted of crimes? More than I can count. So, not notable.
  
  But what if the crimes themselves are so notable they outweigh the other WP:NOTABLE aspects of a public person, as in the case of Harvey Weinstein? Yes, notable.
  
  Now, how many Presidents in US history can YOU COUNT that have been convicted of multiple felonies, ones that are related to election interference? Only one. And just like it is notable to objectively state as notable fact that Barack Obama is the first black President elected in US history, it is more than relevant to mention (in the opening sentence) that Trump is the first convicted felon/criminal elected to become President of the United States, especially considering that American democracy has as its bedrock the rule of law as enforced by convictions of juries of their peers, with even Trump himself making it his legacy to publicly argue that he is literally (and should be) above the law as President. So there is no other way around this. It is WP:NOTABLE on all counts as prescribed by etiquette surrounding WP:LEAD. 2601:282:8903:B3C0:E03B:9D22:3C30:1A19 (talk) 21:59, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
  The Obama article doesn't even include "African American" in the first sentence, that's only in the second sentence. —Alalch E. 22:30, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
  @Alalch E. So then include it in the second sentence. That's a good compromise. But you are against that as well it would seem, so why bother with that WP:POINT? 65.153.22.75 (talk) 22:45, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
  This request for comment (please read Misplaced Pages:Writing requests for comment) is not about the second sentence, it's about the first sentence, as worded in the proposal. This isn't a negotiation for us to come to a compromise. What is being responded to is the proposal, as stated in the question. Editors are, each individually, to the best of their ability, giving arguments for why the proposal should be implemented or not. And, in any case, what would that second sentence be like while reusing the exact language from the proposal: "And, in addition, he is a criminal"? —Alalch E. 22:51, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
  @Alalch E. I'm sure that as long as it is included in the first of second sentence as either "the first convicted felon" or "the first convicted criminal" to be elected to the office of Presidency, then that is well within the ballpark here.
  
  The larger debate is that now that the highest law in the land from the SCOTUS doesn't think Donald Trump is exceptional here, and now that sentencing has concluded, he is a convicted criminal/felon as a matter of empirical verifiable fact. This isn't about the time he shoplifted a DVD player as 21 year old (joking) about 30+ serious felonies.
  
  I can buy that argument that this is more than relevant and necessary to place this objective factual information as front and center as possible given its newsworthiness and historic importance. Misplaced Pages is first and foremost about both.
  
  I maintain neutrality only because the RFC won't be decided on a vote count, or our arguments here, but arbitrarily by an admin coming in to decide on a whim or which way the wind is blowing it would seem. Fair point on both sides as there is no mechanism for this unprecedented moment. 65.153.22.75 (talk) 23:00, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
  You're in no position to be sure of anything as someone who clearly hasn't dealt with these things for long enough on Misplaced Pages and don't understand how decisions are made. You need to be less sure about what you're telling yourself, and more sure about what people who know what they are talking about are telling you. They are telling you things such as: This request for comment (please read Misplaced Pages:Writing requests for comment) is not about the second sentence, it's about the first sentence, as worded in the proposal. This isn't a negotiation for us to come to a compromise. What is being responded to is the proposal, as stated in the question. Editors are, each individually, to the best of their ability, giving arguments for why the proposal should be implemented or not. What you claim to be the debate is not the debate here and now in this talk section. The "debate" question is as follows: Do you support or oppose the lede sentence to now read: Donald John Trump (born June 14, 1946) is an American politician, media personality, businessman, and criminal who served as the 45th president of the United States from 2017 to 2021.? —Alalch E. 23:28, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
The conviction was secured in May 2024. January 10th was sentencing, which has no bearing on conviction. 2604:CA00:1C0:4422:0:0:860:27B (talk) 17:56, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

BLPCRIME says nothing about placement of content. It allows inclusion of content, and the article already does that. Your policy claim is invalid. ―Mandruss ☎ 18:17, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

Support. Factual, verifiable, and most importantly widespread coverage. Satisfies WP:BLPCRIME. Onikaburgers (talk) 21:08, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
Oppose for the same reasons as the last time we discussed this. I don't see why a no-penalty sentence would make it more likely we add it in the opening sentence. It's already mentioned later in the lead, so this is WP:UNDUE. — Czello 16:49, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
We don't get to determine whether a no-penalty sentence is due or not, it has received wide coverage in reliable sources to the extent that they keep reporting him as the first felon to become president. Kenneth Kho (talk) 16:59, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
We do get to decide if it's due in the first sentence, and WP:RECENTISM arguments make it undue. — Czello 22:01, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
Oppose. Not first-sentence material.—Alalch E. 16:49, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
Oppose Per the last time. Slatersteven (talk) 16:50, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
Support It is a factual verifiable statement..he is a convicted felon...it`s spelled lead Anonymous8206 (talk) 17:28, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
So is Mark Wahlberg. —Alalch E. 17:31, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

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

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

The AP Stylebook says:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

How about the second? 2601:282:8903:B3C0:6D3E:8CEC:1108:F7A (talk) 03:53, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
Oppose per Czello, Muboshgu, etc. ―Mandruss ☎ 17:57, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
Oppose The felony conviction is a minor aspect of his career, not important enough for the first sentence. It is already mentioned later in the lead. QuicoleJR (talk) 19:09, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
The first ever president of the United States receiving a felony is a minor aspect of his career? BootsED (talk) 19:45, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
Yes. He is famous for being a controversial president, making inflammatory remarks and having divisive policies. The felony convictions are not the reason he is notable, his presidencies and business career are. The conviction should be mentioned in the lead, but not the first sentence. QuicoleJR (talk) 14:21, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
Support Passes WP:BLPCRIME as stated earlier. However, I would change criminal to "convicted felon". A lot of former discussion against this suggested we wait until his sentence was official. It now is. BootsED (talk) 19:40, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
―Mandruss ☎ 19:49, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
Comment - Can we please let people have their say, without telling them they are wrong, the closer will judge that, it is not for us to say. Slatersteven (talk) 18:04, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
I guess it depends on the relevance of morality .. he`s a convicted criminal,,it's got nothing to do with Andrew Johnson or anyone else's impeachment..at least Nixon was smart enough to not get caught...trump is by definition a criminal but you think it's irrelevant...what can a moral or ethical person say to that ? Anonymous8206 (talk) 19:13, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
It is not moral or ethical to put words in others' mouths during content discussions. Nobody has said it's irrelevant. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:35, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
Oppose placing it in the first sentence (in the stress position). Please mention in the lead at a later spot. -SusanLesch (talk) 19:24, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
Oppose the first sentence. Later in the lead I think is merited as it is a first and very heavily covered by RS. (Likely to stay that way as it is reported he's fund raising on it.) O3000, Ret. (talk) 19:35, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
Oppose in the opening sentence as this is not reflected across[REDACTED] for other politicians who are convicted criminals. One key example being Silvio Berlusconi who was Italian PM convicted of multiple crimes including a 4 year sentence for tax fraud which is mentioned in his 4th opening paragraph not the opening sentence. IrishReader1996 (talk) 19:55, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
Oppose The proposal is for a "crime label" for which there is an essay: Misplaced Pages: Crime labels. As listed by the essay, Misplaced Pages has had vast and lengthy arguments over crime labels, where in countless RFC's such labels are nearly universally unsuccessful. Or at least there has to be an obvious rationale for it. Basically, they are misleading, vague, and poor writing. In the present case, it smacks of simple name calling. Far better to just include a brief description of the criminal instance in the lead. I would, however, be in favor of a new section in the article bringing together all of Trump's sundry criminal and civil episodes; such a section may well then suggest an appropriate label. Bdushaw (talk) 20:52, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
Comment - It's beyond relevant..it's the only thing he will be remembered for in the end...a rich criminal who bought his way into power at the bequest of those more sinister than him Anonymous8206 (talk) 21:02, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Anonymous8206: Trump became president twice (2016, 2024) democratically (US elections are democratic), to claim otherwise is simply wrong. JacktheBrown (talk) 02:36, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
  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 Anonymous8206 (talk) 18:54, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
  @Anonymous8206: obviously it also applies to Biden, not just Trump. JacktheBrown (talk) 12:30, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
Oppose for the time being. I doubt this is what he'll be consistently noted as, but could be proven wrong. Riposte97 (talk) 21:09, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
Strong Support This is absolutely first sentence material and possibly one of the most textbook WP:NOTABLE pieces of information in[REDACTED] history as far as the WP:LEAD goes, according our rules governing it.FACT- Trump was now officially sentenced for multiple felony crimes. That makes him the FIRST convicted felon (by a jury of his peers) to be elected President. Just like in the Obama[REDACTED] article, it mentions "Obama being the first African-American elected", this is equally notable. This is a first. And even the American Supreme Court allowed for Trump to be sentenced, so there is no question legally of where this stands.Of course, there are politically biased editors making ridiculous arguments against this in violation of etiquette and rules of wikipedia. And many examples listed AGAINST THIS are fueled by fallacious reasoning, or use petty examples that simply don't match here. The only reason to exclude this is because Trump is not only above the law in this country but above our rules apparently for ideological reasoning here.Again, no convicted felon in history was EVER elected President. And this is for multiple notable felony crimes involving a scheme to interfere in the democratic election, which is WHY NY law was able to amplify misdemeanor crimes into a felony crime scheme verdict/finding. Perhaps if the American SCOTUS down the road overturns this we can revisit this.And to be clear, if Biden was ever convicted of a crime or any democratic President then I too would strong support mention of that in the first sentence.However, the idea that if enough biased editors come here to OPPOSE THIS that we will allow for mob rule to override rules of what is WP:NOTABLE is a sad day for wikipedia, and proof that our community fails in upholding journalistic standards that we claim we uphold. If enough biased editors set up an RFC vote for a pro flat-earth position or a Holocaust denial position, would be both sides that?! Of course not, as[REDACTED] is clear on WP:FRINGE thinking, which is what is driving a delay on including this very important notable information per the standards of WP:LEAD.That it is buried in the article is a lame fallacious way around what is at heart here. That we treat all people and biographies the same regardless of political power. A President being convicted of serious crimes is every bit as notable (if not more so) than race or gender as it makes[REDACTED] come off as more concerned about notability about the color of one's skin that one's choices and behavior. No, this is a test of whether we can truly be objective about the facts and the mission of wikipedia, or if we simply cower in the face of fear of being unpopular. 2601:282:8903:B3C0:E03B:9D22:3C30:1A19 (talk) 21:06, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
See WP:AGF and WP:NPA. State your case without accusing others of incompetence or bad faith, even if unnamed. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:19, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
@Mandruss No, the "unnamed" part is actually important here for it to be WP:NPA, as there are exceptions to the rule when I'm in the right to call a WP:SPADE a spade given the stakes and clear violation of WP:NOTABILITY in an effort (albeit intentional or otherwise) to carve out an exception for a convicted criminal here who is now leading a democratic country.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I'm neutral on this row.

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

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

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

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

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

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

As for your views on consensus, Mandruss has very effectively addressed that. — Czello 09:04, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
@Czello Mandruss has not. And neither of you are admins. So your opinions count as much as anyone other users. Your are flirting with WP:OWN language, so respect the POVs of others, and that includes the OP you are addressing. 2601:282:8903:B3C0:2863:9A38:BE25:70E6 (talk) 13:37, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
Whether we are admins is irrelevant; their opinion doesn't count for more than ours anyway. Nor do we need to be admins to highlight issues of AGF. — Czello 15:58, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

Czello is correct. You have a distorted view of what admins do, and of the division of responsibility between admins and non-admins. I wish behavior issues were handled solely by admins, but that is not the reality. One of en-wiki's greatest flaws is the requirement for ordinary editors to police the very people they are expected to collaborate with. I don't know how many other wikis have the same flaw. ―Mandruss ☎ 17:35, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Oppose - not notable enough yet to warrant mention in the first sentence. Of course if that changes in the future, so should the lede. 2003:CD:EF49:C700:DD80:5A19:2283:EFDA (talk) 19:53, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

Oppose - it is true, but doesn't warrant first sentence status as it's not at all what he is most notable for. I would support adding something about his being the first president to be convicted of a felony somewhere in the first paragraph. Being a felon isn't notable enough, but being the first president/felon is arguable noteworthy enough for first paragraph status. Separate from that I'd oppose calling him a criminal even if we did include his conviction in the first sentence as 'criminal' is too generic a term that could be interpreted in many ways. "Convicted Felon" seems more specific and more in keeping with other articles that referencing well known criminals 144.51.12.162 (talk) 20:00, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

Oppose It's certainly relevant enough to have farther down in the lead, but it's not one of the primary reasons he's notable. I'd be against removing it entirely as reliable sources do talk about his felony convictions regularly, but first sentence is way too aggressive given that his level of notability wasn't affected by the felony conviction. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 15:55, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

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

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

Terrorist is value-laden and he was never duly convicted in a court of law. Criminal is a legal term when a citizen is duly convicted in a court of law and not a pejorative. Kenneth Kho (talk) 07:41, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
I was convicted in a court of law, once, decades ago (actually I pled guilty, a distinction without a difference). According to the dictionary definition, I'm a criminal. I'll wear that as part of my sentence. If you called me a criminal as one of my handful of defining attributes, I would likely take offense. I won't apply a different standard to Trump; I love Misplaced Pages more than I hate Trump. ―Mandruss ☎ 11:50, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

While I am opposed as well I disagree with your argument. have numerous articles that do mention someone's conviction in their first paragraph so there is plenty of president for declaring someone a convicted felon already. 144.51.12.162 (talk) 20:02, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
Strongly oppose, I don't understand the users who agree (obviously I don't judge). JacktheBrown (talk) 02:27, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

Comment As President, there is really nothing else that Trump is known for more than his criminal behavior, convictions and evasion of serious penalties for said crimes. JFK was known for the Cuban Missile Crisis. Lincoln for his role in winning the civil war. In Trump's case, what is he most known for as President is his hundred plus indictments. And his criminal conviction. Making him the first ever convicted criminal felon to be elected to the office of the Presidency. It's absurd to suggest that historic first, and his criminal behavior (most of which he has been able to avoid consequences because of his re-election), is not on the top of list of what he is presently known for. It would be like burying Neil Armstrong's moon landing achievement, being the first man to set foot on the moon, deep in the body of an article. If you remove emotion from this, and simply view this through an historic lens, then this is a no brainer. Of the 45 white men that have served the office of Presidency, only one was a black man. Only one was a convicted felon. "It is said on[REDACTED] that JFK was the youngest person elected president at 43 years." Please put your bias aside, or your dogma about these exceptional circumstances, and let history and newsworthiness decide, not your egos. 2601:282:8903:B3C0:6D3E:8CEC:1108:F7A (talk) 04:04, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
In the first lines of the lead of the articles of well-known criminals (Hitler, Mussolini, Mao, Stalin, etc.) the term isn't present. Trump isn't remotely comparable to them, yet you (and not only you) would like to add "criminal" to this page; it's very strange. JacktheBrown (talk) 05:05, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
They were not convicted of a crime, for those convicted see Hermann Göring, Jeffrey Epstein, Harvey Weinstein. Kenneth Kho (talk) 05:42, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
For relevant political examples see Spiro Agnew and Silvio Berlusconi IrishReader1996 (talk) 12:53, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

I'd say Trump is most famous for his inflammatory rhetoric, immigration policies, and January 6. The hush money conviction is not in the top 5. QuicoleJR (talk) 20:03, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
Oppose having criminal/felon in first sentence. Donald Trump is not primarily known for his criminal convictions. The coverage in the lead is sufficient weight as it is now. There was already no consensus to add this last year, and nearly nothing has changed since then. The formality of the judge sentencing him, to literally no punishment I may add, is not a good reason for rehashing this matter. R. G. Checkers 07:13, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
Comment This is a textbook example of information that has WP:DUEweight in the WP:LEAD. As others have pointed out, we don't get to determine whether a no-penalty sentence is due or not, the press does.

That's how[REDACTED] works.

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

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

Off-topic about IP addresses, WP:AGF, resolution of a double !vote, etc. Ok to continue within the collapse. ―Mandruss ☎ 06:11, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
Are you the same IP as above 2601:282:8903:b3c0:e03b:9d22:3c30:1a19 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) that voted support? Because they geolocate to the came place and ISP. ALso looks like 65.153.22.75 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). PackMecEng (talk) 17:21, 11 January 2025 (UTC) @PackMecEng: When the first halves of two IPv6 addresses (2601:282:8903:b3c0) are the same, they are always the same device. The device changes the latter half frequently and that is beyond the user's control. This editor can demonstrate their good faith by striking one of their two bolded !votes; else we have a clear socking situation.As for 65.153.22.75, it's probably a situation of IPv6 for their phone and IPv4 for their computer or other non-phone device. That address has not posted a bolded !vote that I can see, so the only problem is possible bludgeoning; seems to me they are consuming significantly more than their share of oxygen in this discussion. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:31, 11 January 2025 (UTC) @Mandruss Says you, with practically half the comments here coming from you. Pot meet kettle. 65.153.22.75 (talk) 19:37, 11 January 2025 (UTC) WP:BLUDGEON is not about comment count, as a lazy read of just its nutshell will reveal to you. I don't think I have repeated essentially the same arguments at great length and ad nauseam. Are you going to strike or not?? ―Mandruss ☎ 19:47, 11 January 2025 (UTC) @Mandruss Already did. Changed from a vote to “a comment”. Wasn’t intentional. I’m not trying to double dip. Thought I was voting on a separate vote started below in a different subsection. Also, some of us anons without accounts sometimes text from a home PC. Then use our mobile device when we are out and about. I’m in my 60s and behind the curve when it comes to texts. But not pretending to be anyone other than who I am. And that’s all that needs to be says about it. Verbose or not, you too are strongly opinionated and invested here as well, and commented more than your fair share too. Given the stakes and unprecedented nature of this heated historical moment, it’s reasonable, expected, and par for the course. We are simply just both spirited strong-willed blokes. Have a good one. 2601:282:8903:B3C0:4989:2E9B:F75E:3173 (talk) 20:20, 11 January 2025 (UTC) Wasn’t intentional. I’m not trying to double dip. And I gave you the benefit of the doubt, per WP:AGF. You'll note that I did not accuse you of anything. (Some editors should take note: we are entitled to our suspicions, but expressing them absent clear evidence is a violation that should be dealt with more harshly in my view. Regrettably, some editors don't know what "clear evidence" means. You violated that principle at least once, here, and then doubled down here. That remains unacceptable in my opinion.)My view of constructive talk page behavior is shared among many experienced editors: Don't repeat yourself—we heard you the first time; the more repetition, the longer the thread and the less likely it is that new arrivals will read existing discussion. Comments are never between just two editors, but some editors act as if they are. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:54, 11 January 2025 (UTC) @PackMecEng Thanks for catching this. Thought I was on a different subspace (the one below that started a new vote). I corrected it. Wasn’t trying to double dip. It’s now a comment. Cheers 2601:282:8903:B3C0:E4AF:EA9E:F67C:C0C (talk) 20:07, 11 January 2025 (UTC) Thanks! I appreciate it. PackMecEng (talk) 20:09, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

Off-topic about IP addresses, WP:AGF, resolution of a double !vote, etc. Ok to continue within the collapse. ―Mandruss ☎ 06:11, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

Are you the same IP as above 2601:282:8903:b3c0:e03b:9d22:3c30:1a19 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) that voted support? Because they geolocate to the came place and ISP. ALso looks like 65.153.22.75 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). PackMecEng (talk) 17:21, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

@PackMecEng: When the first halves of two IPv6 addresses (2601:282:8903:b3c0) are the same, they are always the same device. The device changes the latter half frequently and that is beyond the user's control. This editor can demonstrate their good faith by striking one of their two bolded !votes; else we have a clear socking situation.As for 65.153.22.75, it's probably a situation of IPv6 for their phone and IPv4 for their computer or other non-phone device. That address has not posted a bolded !vote that I can see, so the only problem is possible bludgeoning; seems to me they are consuming significantly more than their share of oxygen in this discussion. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:31, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

@Mandruss Says you, with practically half the comments here coming from you. Pot meet kettle. 65.153.22.75 (talk) 19:37, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

WP:BLUDGEON is not about comment count, as a lazy read of just its nutshell will reveal to you. I don't think I have repeated essentially the same arguments at great length and ad nauseam. Are you going to strike or not?? ―Mandruss ☎ 19:47, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

@Mandruss Already did. Changed from a vote to “a comment”. Wasn’t intentional. I’m not trying to double dip. Thought I was voting on a separate vote started below in a different subsection. Also, some of us anons without accounts sometimes text from a home PC. Then use our mobile device when we are out and about. I’m in my 60s and behind the curve when it comes to texts. But not pretending to be anyone other than who I am. And that’s all that needs to be says about it. Verbose or not, you too are strongly opinionated and invested here as well, and commented more than your fair share too. Given the stakes and unprecedented nature of this heated historical moment, it’s reasonable, expected, and par for the course. We are simply just both spirited strong-willed blokes. Have a good one. 2601:282:8903:B3C0:4989:2E9B:F75E:3173 (talk) 20:20, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

Wasn’t intentional. I’m not trying to double dip. And I gave you the benefit of the doubt, per WP:AGF. You'll note that I did not accuse you of anything. (Some editors should take note: we are entitled to our suspicions, but expressing them absent clear evidence is a violation that should be dealt with more harshly in my view. Regrettably, some editors don't know what "clear evidence" means. You violated that principle at least once, here, and then doubled down here. That remains unacceptable in my opinion.)My view of constructive talk page behavior is shared among many experienced editors: Don't repeat yourself—we heard you the first time; the more repetition, the longer the thread and the less likely it is that new arrivals will read existing discussion. Comments are never between just two editors, but some editors act as if they are. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:54, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

@PackMecEng Thanks for catching this. Thought I was on a different subspace (the one below that started a new vote). I corrected it. Wasn’t trying to double dip. It’s now a comment. Cheers 2601:282:8903:B3C0:E4AF:EA9E:F67C:C0C (talk) 20:07, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

Thanks! I appreciate it. PackMecEng (talk) 20:09, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

You can't really cite the coverage in the press as "consensus" as that's heavily subject to WP:RECENTISM. — Czello 19:04, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

@Czello This is actually the opposite of RECENTISM, as the verdict was many moons ago, been debated to death here, and given the thoughtfulness of the American legal system in its methodological approach (especially in the drawn out fashion under Biden and with all the delays) this has been given MORE than enough time for us to be able to call it. A convicted criminal being sentenced after a serious trial is literally the closure of said dragged out process. This is a dodge, and WP:NOT recent, and is WP:NOT our job to avoid reporting harsh truths when it becomes necessary to do so. 2601:282:8903:B3C0:C071:CE5B:4487:3425 (talk) 23:38, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

This 2601:282:8903:B3C0 IP is engaged in ridiculous Wikilawyering all throughout this section. Sentencing was yesterday, hence RECENTISM. WP:NOT is not at all related to anything here. Nor are the other essays raised, such as SPADE. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:03, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

@Muboshgu No, but you are flirting with trying WP:GAMING the system here by misrepresenting others here. And engaging in a borderline personal attack.

This isn't a game, and the sentencing is the conclusion of Trump's verdict from MONTHS ago. What is "ridiculous" is the suggestion that this is somehow RECENT news. Trump was a convicted criminal MONTHS ago, remember?? And the American legal system doesn't say that a conviction doesn't count UNTIL you are sentenced. The sentence is simply the punishment. The conviction is the important part.

The only reason why sentencing is even relevant now in this 'second-look-of-sorts' at including information about Trump's criminal behavior in the opening is because there was a chance the Judge may have reversed himself and dismissed the case. Between the SCOTUS giving its blessing on Trump's sentencing and the Judge doubling down, this old news about Trump's verdict now has proper closure. And we can easily report on it more directly.

The only WP:SPADE is see here is you trying to find some fancy way around reporting obvious factual pertinent information for whatever personal agenda you have to bury it in the lead. Re-read WP:LEAD It clearly says that in the lead, "It should identify the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, INCLUDING any prominent controversies. There is nothing recent about Trump's verdict, it is literally one of the most controversy and notable things about him, as he is the only American President in all of world history to be a convicted felon. And he's been a convicted felon for a while now, nothing recent about it. 2601:282:8903:B3C0:C071:CE5B:4487:3425 (talk) 01:28, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

whatever personal agenda you have to bury it in the lead. You did it again. Consider this fair warning: One more and I'll see you at WP:ANI, unless someone sees fit to do it now. (To those such as Slatersteven who would scold me for for saying this here instead of your UTP, I would respond that that doesn't work for some IPv4 editors and most IPv6 editors. The UTP disappears into the ether every time the IP address changes, which is quite frequently, so it's rarely worth one's time to post on it. You yourself have posted in this discussion under seven different IP addresses, one IPv4 and six IPv6, each with its own UTP.) ―Mandruss ☎ 01:48, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

Like I said, Wikilawyering. And yes, also failing to AGF. A closing admin will take it into account. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:42, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

The previous debates resulted in no consensus to include in the lead. It hasn't been persistently a presence in the press or something he's primarily known for since the initial conviction. It's back in the press now, hence recentism. — Czello 08:15, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

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

Oppose This is all political. The trials only happened because he ran for office, those responsible for them supporting his rival. Dream Focus 14:09, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
Michael Cohen (lawyer) served time in prison, was fined, and lost his law license because of the campaign finance laws violations on behalf of Trump. Cohen wasn't running for office when he was punished. It appears more logical to say that Trump got away because he was running for the presidency. Arbeiten8 (talk) 15:47, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

Strong support On Misplaced Pages, I think there are systemic issues with the handling of political articles. It is best that readers be made aware, as soon as possible, that this is not the place to go for balanced coverage of topics involving political ideology. Calling Trump a "criminal" in the very first sentence would telegraph that to readers quite marvelously. By all means, have at it. Marcus Markup (talk) 15:48, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
The president-elect is a career criminal dating back to 1968 when he falsified medical records to include bone spurs in furtherance of draft dodging felony, before he became businessman and media personality. Kenneth Kho (talk) 16:08, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

I know he is. It is a good edit. Go at it. Marcus Markup (talk) 16:21, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

Lol Big Thumpus (talk) 16:24, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

Oppose - The body, of course, the lead, absolutely, the first sentence? Not yet, it is not one of the defining characteristics of what makes him notable. I could certainly see that changing, but it is not at that point by RS coverage yet. PackMecEng (talk) 16:06, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

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

Support Outside of playing more golf on the dime of taxpayers than any other President (a little humor), unfortunately the hard truth is that according the consensus of the sources he is known for being America's first convicted felon to be elected to the highest office of the land. He and he alone enjoys that distinction. There has been no other President in the last few hundred years charged with hundreds of crimes, or even a single felony, let alone convicted of one. That alone makes this not only notable but necessary to highlight in the lead.

The biggest disagreement here among the naysayers (and some trolls) seems to be that this "is controversial",

So let's look at WP:LEAD, shall we? It clearly says, "It should identify the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, INCLUDING any prominent controversies.

Since the biggest disagreement here among the naysayers (and some trolls) seems to be that this "is controversial", many are saying we should NOT highlight it front and center, etc".

I want editors to note that WP:LEAD in fact wants us TO INCLUDE PROMINENT CONTROVERSIES. Either some misguided editors need to refresh their memory and read this, and we all seem to agree Trump's many crimes and convictions need to be included in the article regardless as they are empirically sound, so this should be distilled to what is appropriate for a lead.

-->Is it "notable" per WP:LEAD? Yes, for the same reason that President Barack Obama being elected the first African American President, as it has been pointed out to death here.

-->It is summarized? Yes, this has played out in the public, and with the press, and here and now has found proper closure with sentencing and with the blessing of even the SCOTUS.

-->Is it prominent? It is at least one of the things Trump is known best for as President since no other President enjoys this exclusive, historic, unique distinction.

And for those saying that this celebrity or that politician isn't highlighted in the lead as a criminal and yadda, yadda, yadda, then I suggest fixes those articles if they too fit the above criteria.

For those letting possible political bias interfere with their duties as an editor, my ask is please keep it simple and lets not treat one controversial subject differently than any other. This isn't about whether Trump deserves his conviction. It's about its notoriety, notability and whether the consensus in the press reflects as much. And we must reflect the press per WP:V otherwise we are basically endorsing a loophole around the WP:NPOV violation. EmmaRoydes (talk) 18:23, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

A few things, pretty much no one is saying it should not be in the lead. What they are discussing, and what this RFC is about, is if it should be in the first sentence. So that kind of undercuts all of your points. Next do not accuse people disagreeing with you of being trolls or that it must be political bias. That is not helpful to discussions here. PackMecEng (talk) 02:34, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

From my experience, the editors who complain about other people editing based on their "political bias" are usually the ones whose editing is most influenced by their political biases. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:16, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

Oppose, this conviction is nowhere near what Trump is best known for and would be wildly WP:Undue. If he'd been convicted in relation to January 6th, then sure, but this is minor at most. Better mentioned later in the lede. Kowal2701 (talk) 18:46, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
@Kowal2701 That’s fallacious. There’s nothing minor about 34+ felony convictions. In accordance to American law, the justice system upgraded those minor misdemeanor charges into felonies because the jury found that Trump had been committing multiple misdemeanor crimes as part of a felony criminal to influence and interfere with the 2016 election. Convictions for interfering with a democratic election is the opposite of “minor”. 65.153.22.75 (talk) 18:50, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

@Kowal2701: I agree, Trump best known for this conviction? It sounds like a provocation by users who dislike him (and I don't like him much either, but I'm objective). JacktheBrown (talk) 18:51, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
Agreed, frankly it'd be a bit embarrassing if this were to succeed (although nom is clearly good faith) Kowal2701 (talk) 18:53, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
Thank you, I'd add that this is not a fringe RfC, I looked up a similar mid-2024 RfC that was closed as no consensus, and it noted the support side had a majority, which took me by surprise as I would have opposed back then, he was not officially a felon yet. Kenneth Kho (talk) 19:24, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

@JacktheBrown How is it “provocation” that Trump is a convicted criminal for 30 plus serious felonies involving an election interference scheme? Lol That was the finding by a jury, not a simple allegation. If it’s provocative or even embarrassing then that’s the natural consequence for the one committing a crime. That’s on the convicted, not on us. I challenge your “objectivity”. Liking him or disliking him has nothing to do with this. That saying, you can have your own set of opinions but not your own facts?? The law and the nature of convictions happens to carry some ugly truths. So do we waterdown the Ted Bundy page or the Harvey Weinstein page for fear of personal embarrassment of said subject? Trump is also an adjudicated sexual assault perpetrator. That’s also a first for Presidents. That other saying, if the shoe fits? Objective indeed. 65.153.22.75 (talk) 19:33, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
Comment — See the lead sentence of the Misplaced Pages article Michael Cohen (lawyer). Regards, Bob K31416 (talk) 02:50, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
I think we can safely assume you're an Opposer without a !vote to date. The "other side" has already been advised against other stuff and whataboutism, correctly in my opinion. Trump is neither Obama (Supporters) nor Cohen (Opposers). He is a whole new animal, so we should not look to precedents either way (especially cherry-picked precedents). ―Mandruss ☎ 03:30, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
@Mandruss: why "animal"? JacktheBrown (talk) 03:39, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
Animal, noun sense 5. ―Mandruss ☎ 03:42, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
Thank you, it's always nice to learn new things. JacktheBrown (talk) 03:48, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

I put it out there so that editors could chew on the lead sentence of an article about someone convicted of crimes and involved in the 34 felony counts of Trump. Another one involved and having a Misplaced Pages article is Allen Weisselberg. As far as I'm concerned, either way works: without "criminal" is more appropriate as far as writing a Misplaced Pages article, whereas with "criminal" in the lead sentence it puts up front the tone of the article that follows. Regards, Bob K31416 (talk) 08:11, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
Comment Although I voted support, I think calling him a "criminal" is too non-specific and is a loaded term. The fact that Barack Obama's racial identity as "the first African-American president in U.S. history" is worthy enough to be included in the first paragraph of the lead; but Trump's 34 felony convictions and being the first acting and former president in U.S. history to be a convicted felon is not worthy of being included in the first paragraph of the lead, is a double standard. I think a separate RfC to simply debate whether this unique status should be included in the first paragraph of the lead may be warranted, irrespective of the exact wording. BootsED (talk) 22:36, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
Have we had a separate discussion about first paragraph as opposed to first sentence? I may have missed it, or my memory may be starting to fail in my somewhat-old age. If so, can someone provide an archive link? If not, we don't go to RfC unless we fail to reach consensus without RfC. Assuming no political motivations per WP:AGF, there isn't any particular rush to get this resolved in this biography; four months would not be excessive for something so significant. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:17, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
Separate - no. It came up during this RfC about adding "convicted felon" to the first sentence. There was also this discussion and two brief ones (here and here) that didn't get much traction. When this discussion has been closed, we should start a separate one about mentioning the felony conviction in the first paragraph. It was major headline news, including Trump's extensive efforts all the way up to the Supreme Court to get the case dismissed. (And now he can't buy or own a gun but next week he'll be able to deploy nuclear missiles .) Space4Time3Continuum2x 🖖 16:44, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

I see you and Bob K31416 believe that "criminal" is too non-specific, loaded, and set the tone for the article that follows. I thought the complete opposite when I started this RfC, and still do. I don't like the term "convicted felon" in previous RfC, and I'm not a fan of an entire sentence for how he is the first convicted president in U.S. history. I intended "criminal" to dispassionately mean he was convicted of a crime without specificity, and that it simply mentions in passing one of his many other titles such as the unspecific politician, businessman, media personality titles, such that no tone is set for the rest of the lede at all. A person who has no idea who he is and stumble upon the four titles would think this is probably interesting, and it gets super interesting when the person reads "who became 45th (and 47th) ...", the same way I found it interesting when I first read "politician and humanitarian" in Jimmy Carter. Kenneth Kho (talk) 15:41, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
Should this article really be geared towards a hypothetical reader who doesn't know who Trump is? Does such a person even exist? Riposte97 (talk) 20:25, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
...Yes, since that's the entire long-term point of something like an encyclopedia. We should be writing articles so that people can read them in 100 years and come away feeling like they've been informed in a broad way, not like they've read a contemporary news article about the subject. That's why WP:RECENT exists. Big Thumpus (talk) 22:05, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
@Big Thumpus: I agree with you, but it's also true that in 100 years there will probably be other virtual encyclopedias, and perhaps Misplaced Pages will be replaced with something even better and much more automated. JacktheBrown (talk) 22:15, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
Venturing even further off topic, a future Misplaced Pages will be written mostly by AI bots (maybe that's what you meant by "automated"). If done correctly, that will largely eliminate editor bias. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:32, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
@Mandruss: "...will be written mostly by AI bots (maybe that's what you meant by "automated")." Yes. JacktheBrown (talk) 22:40, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
Yeah, I spoke in haste. And countless humans will be forced to find new hobbies. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:42, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
Oppose Being convicted of any offense for which not punishment inflicted doesn't make someone notable. Also, there are plenty of politicians and others who have been convicted of crimes who are not described as criminals and lots of criminals (probably including U.S. presidents) who have never been convicted of anything. Anyway, it would just make the article look absurd and discredit it in the eyes of readers. TFD (talk) 23:36, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
Comment — I briefly tried to find sources that describe Trump as a "criminal", i.e. using that word, and I was unsuccessful. Maybe someone else can find such sources. Thanks. Bob K31416 (talk) 16:48, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
How about the court? O3000, Ret. (talk) 16:58, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
Space4Time3Continuum2x 🖖 17:24, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

Thanks but is that referring to the type of court or the defendant? Bob K31416 (talk) 18:01, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
Space4Time3Continuum2x 🖖 18:09, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

Not sure what difference it makes as he was convicted in a criminal court. As said below, a convicted felon is by definition a criminal. Nonetheless, I !voted Oppose. O3000, Ret. (talk) 18:21, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

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

Donald John Trump (born June 14, 1946) is an American politician, media personality, businessman, criminal, native New Yorker, father, husband, and amateur golfer who served as the 45th president of the United States from 2017 to 2021.All of which is eminently verifiable and amply supported by RS. That does not mean it should be in the first sentence or even the first paragraph. Please stop with the simplistic arguments. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:10, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

I totally, completely agree with Mandruss. JacktheBrown (talk) 21:00, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

+1 Maxeto0910 (talk) 21:01, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

It's a statement of fact...if you had to sum him up in one sentence that pretty much covers it..this is exactly what the first sentence is supposed to do Anonymous8206 (talk) 23:59, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

Which entirely misses my point. Done trying to communicate with you on this issue. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:11, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

Support. His conviction got a huge amount of attention, and sources have pointed out that he is notable as the first US president who is also a convicted criminal. It's at minimum as notable as "media personality". Cortador (talk) 13:32, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
I wouldn't mind removing "media personality" TBH. He is notable for being president twice and for being a businessman. He is not notable for his felony convictions. They should be in the lead, but not the first sentence. QuicoleJR (talk) 14:17, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

The fact of the matter he is not a media personality he's a former media personality..if being a convicted felon is less significant than that what would be ? It belongs in the first sentence..it is relevant if for no other reason there are a lot of people who look at Misplaced Pages articles and never get past the first sentence...I generally don`t get past the first paragraph..I was taught in school to get to the point in the first sentence..that the first sentence should support the first paragraph and the first paragraph should support the body of the work..I support wording it as convicted felon rather than criminal as it is more descriptive and accurate Anonymous8206 (talk) 18:59, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

BTW, what's the meaning of the term "media personality"? Thanks, Bob K31416 (talk) 20:36, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

It sounds better than "reality television host". BTW without hosting "The Apprentice", Trump likely never becomes president or charged with any crimes, so note the WP:RECENTISM in saying he isn't notable for it. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:43, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

Do you have a source that explicitly states that Trump wouldn't be a president or convicted criminal without having been a TV host? Cortador (talk) 21:16, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

Can I prove a negative? Of course not. I said "likely" and that is my opinion. Read this. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:25, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

See Donald Trump#Media career. He was a media presence (radio and TV talk shows, cameos in movies and on TV shows, source for tabloids and society pages of NY Times and other papers) before, during, and after the Apprentice, not to mention his Twitter activities. See also the first discussion for this consensus which had 10 options to choose from. Examples for definitions: Dimensions (Media personalities, encompassing TV hosts, news anchors, and social media celebrities, are individuals known for their presence in various media platforms), Urban Dictionary (A modern term for the carefully formulated and overtly fake publicly displayed personality used by ‘celebrities’ who lack natural presentation talent). Space4Time3Continuum2x 🖖 21:23, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

Do you expect me to take your arguments serious when you are citing Urban Dictionary? Cortador (talk) 08:11, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

@Cortador: I don't agree with you at all, because it would probably be the only article in the entire encyclopedia to contain this term in the initial part of the lead; some users are very angry with Donald, but no valid reason has been presented for the inclusion of the (pejorative) term "criminal" only on the Trump page. JacktheBrown (talk) 23:01, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

"Other articles don't do X" is not and has never been a valid argument here. Also, I recommend you don't edit based your personal feelings, but on how sources report on the subject of an article. Cortador (talk) 09:59, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

Strongly oppose He's not known for being a criminal qua criminal. Trump's crimes are inextricably linked to his career in either business or politics. They were business-related/political in their very nature. It more than suffices to mention the convictions further down the line, but to insert "criminal" in the very first sentence is manifestly undue. KINGofLETTUCE 👑 🥬 12:18, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
+1. JacktheBrown (talk) 18:23, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
Statistics: Although this is not a vote, at the present time there are 22 Oppose opinions expressed, and 8 Support opinions being expressed; along with these there are nearly a dozen Comments which have been added sometimes neutral and sometimes of explicit viewpoints. ErnestKrause (talk) 00:38, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
Thanks. Despite protestations to the contrary, there is no clear policy basis for either side; it's all "editorial judgment". So a closer would have no reason to override the numbers. If I were on the Support side, I'd concede to save everybody a lot of time, but I know better than to hope for that. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:47, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

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

We heard you the first time. And the second time, and the third time, and the fourth time, and the fifth time, and the sixth time... I've lost count. Endless repetition does not strengthen one's argument, it just makes one look silly and annoys people. ―Mandruss ☎ 17:54, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

The first sentence is supposed to explain why the subject is notable. Trump is notable for his business career and his two presidencies, not the hush money payments. It should be in the lead, but it is undue for the first sentence. QuicoleJR (talk) 17:34, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

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

Seventh time. JacktheBrown (talk) 18:43, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

Oppose - This fact appears to be fading as his inauguration approaches. Per WP:DUE, it just doesn't belong in the intro. GoodDay (talk) 05:54, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

Now 8...if it`s all about who gets the last word here no problem...trump is a convicted felon and now president...it is a turning point in history...it is going to be the only thing he`s remembered for in the end Anonymous8206 (talk) 13:51, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

@Anonymous8206: insisting will not bring users closer to your idea. Really boring. JacktheBrown (talk) 14:47, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

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

It's about ripe for a closure request, I think, unless the Supporters concede. I'll submit the request soon. Then we wait for probably 4–8 weeks for a closer. Discussion can continue during the wait, but I agree that little of use is being added lately and we don't need more pointless clutter. ―Mandruss ☎ 04:22, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

You get the last word as always and that`s just the it is right ? Anonymous8206 (talk) 16:12, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

Didn't you know? I have been anointed by God. ―Mandruss ☎ 16:37, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

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

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

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

2nd Term time

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

No, per WP:CRYSTALBALL... who's to say it doesn't end before that date? - Adolphus79 (talk) 02:15, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

Or after that date. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ – Muboshgu (talk) 02:17, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

Also, it will not be longer then january 20th 2025, since the 22nd amendment limits presidents to 2 terms, to change that, he needs two thirds of congress, which he wont get. Communism-socialism-is-part-of-my-past (talk) 02:33, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

That's WP:CRYSTALBALL. You're saying he will need two thirds of Congress. You're saying he will respect the 22nd amendment. You're saying that the end date will be in 2029. But we don't know any of that, because none of those have happened. FPTI (talk) 08:46, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Further more, the suggested content is verifiable Communism-socialism-is-part-of-my-past (talk) 02:35, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

If[REDACTED] "does not predict the future" then there should not be "assuming office" at all, thank you for offering me a contradiction. Communism-socialism-is-part-of-my-past (talk) 02:30, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

The current treatment is standard for all U.S. presidents, most likely for all politicians. See Joe Biden on January 1, 2021 and on February 1, 2021. See Donald Trump on January 1, 2017 and on February 1, 2017. See Barack Obama on January 1, 2009 and on February 1, 2009. And so on.The end date is added after leaving office; see Barack Obama on January 1, 2017 and on February 1, 2017.This article is not going to deviate from that standard. If you want to propose a change to the standard, this is not the place—discussion on this page governs only this article.A recent proposal to change "Assuming office" to "Scheduled to assume office" for all officeholders-elect failed at Village Pump, see Misplaced Pages:Village pump (policy)/Archive 198#WP:CRYSTAL in officeholder articles and infoboxes. ―Mandruss ☎ 05:25, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

Off-topic question: why do the infoboxes for Trump in 2017 and Obama in 2009 show their correct positions (e.g. incumbent) but not the correct age at the time (71 and 48, respectively)? Looks as though the template always uses DOB + difference to current year (Trump 78, Obama 63). Space4Time3Continuum2x 🖖 15:29, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

The {{birth date and age}} template calculates the age based on the current date when the article is rendered, so it wouldn't work when displaying years-old revisions. Similarly, if an image is deleted after the time of the revision, it's redlinked when displaying the revision. Similarly, if a template is modified in a way that changes its output, the change is reflected for all old revisions of articles that use the template. Anything not physically in an article's wikitext is unreliable for old revisions. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:14, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

Constitutionally, his second term will expire at Noon EST on 20 January 2029. However, we aren't 100% certain if he'll serve the entire term. We assume he will, but that's it. GoodDay (talk) 06:03, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

"The kings go up and the kings go down, and who knows who shall rule?" FPTI (talk) 08:47, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

New Trump-produced portrait

This section is pinned and will not be automatically archived.

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

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

Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit extended-protected}} template. — In any case, what 2025 portrait? There should be a new one available after he takes office. It might be a month or two, so be patient. Don't worry, we have this covered. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:10, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

https://www.timesnownews.com/world/us/us-news/donald-trumps-inauguration-portrait-sparks-mugshot-comparisons-on-social-media-bad-article-117280859 - this is what I believe they where talking about, Trump today had a unofficial portrait taken of him for his inauguration. I think that is what they where talking about. I personally think we should wait until after he takes official, but it is a recent photo and honesty would be more appropriate to use then the current portrait taken in 2017, which is over 8 years old. Jimco1945 (talk) 03:13, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

Agree I think so too! https://commons.wikimedia.org/File:TrumpPortrait.jpg MediaGuy768 (talk) 03:52, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

Should be noted on the page that this is his inauguration portrait, not his official portrait (at least not yet). Biden and Harris (and Trump and Pence) had different inauguration portraits than official presidential portraits. Dingers5Days (talk) 04:02, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

Were they included in Misplaced Pages articles without being deleted by the WP copyright police? ―Mandruss ☎ 04:14, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

Bidens page used his official portriat as Vice President until April 9th, 2021 when his official portrait was released by the White House. Just double checked way back machine Are Jay Morrison (talk) 06:59, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. It baffles me how often people expect us to read minds, remotely over the internet. I'm converting this to a discussion thread: Edit request is for things that don't require discussion, such as typo corrections, grammar corrections, reverts of clear violations of consensus, and so on. ―Mandruss ☎ 03:55, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

The photo is the current profile picture for the official POTUS account, signifying it as an official photo Btomblinson (talk) 04:41, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Oppose. All other factors aside, the reason we can use the White House-produced portraits is because they are produced by the U.S. Government and not subject to copyright issues. That is not the case for this photo. Looks like a non-starter to me. ―Mandruss ☎ 04:01, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

That's my concern too. I was trying to figure out any more information, but I can find no evidence whatsoever that this was created by an employee of the government acting in their official duties. His Twitter does not suggest that he is working for the government - but for Trump directly. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 04:05, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

Special Case for Presidential Transition Teams. The presidential transition team is federally funded and operates in coordination with government agencies. This would fall under PD. MediaGuy768 (talk) 04:19, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

We'll see. Anyway, we need a new consensus to supersede consensus 1, as stated elsewhere. Everyone needs to leave the infobox image alone pending that new consensus. ―Mandruss ☎ 04:23, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

And since Consensus 1 references potential copyright issues on the inauguration image from 2017, I've now reverted this change in image until a new consensus forms and any copyright issues are resolved. I've also asked at the Commons village pump for more opinions regarding the copyright status. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 04:17, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

Ah, thanks. It didn't occur to me that someone would be so WP:BOLD, so I wasn't even watching the article. ―Mandruss ☎ 04:20, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

Consensus 1 references temporarily suspended by #19 following copyright issues on the inauguration portrait - any idea where these issues were brought up, especially any related deletion requests on Commons that may be able to be referenced? -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 04:24, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

The author... Daniel Torok...said the following in my inquiry to him: "Should be public domain on the 20th but with the exception that it can’t be used for commercial purposes without WH approval" From the source himself. Looks like the author intends PD for the photo. No issue to publish. MediaGuy768 (talk) 04:34, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

That is not public domain then. Images uploaded to Commons must be free to use for any use, with only attribution allowed to be required. See this page. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 04:37, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

All presidential portraits have the same terms as the 2025 author mentioned. MediaGuy768 (talk) 04:39, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

No they do not. Official portraits created on behalf of the US Government by an employee of the US Government are explicitly public domain. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 04:40, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

In this case, the official portrait will be this image. They will not retake it. The author is going to PD the image for the National Archives. MediaGuy768 (talk) 04:43, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

Of course they'll retake it. The White House would never let that be the "official" portrait. ―Mandruss ☎ 04:48, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages does not operate on "the author is going to PD " at some undetermined point in the future. Until it is public domain, it is not public domain. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 04:46, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

Nope! The author took it on behalf of the federally funded transition team. The author said he is not enforcing the copyright and that it will be full PD on Jan 20. Additionally, the "can’t be used for commercial purposes without White House approval" portion is not enforceable because the WH cant take action on behalf of the author nor should any NC restriction apply to such from the WH. MediaGuy768 (talk) 04:50, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

The image cannot be used until it is explicitly released under a free license by the author or when it is entered into the public domain on the 20th, as has already been explained. The author simply stating that he does not intend to enforce the copyright is not sufficient. See Commons:Licensing Pave Paws (talk) 05:46, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages copyright policy is an arcane science not meant for mere mortals. After all, a local consensus to include would not mean squat to the copyright police. Wait for Commons feedback. If they sign off on it, we can discuss other factors. I would still oppose, but it would be premature to say why. ―Mandruss ☎ 05:49, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

Made an account just to change this. Yes! Evaburden (talk) 04:25, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

@Evaburden, it would just get deleted. Wait until the official portrait is released by the White House itself. Hurricane Clyde 🌀 19:12, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

Wait - Until Library of Congress has the second term portrait. https://www.loc.gov/free-to-use/presidential-portraits/

207.96.32.81 (talk) 04:31, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

Wait/Oppose based on above arguments (particularly in regards to copyright). Hurricane Clyde 🌀 19:11, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

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

I challenge you to take an actually good photo of Trump. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 15:55, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

Our current one is a good photo, if one is able to perceive it objectively. Good composition, lighting, and color balance, there's a somewhat-genuine-looking smile, and there's no smoke emanating from the ear that took a bullet. ―Mandruss ☎ 06:54, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

Trump with a droopy eyelid, the "fuck with me and I'll bury you" scowl, and almost comical dramatic film-noir lighting. ―Mandruss ☎ 01:45, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

Nicholas Cage's character Spider-Man Noir from the film Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse comes to mind when you describe the portrait like so. Barnt Toust 01:51, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

Maybe the scowl is just me. At minimum, he's trying to look like Edward R. Murrow or something. He's trying to project an image or persona, which is not encyclopedic. It belongs on his personal website, not Misplaced Pages. (Again, this is cart-before-horse pending resolution of the copyright question. Sorry.) ―Mandruss ☎ 02:24, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

It's not just you. It's pretty obvious that they're channeling the Fulton County Jail mugshot. They're probably using it for another round of extracting donations from the MAGA cult members. But, hey, if it becomes the new official presidential portrait I'd be all for it, wrinkles and all. Doesn't do justice to the bronzer, but at least the soft focus didn't get anywhere near Kary Lake's preferred settings (day or night). Space4Time3Continuum2x 🖖 13:57, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

Maybe it's just me, but aside from the copyright issues of this image, I think that there are some warranted WP:NPOV concerns here with the lighting/post-production and expression (which I think is aimed at conveying something), as outlined by Mandruss. We often use officially produced portraits of cabinet members and members of Congress because they are current, of high quality, and free use as works of the U.S. Government (usually confirmed by their metadata). I would posit that these are routine images taken without much thought given for the pose, composition, lighting, etc. aside from what a typical portrait photographer would consider. However, I am not sure the same can be said for this image. Connormah (talk) 02:05, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

I broadly agree with this train of thought. Even if the copyright concerns are resolved (such as the photographer themselves releasing into public domain), I would only support this image if there is no other free image that even comes close to being as neutral. I broadly agree with the idea that we should try to update the image to one that reflects his current (approximately 8 years older) appearance, if/when a free option is available that otherwise works. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 02:19, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

+1. Well said. ―Mandruss ☎ 02:39, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

If it is a portrait produced under directive by Trump and co., then I think that if it looks devious, that's the choice of Trump, and we use the official portrait anyhow. Ultimately, if what ends up being the official portrait is something comparable to this & that is the image millions see as they look at Misplaced Pages, so be it. That image is what Trump wants to project? We go along with it.

Let's not ignore our common sense when we look through this article and we see that a good chunk of it is damning info about crime, uprising, totalitarianism, and fascism. Perhaps a portrait of this caliber would be poetic in a way, representing the content within? Barnt Toust 14:36, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

That image is what Trump wants to project? We go along with it. Absolutely not. Trump's wishes are completely irrelevant here. That applies as much to the infobox portrait as to any other content in this article. ―Mandruss ☎ 14:45, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

I'm not saying we make Trump's Infobox the way he wants because we want to appease him, I'm saying that we go along with the portrait per policy, and that if it looks horrible, by all means it will be reflective of the horrible things that he has done that are present in the article. Barnt Toust 14:59, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

Like, even if it's a shitty portrait, it would be due as it would represent the contents of the article therein. Point is, a shitshow should be represented thusly if that's what Trump is gonna send to the Library of Congress. Barnt Toust 15:03, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

Let's try this: Why are we spending so much time discussing a hypothetical that is extremely unlikely to become a reality? Check out the Commons deletion request; it's almost certain to pass and the image will be deleted. ―Mandruss ☎ 15:07, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

BarntToust, as I indicated above, it is not a WP policy to use official images, and we are not obligated to do so if we feel they might violate our NPOV policy. Usually that is not a consideration, but like many things, that could be a point of discussion here. Connormah (talk) 15:21, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

Oh boy! https://www.whitehouse.gov/ has those exact portraits uploaded now. Public domain licenses thus attached. My point still stands: Trump is known for doing not-good things, the portrait happening to reflect that not-good-ness is reflective of the article, which also does not violate NPOV. Barnt Toust 17:16, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

In short, having a devious-looking portrait—for a felon who has been compared to Hitler, made racist and sexist remarks, makes falsehoods like rabbits make babies, stole and mishandled official documents, so on and so forth—is not a problem? Barnt Toust 14:40, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

this is about the portrait and not the politics. Pizza noob 65 (talk) 18:14, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

TeamDrumpf believes the portraits "go hard", so that's what they're thinking. Incoming prez's resembles image at Mug shot of Donald Trump. I'm assuming you meant Vance looking like a tired, bearded hamster as a complement to his work ethic, and as hamsters are cute. Def no BLPVIO there. Barnt Toust 22:05, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

Hm, work ethic ... Let's go with that, and hamsters are cute. Space4Time3Continuum2x 🖖 14:06, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

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

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

Duplicate edit requests/discussions

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

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

@Berchanhimez make an request to WP:RFPP to semi-protect the talk page. It's mostly IP editors doing this. Barnt Toust 02:28, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

Talk pages are generally not protected if it can be avoided... but if an administrator agrees that is viable here (for at least the next week or so), then I would support waiting on this to see if they die down (and letting auto archiver take over the ones that are already here for now) with that. Going to make that request now, thanks. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 02:31, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

And requested: WP:Requests for page protection/Increase § Talk:Donald Trump. Comments there are welcome, and if another solution is thought up here, please feel free to go contest that request. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 02:39, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

They're gone after 24 hours per consensus 13. It's not like we have to live with them for the standard seven days. And it's a temporary problem that doesn't come up very often. I don't think they "clog up" the archive, as nobody browses archive pages top to bottom, and they don't create a lot of false positives in archive searches (in my experience). ―Mandruss ☎ 02:57, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

Ah, I missed consensus 13's allowance for manually archiving after 24 hours. I agree that the "clogging" of the archives is the least significant issue. The clogging of this page however.. hopefully if an admin agrees temporary semi protection is warranted that will suffice, but if not (or if it's still a problem) I still think 24 hours may be too long if they continue increasing. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 03:02, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

I wouldn't oppose semi, but some competent IPs might. In my view, avoidance of that is just one of the benefits of registration. ―Mandruss ☎ 03:07, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

Presuming the proposed image, isn't a White House image. Recommend we stick with the 2017 image, for now. GoodDay (talk) 06:37, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

Does the image’s publishing on whitehouse.gov make it public domain? anikom15 (talk) 18:49, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

Normally yes, we would be able to assume that anything posted on whitehouse.gov that isn't identified as copyrighted is free to use (either public domain or CC-BY license).

However, Trump's White House has a history of trying to "steal" images that look good to him. In 2017 he directed his White House staff to do the same thing - take his copyrighted photos that were taken of him by a private photographer for his inauguration materials and post them on WH.gov without a copyright notice. The private photographer had no idea Trump was planning to do so, and while the photographer was okay with Trump using them on the White House website, he did not wish them to be freely licensed/public domain.

So in this case, given the historical wanton theft of copyright, it is prudent to assume they are not until the private photographer makes an irrevocable statement that they have done so. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 18:58, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

This should be determined at Commons, not here. A deletion request was recently closed rejecting that argument and keeping the photo: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Presidential Portrait of Donald Trump, 2025.jpg -- JFHutson (talk) 19:16, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

The closer said this is freely licensed now (20 January). What does "freely licensed" mean? I'm not convinced that that is a proper closing. Space4Time3Continuum2x 🖖 19:30, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

It's not a proper closing. While Commons does have different policies, they do have a policy akin to SUPERVOTE on Misplaced Pages, where an administrator should not close a discussion without summarizing the arguments made and explaining why they discounted some of them if it's not obvious. I'm shocked that the admin engaged in such blatant license laundering. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 19:37, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

Then deal with it using Commons policy and procedure. I realize you are doing that, but we don't have to preemptively remove it from WP in the meantime. For now, we have an image on Commons and if we think it's the best image we should use it. -- JFHutson (talk) 19:43, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

There was no license laundering. You are making assumptions without providing any tangible proof or evidence. The photo is published on the White House website under a Creative Commons license (as we already know it wasn't the work of a federal employee). That's it. Bedivere (talk) 00:59, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

The White House cannot license a photo they do not own. I'm not sure how many times you have to be told that User:Bedivere. You've already been told by at least one other commons admin that you were wrong, as well as multiple other commons users opining that you were wrong. Following me to enwiki to harass me here over it is not appropriate. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 01:07, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

I'm not harassing you. I'm just responding the very unfortunate accusations you have made against me without daring to mention me! Bedivere (talk) 01:16, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Gotta ask, how do you know Trump doesn't own it and thus releases it by CC 3.0? Yeh, why are we all on Enwiki now? Barnt Toust 01:17, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

The onus is on the users arguing for keeping it to prove that Trump owns it and can release it under that license. Not on the users arguing for deletion. See the precautionary principle. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 01:18, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

And how are you to prove that Torok owns it? He just took the thing, as he worked for Trump Inaugural Committee. I say it's likely they own it, and the White House published with CC 3.0.

Lo, the pot calls the kettle black. Barnt Toust 01:24, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

The presumption is that the photographer owns the copyright, unless and until it is proven otherwise. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 01:30, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

No, it doesn't. See here. The website doesn't say whether individual photos were "government-produced" or "third-party content on this site ... licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License". The photo was taken before Trump's inauguration, so it's not government-produced. The licensing statement at File:Presidential Portrait of Donald Trump, 2025.jpg is wrong. Space4Time3Continuum2x 🖖 19:27, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

@Pantarch: You are in violation of the BRD enforcement - that edit was reverted and you have reinstated it. Please self-revert until the discussion here has come to a conclusion. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 19:43, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

The conclusion was reached on Wikimedia Commons. I don't understand what you want to discuss here; you are needlessly discussing an alleged copyright infringement that should be discussed elsewhere. Pantarch (talk) 19:54, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

Has anybody noticed that this is in the wrong subsection? I'm not in a mood to fix it. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:01, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

Instead, have you noticed that there are so many duplicates on Wikimedia Commons, many with the wrong license – the correct one is CC BY 3.0 US. Pantarch (talk) 20:03, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

Commons deletion request closed as keep

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

It is a supervote, it's now at their noticboard for user/admin problems as a blatant supervote and license laundering. The files have also already been renominated for deletion (if the admin refuses to vacate their close, that's the only way to discuss further unless another admin comes around and wheel wars them to reopen it - they don't have a deletion review for keep closures).We should not rush to change the image until it is fully resolved. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 19:55, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

My bad, I failed to read existing discussion. Overdue for bed. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:02, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

What determines the matter to be resolved? The discussion is closed. anikom15 (talk) 20:05, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

All duplicates should be deleted, and the correct license, i.e.,

This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 United States License. In short: you are free to distribute and modify the file as long as you attribute its author(s) or licensor(s). Official license

, should be inserted on the remaining ones. Pantarch (talk) 20:09, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

That doesn't change the fact that you've violated the BRD restriction on this page, @Pantarch:. You are in violation of an arbitration enforcement remedy on this page and I strongly encourage you to self revert before it ends up at AE for violating BRD. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 20:14, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

I didn't violate the BRD restriction because my edit wasn't reverted:

"You must follow the bold-revert-discuss cycle if your change is reverted. You may not reinstate your edit until you post a talk page message discussing your edit and have waited 24 hours from the time of this talk page message" Pantarch (talk) 20:45, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

"America's Hitler" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect America's Hitler 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/2025 January 16 § America's Hitler until a consensus is reached. Barnt Toust 22:34, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

Challenge consensus item 44

I would like to challenge consensus at Talk:Donald Trump#Current consensus, item 44.

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

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

This made worldwide news at the time and was part of Trump's agenda for months, including several meetings with Kim and other stakeholders. It was a distinct break with the policy of other sitting presidents. It should be featured in the intro.--Jack Upland (talk) 01:53, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

Meeting with Kim Jong Un was a major bullet point in his presidency with regard to foreign policy. I do not believe the progress—or lack thereof—on denuclearisation is worth noting in the lead, however. Especially given North Korea have not conducted a nuclear test since. To me, the unclear results are considerably less notable than the summits themselves. MB 2437 02:38, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

Trump meeting Kim is one of the big highlights of his first presidency. The first thought that a person reading this, not catching up with news everyday, could have is if it had any consequences, any result. So clarifying that it didn't change much things/ or changed few things is, what I feel, essential. --ExclusiveEditor _{🔔 Ping Me!} 14:41, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

"He became a millionaire at age 8"

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

References

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

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

When you start giving up, I start getting worried. Looks like a job for SusanLesch. ―Mandruss ☎ 13:09, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

It sometimes feels like the incoming tide and me with a bucket on the mudflats. Space4Time3Continuum2x 🖖 14:18, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

Ut oh, possible beginning of burnout. Been there, done that, semi-retired. ―Mandruss ☎ 14:25, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

Is "semi-retired" like the Walking Dead? You're editing just like me (undue? - puhleaze:). I'm more "when the going gets tough", although now I take a deep breath before I get going. When you're chewing on life's gristle ... Space4Time3Continuum2x 🖖 17:16, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

Looks like you spend about 95% of your time here, like me. Unlike me, you do a lot of heavy lifting, "real editor work". I'm mainly a gnome and a janitor. "puhleaze" is undue:). ―Mandruss ☎ 17:24, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

Comment. Our former source, the NYT article, was written by the same duo who wrote the book we're citing. I dare assume a book has even better fact-checking. -SusanLesch (talk) 14:59, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

How is this not puffery? Slatersteven (talk) 13:22, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

? Does it resemble anything at MOS:PUFFERY? ―Mandruss ☎ 14:05, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

Well do we attribute the claim? Slatersteven (talk) 14:09, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

Also wp:undue can be linked to this, is there really a major part of his life and success? Slatersteven (talk) 14:10, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

The context was a bit clearer when the sentence was part of the Wealth section and the Wealth section, in turn, was part of the erstwhile Personal life section. The context is the NYT refuting Trump's claim of being a self-made millionaire/billionaire. Space4Time3Continuum2x 🖖 14:15, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

So then it should, not have been moved, or the context altred. Slatersteven (talk) 14:17, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

You're preaching to the choir. Space4Time3Continuum2x 🖖 14:19, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

Agree with Space. This sentence is needed to refute Trump's narrative. I cited the footnote and have no problem with the current wording. -SusanLesch (talk) 14:51, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

Yeah, fight the power! PackMecEng (talk) 17:06, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

Did Trump make much more money on his own than what he got from his father? Thanks, Bob K31416 (talk) 15:43, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

Maybe, and maybe not. But the point here was his claim that he started from a loan of a mere million and that he had to pay it back. Space4Time3Continuum2x 🖖 17:22, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

Large subsections in the First Presidency section

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

Yes. Maybe reduced to even less than that. I've been thinking about the Covid section but haven't thought much about the Foreign policy section. There will be plenty of material coming up for the article. Plenty.

As an example of reduction, here's a possible change of the first paragraph of the Covid section,

from "The first confirmed case of COVID-19 in the U.S. was reported on January 20, 2020. The outbreak was officially declared a public health emergency by Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary Alex Azar on January 31, 2020. Trump initially ignored public health warnings and calls for action from health officials within his administration and Azar, focusing on economic and political considerations of the outbreak. In February 2020 he publicly asserted that the outbreak in the U.S. was less deadly than influenza, was "very much under control", and would soon be over. On March 19, he privately told Bob Woodward that he was deliberately "playing it down, because I don't want to create a panic"."

to "Trump initially ignored public health warnings and calls for action from health officials within his administration, focusing on economic and political considerations of the outbreak.".

Regards, Bob K31416 (talk) 18:10, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

You're correct. We have a good opportunity to carry such an edit off, too. I'd support you if you undertook to make such trims. Riposte97 (talk) 23:00, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

Agreement with Riposte97 and Bob K31416. The section of COVID under the first presidency has 7 sections, and is the summary given above by Bob K31416 intended for the entire COVID section, or, for one of those subsections. Your summary is a good one and let us know which subsections of the COVID section it covers. Possibly you have a similar summary in mind for the Foreign Affairs section as well which you could share with us. The summary so far look pretty good. ErnestKrause (talk) 15:35, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

My example was just for the first paragraph, as I mentioned, perhaps somewhat unclearly? I basically kept one sentence. The idea was to reduce the paragraph to a summary or main point without changing the tone. I think any attempts that might change the tone would jeopardize the success of reduction, which may be difficult to get agreement on in any case. It might be useful to get the thoughts from two of the most active editors, Space4Time3Continuum2x and Mandruss. Cheers, Bob K31416 (talk) 21:59, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

Responding to ping. I'm terrible at this kind of thing, which is why I tend to avoid it. All I know is that the article has needed dramatic reduction for many years. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:02, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

I looked some more at the Covid section with an eye to similar reductions like the first paragraph. Unfortunately, I didn't find the rest of the Covid section amenable to that approach, at least for me. Maybe it would take the main people or person responsible for the Covid section to make an appropriate reduction. Regards, Bob K31416 (talk) 04:18, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

Most likely the section will gradually be reduced in size, as more info is added into the Second Presidency section. GoodDay (talk) 00:51, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

Building on the idea stated above from Bob K31416, I've added a short summary for each of the subsections in the COVID section and combined them together which now looks like:

"Trump initially ignored public health warnings and calls for action from health officials within his administration, focusing on economic and political considerations of the outbreak. Trump established the White House Coronavirus Task Force on January 29. Prior to the pandemic, Trump criticized the WHO and other international bodies, which he asserted were taking advantage of U.S. aid. In April 2020, Republican-connected groups organized anti-lockdown protests against the measures state governments were taking to combat the pandemic; Trump encouraged the protests on Twitter, although the targeted states did not meet his administration's guidelines for reopening. Trump repeatedly pressured federal health agencies to take actions he favored, such as approving unproven treatmentsCite error: A <ref> tag is missing the closing </ref> (see the help page). By July 2020, Trump's handling of the COVID-19 pandemic had become a major issue in the presidential election. "

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

I think you're on the track of something good. My first thought is to eliminate the last sentence because it is about Biden. Cheers, Bob K31416 (talk) 19:54, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Agreed and dropping the last sentence. Pinging Riposte97 and Bob K31416 to see if this looks like a good version to use to trim the current long COVID section. ErnestKrause (talk) 23:33, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

This is a huge improvement. Hopefully the whole article can proceed this way! Riposte97 (talk) 00:15, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

I think you need more editors participating. The relative lack of interest, positive and negative, for this large change does not bode well. All I can say is that I wouldn't oppose your edit. For one thing, it wouldn't be set in stone and editors could modify it once it is in the article. A Bold-Revert-Discuss might get more editors to discuss it. Good luck, Bob K31416 (talk) 00:58, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

Just noticed something else in the sentence that begins, "Prior to the pandemic...". It probably went with other material that was about the pandemic. Alone it isn't about the pandemic. Regards, Bob K31416 (talk) 02:28, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

I started looking at how you got these sentences and it appears that you tried to do what I did with the example of the first paragraph. Good try. Regarding the sentence starting with "Prior..." that I mentioned above, I found that it was the sentence you selected from the subsection World Health Organization. Here it is underlined and enlarged in context,

Prior to the pandemic, Trump criticized the WHO and other international bodies, which he asserted were taking advantage of U.S. aid. His administration's proposed 2021 federal budget, released in February, proposed reducing WHO funding by more than half. In May and April, he accused the WHO of "severely mismanaging" COVID-19, alleged without evidence that the organization was under Chinese control and had enabled the Chinese government's concealment of the pandemic's origins, and announced that he was withdrawing funding for the organization. These were seen as attempts to distract from his mishandling of the pandemic. In July 2020, he announced the formal withdrawal of the U.S. from the WHO, effective July 2021. The decision was widely condemned by health and government officials as "short-sighted", "senseless", and "dangerous".

I think that to find a reduction of this that has a better chance for being accepted, we need to call on one of the main and currently active contributors to the article like Space4Time3Continuum2x and see what they think about reducing this subsection and if they have any suggestions of how to do it. With their participation, it would have a much better chance of being accepted. Otherwise it would take a much bigger participation for a reduction to have a chance. Cheers, Bob K31416 (talk) 17:08, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

Those are useful comments for this from Bob K31416. Regarding the response by the top editors you mention, then Mandruss has already responded above and its completely up to the other top editors if they would like to comment while consensus is being established. If there is consensus between 3 or more editors without contest, then the edit can normally move forward into the main article. I'm presently for supporting the edit as you have stated in your research above, and I'll join in with Riposte97 and Bob K31416 if either one of them is ready to bring this edit into the article. I'm also ready to add my trimmed version of the Foreign policy section under First Presidency here as well for discussion on Talk. It was mentioned at the start of this thread in order for both trimmed subsection versions (COVID and Foreign policy) to go together into the article at the same time, or if its preferred to do them one subsection at a time. Ready to support anyone who wishes to bring this trimmed version of the COVID subsection in the article at this time. ErnestKrause (talk) 19:53, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

Potential addition to the first paragraph of the lead

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

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

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

Also, Trump is the richest U.S. president ever. Bob K31416 (talk) 09:05, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

That would violate consensus #38. BootsED (talk) 19:01, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

Bear in mind that anything added to the lead has to be in the body first, with citation. And the sourcing must be direct; no deduction may be required to get from the cited source to the content. ―Mandruss ☎ 14:08, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

The former US president has accomplished a lot of firsts. We shouldn't flood the intro with all of'em. GoodDay (talk) 18:26, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

Part of that sentence is going to be moot in less than 24 hours. Second non-consecutive term and Grover Cleveland: last I heard "second" isn't the same as "first", so this is more ole Grover's claim to fame. I think it's better to mention the impeachments and acquittals the way the lead does now. Oldest: not leadworthy, I don't think we even mention it in the body. First convicted felon: a label to be avoided per MOS:CONVICTEDFELON. I do think we should move the sentence about the felony conviction into the first paragraph but that is a separate discussion. Space4Time3Continuum2x 🖖 18:53, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

What about "Trump has been an influential and polarizing figure in modern American politics." It's definitely supported by sources and the article itself. Personisinsterest (talk) 13:02, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

@Space4Time3Continuum2x @GoodDay @Mandruss @Bob K31416 @BootsED We need to figure this out soon, its going to look so weird if the lead paragraph is only one sentence Personisinsterest (talk) 16:05, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

This section is not about that. See Talk:Donald_Trump#Changing_first_paragraph_after_the_inauguration. ―Mandruss ☎ 16:09, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

"convicted fellon" should be specific or it would go against MOS:CRIMINAL, I also doubt that it carries enough weight. I agree with OP that something in the first paragraph is needed. For me the choice is straight forward, looking at sources what characterize Trump is the aggressive stance toward the many economical issues, means trade war, mass deportations, etc. Cinemaandpolitics (talk) 13:09, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Net worth and consensus 5

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

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

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

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

My bad. I was unaware of consensus item #5. Forbes, WP:FORBES, may not be the authority we'd like to have but they're all we've got. -SusanLesch (talk) 14:16, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

Good enough for me: "Forbes also publishes various 'top' lists which can be referenced in articles." Ok, barring objections, I'll change the article to conform with #5 in a day or two, using the 2024 list. ―Mandruss ☎ 14:34, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

Planned update:

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

...which will conflict with the preceding sentence:

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

There's already a conflict, but it's not so large. Maybe the $5.6B sum is assets only and the $2.3B is assets minus liabilities? There's a paywall in my way for the $5.6B source. ―Mandruss ☎ 16:08, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

@SusanLesch: Did you write the $5.6B sentence? If so, can you answer this? Is "wealth" a synonym for "assets"? I wasn't aware of that. If not, should it be changed to "assets" for clarity? ―Mandruss ☎ 16:52, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

Not for me to say.

Our The World's Billionaires list was published in April 2024. The breakdown I cited was November 2024. Truth Social's value fluctuates that wildly. -SusanLesch (talk) 17:06, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

Another "improvement" I missed — March 2024 feels like B.C. now (see "Net worth update" link, below). I just reverted to the consensus 5 version. The ranking on the annual billionaires' list used to be in the upper left corner of the Forbes webpage (see Talk:Donald_Trump/Archive_167#Net_worth_update) but the Wayback machine’s toolbar is superimposed on that part of the archived pages. Now you do have to scroll down to "Forbes Lists" to see the annual ranking. The problem was the link — the original link to the "Full profile" works as before. The link has to specify the list; there are others, such as the Forbes 400. The list is published in April, AFAIK. Space4Time3Continuum2x 🖖 17:24, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

Adding the Net worth update discussion and Moratorium on constantly updating Forbes' ranking. Space4Time3Continuum2x 🖖 17:29, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

I like my "Planned update" better (both its text and its citation), but whatever. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:46, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

@Space4Time3Continuum2x: Also, do you see an apparent conflict between those two sentences? If you're a reader, does that raise an eyebrow? If so, how would you resolve it? ―Mandruss ☎ 23:40, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

This was the Wealth section before the election. The section could have used some trimming and updating but not the wholesale deletion of most of the contents. Gone is information that I don't think is "overdetail" for the successful business tycoon persona that he was/is projecting (tax returns showing losses, tax fraud, etc.). After the trim most of the section was about Forbes, from "John Barron" to Trump’s billionaire listing on November 4 and on December 16, 2024. When I reverted the last sentence to consensus 5 adherence, I didn't look at the second to last sentence which was also added here, together with the one that violated consensus 5. IMO, it also falls under #5. It's merely a wordier description of Trump's ranking on the billionaires' list on the day before the 2024 election. This sentence should be removed.

No objection to the wording of the last sentence you proposed in your planned update, above. Don't know about the citation. The url would require the reader to enter "Trump" in the text field, then click the name and the "Full profile" button (exactly what you argued against in last year's discussion, methinks). The current url takes the reader directly to Trump's full profile but that page doesn't name the editors. Either way we'd have to update the cite when the new list is published (year and access date in the current form, and, if necessary, the names of the editors in your proposed cite). Space4Time3Continuum2x 🖖 10:52, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

The url would require the reader to enter "Trump" in the text field, then click the name and the "Full profile" button - No, they need only enter "donald trump" in the search box, which my citation explains to them. Bingo, it shows both ranking and net worth on the resulting line. No need to go any further for verification. And this way they would see only the annual, not both annual and real-time.Don't hold me to anything I said last year, or even last week. My thinking evolves.No objection to removing anything else that you see fit to remove. ―Mandruss ☎ 11:38, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

I removed the second to last sentence. (Entering just "trump" yields the same line, BTW) Why don't you want readers to see the real-time up-and-down? Space4Time3Continuum2x 🖖 12:01, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

(Entering just "trump" yields the same line, BTW) Yeah, I know. I could change that. If another Trump became a billionaire, we could change it back. Why don't you want readers to see the real-time up-and-down? Just seems simpler and more straightforward, providing the required verification and not confusing matters by putting other information in front of them. A citation is for article content verification only, not "further reading" or "more information". ―Mandruss ☎ 12:09, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

This looks fine. Naturally more can be said, but I think the important thing is that the range of his net worth is nailed down. The second sentence removed might be changed to percents but I am happy with what we have.

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

Sources

"Trump creates task force to lead U.S. coronavirus response". CBS News. January 30, 2020. Retrieved October 10, 2020.
Ollstein, Alice Miranda (April 14, 2020). "Trump halts funding to World Health Organization". Politico. Retrieved September 7, 2020.
Wilson, Jason (April 17, 2020). "The rightwing groups behind wave of protests against Covid-19 restrictions". The Guardian. Retrieved April 18, 2020.
Andone, Dakin (April 16, 2020). "Protests Are Popping Up Across the US over Stay-at-Home Restrictions". CNN. Retrieved October 7, 2021.
Shear, Michael D.; Mervosh, Sarah (April 17, 2020). "Trump Encourages Protest Against Governors Who Have Imposed Virus Restrictions". The New York Times. Retrieved April 19, 2020.
Chalfant, Morgan; Samuels, Brett (April 20, 2020). "Trump support for protests threatens to undermine social distancing rules". The Hill. Retrieved July 10, 2020.
Cite error: The named reference CNN-testing-pressure was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
McGinley, Laurie; Johnson, Carolyn Y. (June 15, 2020). "FDA pulls emergency approval for antimalarial drugs touted by Trump as covid-19 treatment". The Washington Post. Retrieved October 7, 2021.
Edelman, Adam (July 5, 2020). "Warning signs flash for Trump in Wisconsin as pandemic response fuels disapproval". NBC News. Retrieved September 14, 2020.
LaFranco, Rob; Chung, Grace; Peterson-Withorn, Chase (2024). "Forbes World's Billionaires List - The Richest in 2024". Forbes. Retrieved January 20, 2025. - Enter "donald trump" in the search box.
^ Alexander, Dan (November 4, 2024) . "Here's How Much Donald Trump Is Worth". Forbes. Retrieved December 15, 2024.
Crowley, Kinsey (May 1, 2024). "Trump Media stock price fluctuation: What to know amid historic hush money criminal trial". USA Today. Retrieved January 20, 2025.

Updating of Trump & Vance, upon assumption of offices

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

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

Is there a section on his crypto coin?

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

No. ―Mandruss ☎ 03:48, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

in my opinion its not of enough note to be mentioned as of now . Josephwhyman041104 (talk) 15:02, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

I'll add $TRUMP (really, "Strump"?) to the bullet list in The Trump Organization#Other ventures and investments. (Amazing Photoshop job on the website selling the coin, makes Trump at least 40 years younger and 50+ pounds lighter. Melania's coin is called $MELANIA. Smelania – maybe it's pronounced differently in Slowenian. I know — off-topic.) Space4Time3Continuum2x 🖖 15:55, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

Objectivity and Accuracy

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

WP:NOTFORUM ―Mandruss ☎ 07:00, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

Several studies have pointed to the political leanings of Misplaced Pages's editor base. For instance, research by Greenstein and Zhu analyzed political bias in Misplaced Pages articles and found an early tendency towards a liberal bias, which they suggested might be linked to the political orientations of the editors. These studies used methods like analyzing word choice in articles related to U.S. politics to infer political slant. There's evidence suggesting that conservative editors might face more sanctions or blocks compared to liberal editors. This was highlighted in analyses pointing towards institutional favoritism toward left-of-center viewpoints in Misplaced Pages's arbitration and enforcement processes. The demographic of Misplaced Pages editors (predominantly male, from developed countries, often with liberal views) can influence how topics are covered or which topics are deemed worthy of coverage. The richest man in the world, Elon Musk, and Misplaced Pages's own co-founder, Larry Sanger, view Misplaced Pages as politically biased. Misplaced Pages has policies aimed at neutrality (NPOV - Neutral Point of View), and there's a significant effort by some in the community to reduce bias through collaborative editing, which can mitigate individual editor biases over time. DisneyGuy744 (talk) 06:33, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

The opening post is fine in my book (it could suggest specific improvements in addition to speaking more generally). Your comment is not directly related to improvement of this article, is too meta for this page, and qualifies as WP:NOTFORUM vio. I suggest WP:VPM. ―Mandruss ☎ 07:19, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for commenting. Citing our Manual of Style: In Misplaced Pages, the lead section is an introduction to an article and a summary of its most important contents. You’re quoting portions of the lead and then state your opinion on them. You have a right to your opinion, but Misplaced Pages content is based on reliably sourced material. Please, read the body of the article and the reliable sources cited there. If you believe material and/or sources to be false or misrepresented, present the reliable sources that support your view. Please, also look at the sources Misplaced Pages considers to be reliable. You can find the list in this article. Space4Time3Continuum2x 🖖 10:09, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

@Dale Albert: you're at least partly right. JacktheBrown (talk) 11:43, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

I agree with @Dale Albert's conclusions on this matter. While the statement "Misplaced Pages content is based on reliably sourced material" may be true in a technical sense, it fails to address the deeper issue of selective sourcing and framing within this article. Even if the claims are based on reliable sources, they appear to have been deliberately cherrypicked to cast Trump in a negative light. For instance, including in the lead the statement, "After his first term, scholars and historians ranked Trump as one of the worst presidents in American history," may be factually accurate, but it raises serious questions about relevance and balance. Is this truly the most critical information to feature in a summary of Trump? What about scholars and historians who hold opposing views or argue that he doesn’t rank among the worst presidents?

Furthermore, this retrospective assessment feels increasingly irrelevant and outdated given that Trump has now returned to office. His presidency once again becomes active today, meaning any historical ranking from his prior term is incomplete and potentially misleading. Instead of presenting a balanced and current overview, the article seems to prioritize narratives that reinforce a one-sided perspective. This undermines Misplaced Pages's goal of neutrality and fairness, especially on such a polarizing subject. For a lead summary, relevance, balance, and up-to-date context are crucial, and this article falls short on all counts. TimeToFixThis (talk) 14:22, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

You're welcome to participate in this article's development like anyone else. Otherwise, I would be interested to know what remedy you suggest. If some editors here are unable to check their biases at the door, your comment is not going to make them find Jesus and repent, and that means you're in violation of WP:NOTFORUM as much as the editor collapsed above. We follow Misplaced Pages policy here; if that's not sufficient, the flaw is with the policy, not the editors. You can discuss policy at WP:VPP. ―Mandruss ☎ 15:32, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

Re your comment "you're in violation of WP:NOTFORUM" — Could you explain that using excerpts from WP:NOTFORUM? Thanks, Bob K31416 (talk) 15:53, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

Discussion not directly related to improvement of this article violates at least the spirit of NOTFORUM. This is a widely accepted principle. General blue-sky about bias cannot be directly related to improvement of the article—as I said, it can't have any effect on the article's content. The way to affect the article's content is to participate in the process, not to discuss bias. This also violates the spirit of consensus 61, by the way. ―Mandruss ☎ 16:22, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

It's incredibly obvious that there is no real attempt at neutrality, especially on this page. To act as if only a few editors have a teeny bias against Trump is disingenuous when studies have proven time and time again that Misplaced Pages has a major left-wing bias, at least in the United States. It's also disingenuous to act as if by citing sources like the New York Times that Misplaced Pages is being unbiased when the Times and most other "reliable" sources have demonstrated clear bias for years. Twinbros04 (talk) 16:04, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

I won't do it myself, but I would support closure of this thread if this kind of commenting continues. The very fact that it applies to far more than this article is a clear clue that it has no place on this page. ―Mandruss ☎ 16:42, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

No offense, but that's a pretty disingenuous idea. It's objectively true that this article, like just about every article on politics, seriously fails to be neutral. Deleting a thread in the talk page just because you don't like it basically proves this point. Ozone742 (talk) 17:20, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

If my argument was that I don't like it, you would have a point. ―Mandruss ☎ 17:33, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

And you just subjectively proved Mandruss's point. Space4Time3Continuum2x 🖖 17:49, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

Reliable sources: that's a discussion to be held at Misplaced Pages:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources. Space4Time3Continuum2x 🖖 17:08, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

Again, please go the village pump if you want discuss the policies of Misplaced Pages, because this problem is bigger than just this one article. Turtletennisfogwheat (talk) 02:37, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

So present the majority of reliable sources that contradict our "selective sourcing and framing", e.g. scholars and historians who hold opposing views or argue that he doesn’t rank among the worst presidents. Space4Time3Continuum2x 🖖 16:57, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

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

Misplaced Pages, Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources#Academic consensus

We don't need or have to do that ourselves. The sentence is badly referenced to begin with. See the quote to the right. Cambalachero (talk) 17:29, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

Yes, you need and have to. This isn't an article about science. Where are we saying that all or most scientists or scholars hold a certain view? We're citing reputable C-SPAN and Siena College surveys of historians and scholars. Space4Time3Continuum2x 🖖 17:41, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

I'm gonna soften my position slightly. I've long been aware that I have one position (we're okay) directed outward to people not actively working on this article (usually but not always non-editors), and a different one (we're not okay) directed inward. It's probably not a good thing to have both. I think "editorial judgment" is allowed to play too great a role in consensus—here and I assume at many, many other articles. That leaves articles vulnerable to the effects of uncontrolled editor biases. That said, this is not the place to discuss that problem, again because it's far larger than this article. This is not a proper use of any article talk page, and that's not a principle we invented. It should be discussed at WP:VPP, and that's the sort of thing I avoid in my semi-retirement; I find it too stressful.If someone wishes to respond to this comment, they should do it at my user talk page. Hell, I'd be happy to host a whole big discussion about these meta issues, but participants should bear in mind that nothing will be changed on my UTP. For any chance of that, use VPP instead. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:57, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

You'll have a hard time convincing a lot of these editors to go there. It appears a lot of them simply think this issue applies to Trump's main article and other Trump-related articles and only those pages and not an issue that could apply to every WP article. Turtletennisfogwheat (talk) 02:39, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

That's fine. If editors continue to abuse this article talk page, I am confident that this thread will be closed. And it needn't be done by me, I have no doubt that a number of other frequenters of this page see eye-to-eye with me on this. ―Mandruss ☎ 02:43, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

travel ban formulation on lead, v2

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

New Short Description

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

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

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

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

Why not just remove President-elect ? Slatersteven (talk) 18:02, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

because it would still say that he is the 45th US President but that was in 2017-2021 and now he is the 47th president so thats why we should add 47th to it as well. MalborkHistorian (talk) 18:06, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

Where does it still say, "president-elect" in the short description, it had been removed around 12pm. GoldenBootWizard276 (talk) 18:03, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

I think it should stay as "President of the United States (2017–2021, 2025–present)", as that is how it is written for the Grover Cleveland article. GoldenBootWizard276 (talk) 18:05, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

It also says "President of Russia (1999–2008, 2012–present)" on the article for Vladimir Putin, another politician with multiple non consecutive terms. I agree with User:GoldenBootWizard276. - Sebbog13 (talk) 18:38, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

I agree but it isn't the same for Russia, as they don't number presidents the same way. GoldenBootWizard276 (talk) 18:41, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

If you search Donald Trump on the wikipedia browser it says that he is the president-elect.
MalborkHistorian (talk) 18:09, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

Must just take some time to update. It definitely says "President of the United States (2017–2021, 2025–present)" in the source code. If you want, you can try purging the cache to see if it changes. GoldenBootWizard276 (talk) 18:17, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

i can't edit it because i'm not an Misplaced Pages administrator. MalborkHistorian (talk) 18:20, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

They mean the cache your end. Slatersteven (talk) 18:22, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

Superseding consensus #50, sentences 1 and 2

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

Current wording:

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

I propose to update it to read

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

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

The "47th..." GoodDay (talk) 18:36, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

Oops.

Replaced "serves as the 45th" with "serves as the 47th". Space4Time3Continuum2x 🖖 19:45, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

What GoodDay said.Instead of amending #50, I think we should supersede it with a new consensus covering the whole first paragraph. That's what #17 did before it was superseded by #50. Otherwise, it's a new separate consensus for the second sentence, or leaving the second sentence unprotected by consensus. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:35, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

I'm in agreement with this proposal. Indeed, anything is better than "...who has served...". Also "current" & "since 2025" aren't needed. GoodDay (talk) 20:43, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

It's getting worst. Somebody keeps trying to link "45th president" to Second presidency of Donald Trump. -- GoodDay (talk) 23:15, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

Don't fret. See this, second paragraph. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:24, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

What about "Donald John Trump (born June 14, 1946) is an American politician, media personality, and businessman who is the president of the United States, serving since 2025 and previously from 2017 to 2021". Rexxx7777 (talk) 23:20, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

Gotta have "47th" & "45th" in there, to match with his predecessors. GoodDay (talk) 23:22, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

I don't really think that's necessary because, unlike his predecessors, he's numbered twice, which is an inconvenience when it comes to word play.

But if we're going that route then maybe something like "is the 47th president of the United States, serving since 2025 and previously as the 45th president from 2017 to 2021". Rexxx7777 (talk) 23:26, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

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

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

Support - this version. GoodDay (talk) 23:40, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

Or (sorry):

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

I can go either way, but sentence 2 currently says Republican Party. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:24, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

@Mandruss surely to align with other politicians' articles, it should be: Donald John Trump (born June 14, 1946) is an American politician, media personality, and businessman who has served as the 47th president of the United States since 2025 and previously served as the 45th president from 2017–2021. Utter Donkey (talk) 00:31, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Strongly disagree. Not all consistency is good consistency. Don't get caught in the consistency trap. Ask not whether something is consistent, but whether it is good. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:38, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

I think the point here is that its weird his first term is worded like it was a previous office. It was the same office, just nonconsecutive terms, kind of like how Vladimir Putin's article is. Rexxx7777 (talk) 00:55, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

If there is zero risk of misleading readers, it's not a significant problem. So explain to me what a reader might be misled to take from my text. ―Mandruss ☎ 01:14, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

I'll rollback my suggestion now that you mention that. There isn't really a risk that your text will be misleading. What I was just saying was that splitting the lead and making it so his first term isn't mentioned until the second sentence is odd because it was the same office he's holding now. Splitting the sentences makes it seem like his first term was some different office he held prior to the presidency.

But I guess you're mostly right. We shouldn't idiot proof everything. Rexxx7777 (talk) 02:14, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

@Mandruss I don't see any reason for it to be different though. The word 'previously' could be dropped I suppose. Why are we making Trump's article different from pretty much every single other politician and world leader who currently holds a certain post? Utter Donkey (talk) 07:33, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Responded at your UTP. ―Mandruss ☎ 09:10, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

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

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

C: leave it as is

Note: Saying since 2025 makes sense since that was when he became president. We can't necessarily say until 2029, not crystal ball here. Also, saying "serving as current 47th president" is improper due to the next successor after Trump being 48th president. Cwater1 (talk) 01:30, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

I've lost count of the different proposals, and the discussion is just 8 hours old. Many more proposals are sure to come, since everybody has a better idea and nobody is capable of settling for anything less than their personal concept of perfection (perfect is the enemy of good). Any suggestions for a methodology that might get us to a consensus sometime before July? ―Mandruss ☎ 02:07, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Donald John Trump (born June 14, 1946) is an American politician, businessman, and media personality who is the 47th and current president of the United States. A member of the Republican Party, he previously served as the 45th president from 2017 to 2021 Btomblinson (talk) 07:02, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

As of this comment, one editor out of seven has expressed support for a proposal that was not theirs. Yes, that includes me, I didn't say I'm any better. ―Mandruss ☎ 07:06, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Sentences 1 and 2 proposals

Proposals containing "current president of the United States": D, E, F, G
Proposals containing "previously served as the 45th": D, E, F, G
Proposals containing "e served as the 45th": A, B, C
Proposals containing "A member of the Republican Party": B, C, D, E, F, G
Proposals containing "is the 47th": A, B, G
Proposals containing "has been serving as 47th": D
Proposals containing "serves as 47th": E
Proposals containing "has been the 47th": C, F
Proposals containing "since 2025": C, D, E, F

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sentences 1 and 2 survey

B then A. GoodDay (talk) 07:37, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
B then A. ―Mandruss ☎ 08:00, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
G. btomblinson (talk) 08:01, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
A or B. "Current" and "previously" are redundant since we're mentioning the dates. Space4Time3Continuum2x 🖖 13:53, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
C followed by B. I replaced C with my own proposal (similar to F but without "and current" or "previously") because the one that was labeled as a MOS violation will clearly not win. –Gluonz 21:09, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
I don't know if you noticed that the old C was one way-too-long sentence instead of two shorter ones. Plus the MOS vio. I was being WP:POINTy to include that, wanting to demonstrate the pitfalls of blind cross-article consistency to the proposer. You coulda left it and made yours H, saving some effort, but you're good. I'm too tired to check your work in the "Proposals containing" list. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:00, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
B then A. -SusanLesch (talk) 21:45, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Infobox

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

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

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

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

Infobox A - separating the two terms

Donald Trump
Official White House presidential portrait.Official portrait, 2017
47th President of the United States
Incumbent
Assumed office
January 20, 2025
Vice President JD Vance
Preceded by Joe Biden
45th President of the United States
In office
January 20, 2017 – January 20, 2021
Vice President Mike Pence
Preceded by Barack Obama
Succeeded by Joe Biden

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

Infobox B in the style of Grover Cleveland

Donald Trump
2017 Official White House presidential portrait.Official portrait, 2025

45th and 47th President of the United States
Incumbent
Assumed office January 20, 2025
Vice President	JD Vance
Preceded by	Joe Biden
In office January 20, 2017 – January 20, 2021
Vice President	Mike Pence
Preceded by	Barack Obama
Succeeded by	Joe Biden

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

In the split version, the office shouldn't be lower-cased. GoodDay (talk) 18:59, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

Yes, it should be, per MOS:JOBTITLE. 45th is a modifier. 47th is, too, but the capitalized "P" of "President of the United States" is baked into the template — it links to the Misplaced Pages article. We could change it to the grammatically correct lower-case p, I assume, but that would lead to a permanent back-and-forth. Space4Time3Continuum2x 🖖 19:36, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

You're right, it should be lower-cased per JOBTITLE. But this is one place where I think cross-article consistency is a worthwhile thing, and nobody has found the energy to raise this at Village Pump. I find it easier to stomach if I tell myself that heading is in title case. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:33, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

For the time being, offices are upper-cased in infoboxes regardless of modifiers. GoodDay (talk) 20:36, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

I.e., title case. What I said. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:38, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, they're only upper-cased because they link to a Misplaced Pages article. But meh, I can live with an upper-case "P". Other than that, any thoughts about the merits? Space4Time3Continuum2x 🖖 20:45, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

Merits? You mean splitting idea? GoodDay (talk) 20:54, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

No, we often lower-case the first letter of a link to an article. The first character is case-insensitive. See the first sentence of this article, for an example. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:00, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

Other than that, any thoughts about the merits? Other than what I said in my first comment? ―Mandruss ☎ 21:03, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

Merits, two editors asking — the problem must be me. Too obtuse? Which do you prefer, Infobox A with one box for each term or Infobox B? And, PLEASE, disregard the portrait, it changes every two minutes. Space4Time3Continuum2x 🖖 21:26, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

I presume with 'version B', you meant to include the office? GoodDay (talk) 21:32, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

Yes. I just fixed it — don't know what happened there, I just copied it from the main space. Space4Time3Continuum2x 🖖 22:08, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

Ok, so I see two differences between A and B:

A has two heading lines. B has one heading line.
For me, and I'm not universal, A's headings fit on one line. B's heading wraps. Big deal.

I don't think one is easier to read or understand than the other. So it's practically a toss-up, a flip of a coin. ~~If I have to !vote, I'll !vote for the one with one heading line (B).~~ ―Mandruss ☎ 22:31, 20 January 2025 (UTC) Edited 22:40, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

It didn't take me long to change my mind. B says "45th and 47th", then shows 47th and 45th. Therefore A is a little easier to understand, ~~and I hereby change my !vote to A.~~ ―Mandruss ☎ 22:53, 20 January 2025 (UTC) Edited 04:22, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Honestly not really? 45 comes before 47, and the 2017-21 term of office clearly came before 2025-present. Rather self explanatory. We can add a note if need be to clarify. But splitting would really make this article inconsistent with all others as all other infoboxes of leaders with multiple terms still use one box. Example: Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, Benjamin Netanyahu, Donald Tusk.

Now the latter two examples aren't counting two separate terms as we have here, but splitting the boxes instead of using a note to clarify would be more inconsistent with the format other articles use for similar situations. Unless there's an example I missed where they do split the boxes for an incumbent with a previous term Bokmanrocks01 (talk) 01:48, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

I agree that there should be two separate boxes. anikom15 (talk) 20:17, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

Best we stick with option B, though I do understand why some might prefer 'A'. Thing is, an RFC would likely be the only chance for 'A' to be adopted & I doubt that would be much of a chance. GoodDay (talk) 23:01, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

Option B other incumbent world leaders who have served previous terms also use just one box. 45th POTUS is not a distinct office from 47th POTUS which would seem the case if it were two different boxes. Also this concern seems to be splitting hairs as most readers can probably understand 45th is for the 2017-21 term and 47 for 2025-present fairly easily. Bokmanrocks01 (talk) 01:15, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

I posit that 90% could figure it out if they studied it for half a minute (assume they have never seen an officeholder's infobox before). Why make them study it for half a minute? And then there's the 8% who would take considerably longer, and the 2% who would never figure it out.
other incumbent world leaders I don't care. Other stuff exists. 99% of readers will never notice such a "discrepancy", and it's highly unlikely to present an actual problem for the remaining 1%.
45th POTUS is not a distinct office from 47th POTUS is your one decent point, and I'll think on it. It might even change my !vote (back). ―Mandruss ☎ 01:44, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

@Space4Time3Continuum2x: Does it specifically address nonconsecutive terms, or are you reading something into it? ―Mandruss ☎ 10:51, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

No and no. The logic of the parameters (e.g., order, order2, order3 ... order16) seems self-explanatory to me, as does the infobox ({{{order}}},{{{term start}}}–{{{term end}}},{{{:president}}} ...; {{{order2}}},{{{term start2}}}–{{{term end2}}},{{{president2}}} ...). And the page intended to aid users in the application of Infobox officeholder has an example for someone who held the office of Ambassador of the United States twice (Whitelaw Reid). Space4Time3Continuum2x 🖖 11:54, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Different ambassadorships, different offices. Not equivalent. You've lost me with the rest. All I infer from that is that it's possible to do A (we knew that), but nothing to imply that we should do A. ―Mandruss ☎ 12:14, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Same office (Ambassador of the United States), different country:

| ambassador_from=United States | country=France
| ambassador_from2=United States | country2=the United Kingdom

Same office (President of the United States), different status (incumbent and former):

| order=47th | office= President of the United States | term_start=January 20, 2025 | term–end= -> gives 47th President of the United States + Incumbent + Assumed office + January 20, 2025
| order2=45th President of the United States | term_start2=January 20, 2017 | term–end2=January 20, 2021 -> gives 45th President of the United States + In office + January 20, 2017–January 20, 2021

Citing an : The 47th and current president of the United States is Donald John Trump. Seems logical to me. Oh well, good thing I reconsidered going into teaching. Space4Time3Continuum2x 🖖 13:39, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Lol. ―Mandruss ☎ 13:40, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Still seems like that is one way order can be used but not necessarily how it should be. Still haven't seen any other articles that separate different terms of one office into different sections in the infobox. Again, we can just add a note somewhere if we are concerned about the order combined into one section causing confusion Bokmanrocks01 (talk) 15:57, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Whatcha mean? GoodDay (talk) 11:54, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

See my response to Mandruss. I don't know how to explain myself any better. Space4Time3Continuum2x 🖖 13:39, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Website

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

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

Portrait

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

I agree we should change it to those soon AsaQuathern (talk) 19:10, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

No. That is license laundering. The White House did not take the photograph. They do not own the copyright. It does not matter what someone other than the copyright holder says about the copyright status. Normally we would be able to trust the White House, but Trump did the same thing (stole an image) in 2017 when he took office. There is no reason to believe that the White House owns the copyright to this image, and thus they have no authority to release such copyright. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 19:12, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

This is original research and violates Misplaced Pages:No original research policy. Rreagan007 (talk) 20:24, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

The image is on Commons, and was kept after a deletion request. We shouldn't relitigate that here, but at Commons. -- JFHutson (talk) 19:22, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

It's already renominated and the administrator being discussed there. The administrator on commons violated their own policy by SUPERVOTING on the request and ignoring the laundering concerns. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 19:26, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

So, we need to confirm that it was taken by the U.S. Government. A transition official or an official working on behalf of the official transition would count. However, I just want to note you are incorrect in the way you have cited the White House's copyright policy. The White House, legally, cannot pull a picture from the public domain if it was produced by the White House. Congress would have to amend copyright law for them to be able to do so. So, again, I agree with the above. We just need to wait on ownership confirmation. Cliffmore (talk) 19:19, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

The WH needs to clearly label or footnote the images. This doesn't help. How is anyone supposed to know which material is government-produced and which is third-party content. Space4Time3Continuum2x 🖖 19:49, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

Comment Whether or not it is in the public domain, this is his inaugural photo, not his official portrait, which has not yet been taken.

ColdestWinterChill (talk) 20:20, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

We cannot question reliable sources and the official White House website is a reliable source. If the White House website says the portrait is public domain then that's good enough for Misplaced Pages. Rreagan007 (talk) 20:22, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
We can and do question whether an image is appropriately licensed or not before we use it. If there is any doubt, which there is here, then the image is to be presumed copyrighted until proven otherwise by an explicit release from the photographer. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 20:25, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
You are misstating the Commons policy. The Commons policy is "significant doubt" not "any doubt" as you say. And there is not significant doubt in this case. Rreagan007 (talk) 20:31, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

Can we wait until his Presidential portrait is released before changing the image? This is merely a portrait for the inauguration, same with JD Vance's. — That Coptic Guy (talk) (contribs) 20:46, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

It is a better image than the old one. No reason to wait. -- JFHutson (talk) 20:50, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

Better/worse is a matter of subjectivity which isn't the issue here. It is about selecting which picture is most appropriate for the article, and that to me is going to be his presidential portrait once it is released at some point this year. — That Coptic Guy (talk) (contribs) 21:30, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

When I said better I meant most appropriate for the article. There have been many discussions where editors stated that the old photo was a poor choice because it is so old. In those discussions, it seemed the consensus was that the problem was not that we have to use the official photo, but that there is not a better (more appropriate) photo that we can use on WP. I think the new photo is a better representation than the 2017 photo. -- JFHutson (talk) 21:53, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

2017 is acceptably old, to me, at this stage in life. The new photo is atrociously biased. Old photo should favored. Cinemaandpolitics (talk) 13:04, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

The photo is used as the profile picture for the official POTUS twitter account, so it already is being used by the US government as his official photo for now for his second term Btomblinson (talk) 04:36, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

It doesn't matter. This photo violates MOS:LEADIMAGE in many points. "Lead images should be natural" "also be the type of image used for similar purposes in high-quality reference works" "Lead images should be of least shock value". The new image should be reverted ASAP. If nobody bothers to answer these concerns I will do it myself. Cinemaandpolitics (talk) 13:16, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

The footnote for "natural" clarifies this just means we want the natural choice. I'm not sure why you think it would be unnatural or that high quality reference works wouldn't use the image this subject has chosen to represent themselves as their official photo. I don't think users will find it shocking that the official photo released by the subject will be what we lead with. -- JFHutson (talk) 13:23, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

"this subject has chosen to represent themselves" does not matter. The MOS is pretty clear about the need for an image similar to what's used in reference works, NOT self promotional works. Cinemaandpolitics (talk) 13:32, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Other copies and usage

- Just FYI - File:Donald Trump official portrait, 2025.webp - File:Presidential Portrait of Donald Trump, 2025.jpg.Moxy🍁 20:55, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

Indeed with should wait, until the official WH portraits come out. GoodDay (talk) 20:59, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

File:TrumpPortrait.jpg Moxy🍁 21:01, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

Image on many articles because of Template:Donald Trump series. Moxy🍁 21:04, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

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

Poor Commons.... So much clean up to do - they got so many of these... let alone crop versions. Moxy🍁 23:45, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

I absolutelly agree with @GoodDay. This image should not be used. It doesn't have a standard neutral pose that is favored on Misplaced Pages. It is a purely promotional-emotional photograph. There is no reason to not use the more neutral photo from a few years ago. I urge editors to at least express themselves in this matter, since this is an extremely serious issue in my opinion. Cinemaandpolitics (talk) 13:02, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Expressing myself. I would support the 2017 official portrait over this Trump self-promotional hijack of Misplaced Pages. I wish us luck in seeking a consensus for that, between Trump-supporters and old-image-haters. Then, if anybody cares about other Trump articles, be prepared to fight the battle at each one individually. Then, be prepared for a continuous 4-year parade of drive-bys complaining about the infobox image. Consensus 1 would be amended to allow the exception; the 2017 is "an official White House portrait", but it's no longer "the official White House portrait" which is what #1 says. ―Mandruss ☎ 13:23, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Agree with @Mandruss. This is self promotional hijack. Official portrait is not what Misplaced Pages guidelines favor. I'll repeat what I said on another comemnt. This photo violates MOS:LEADIMAGE in many points. "Lead images should be natural" "also be the type of image used for similar purposes in high-quality reference works" "Lead images should be of least shock value". It should be reverted ASAP. Cinemaandpolitics (talk) 13:18, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

No, we have a consensus system in place and we can't declare a national emergency, call out the National Guard, and suspend normal process. "ASAP" will be less soon than we would prefer. But you can help things along by starting a new thread seeking consensus. ―Mandruss ☎ 13:31, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Looking at this with more attention, the firtst consensus item is so poorly presented, because it forces editors to favor a *future* picture without any agency. It should have never been allowed in the first place because it basically violates the most basic rules of the editing process on Misplaced Pages. An even bigger issue in my opinion. If you think that a new thread is needed I'll open it. Cinemaandpolitics (talk) 13:45, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Water under bridge, sorry you weren't around in 2016. A new thread is needed to provide a clear consensus to link in the list item. ―Mandruss ☎ 13:49, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

done. Cinemaandpolitics (talk) 13:56, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

"It doesn't have a standard neutral pose that is favored on Misplaced Pages." Neutral trumps non-neutral, but official trumps neutral. Of course, freely licensed trumps everything else (and official stuff is usually copyrighted), but in this case, if the copyright status of the portrait has been settled... Cambalachero (talk) 14:20, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Claim that Trump negotiated the Gaza ceasefire

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

"How the Biden and Trump teams worked together to get the Gaza ceasefire and hostages deal done" https://edition.cnn.com/2025/01/15/politics/biden-trump-gaza-ceasefire-deal/index.html --FMSky (talk) 19:28, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

Yep, even bidens camp say it. Slatersteven (talk) 19:29, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

And the wiki article doesnt even claim he negotiated it, just that he "helped" --FMSky (talk) 19:31, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

Per @FMSky, CNN reported that they both played major roles. As did the New York Times. The question is whether or not it should be in the presidency section or the transition section. It is certainly notable enough for inclusion. MB 2437 19:40, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

I think you need to self-revert this - the wording was challenged, there's discussion ongoing, violation of 24-hour BRD. Trump wasn't president when both sides agreed to the plan Biden first proposed in May. Envoy Witkoff clearly stated that the Biden team was in charge. Saying that Witkoff "helped" (assisted) seems appropriate to me. Space4Time3Continuum2x 🖖 21:56, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

Witkoff also credited Trump with the ceasefire. He stated that whilst Biden's team were the "tip of the spear", "no one has pride of authorship". The wording in its current form seems most sensible, where no opinion on the matter is given. To satisfy due weight, we would also need to make it clear that Trump's incoming presidency expedited the process—which was at a long-standing stalemate—considerably. Biden officials acknowledged the deadline of Trump’s entry into office was a motivating factor in finally finding success after months of failure, per CNN. It's also worth noting that this article is about Trump, not the Biden administration; it's like if I were to write in Angel Di Maria's article, "Di Maria won the World Cup and scored in the final, but Messi scored more goals." It is not exactly challengeable to simply state that Trump and his administration helped, which is a fact verified by several reliable sources. MB 2437 22:27, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

@Mb2437:, see preceding edit, I forgot to ping you. Space4Time3Continuum2x 🖖 21:57, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

And enacted a day prior is unsourced. Space4Time3Continuum2x 🖖 22:01, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

"The ceasefire is now due to take effect on Sunday, when the first hostages should be released — the day before Trump’s January 20 inauguration", per Financial Times. MB 2437 22:38, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

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

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

I think that the text should be kept. GoldenBootWizard276 (talk) 19:39, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

Seems it may have been reverted more than once. Cheers. DN (talk) 20:00, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

Doing some digging and apparently Jack has removed this three times since January 18, 1, 2, 3, and had it reverted each time,1, 2, 3. BootsED (talk) 21:05, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

Mandruss self-reverted, this is revert 3. Space4Time3Continuum2x 🖖 14:56, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

You appear to have Mandruss on the brain. Look again. ―Mandruss ☎ 15:00, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

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

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

@NesserWiki: absolutely NO, supporting Israel militarily doesn't mean being Zionist. JacktheBrown (talk) 11:45, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Seconding JacktheBrown's opinion. While Trump is pro-Israel, he is not necessarily a Zionist, unlike Joe Biden who very blatantly described himself as one and is the main reason that category applies to Joe but not Donald. Turtletennisfogwheat (talk) 23:58, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Mass deletions from article

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

That editor has been previously advised: If you edit en masse, don't complain if you are challenged by reversion en masse. That edit could've been split into five or six, making things considerably easier for their colleagues. I'm not going to challenge because I don't care about that content, but I would support anybody who saw fit to do so. ―Mandruss ☎ 02:27, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

There are multiple reliable sources indicating that Rev. Normal Vince Peale had a significant influence on Donald Trump. Also, Trump switched from Presbyterian to nondenominational Christianity which is a type of evangelical Christianity. And Trump has won elections through courting the evangelical vote. So I am very firmly against taking out the religious section of the article given religion's influence on Donald Trump. Knox490 (talk) 02:35, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Anupam, regarding your edit summary here, where did you obtain consensus for that edit? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:36, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Following Mandruss, the edits by Nikkimaria should have been made into five or six so it'd be easier to analyze. That being said, the religion sub-section does deserve inclusion in the article given the role of faith in Donald Trump's life, and also its role in American politics in general. A significant share of the American population wouldn't vote for an atheist president. Lorstaking (talk) 15:03, 21 January 2025 (UTC)U to

User:Nikkimaria, thanks for your comment. I started this discussion on the talk page in order to determine whether the information should be kept or restored. Thus far, it looks like consensus has leaned towards the former. I did see that you also removed information about where Trump went to Sunday School, though I did not restore that yet. Would you be able to explain why you removed that short clause? I look forward to hearing from you. I hope this helps. With regards, Anupam 19:16, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Actually User:Nikkimaria, nevermind. It looks like User:FMSky restored the clause regarding Sunday School, which I thought was helpful to have in describing Donald Trump's upbringing. The source text, Historical Dictionary of the Donald Trump Administration (published by Rowman & Littlefield) included both his primary education at Kew-Forest School, as well as his religious education through Sunday School at First Presbyterian Church in the paragraphs describing his upbringing. I believe that we should do the same. I would love to hear your comments as well User:FMSky. Thanks, Anupam 21:01, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

But you restored the content before starting this discussion.

This article is overly detailed, and is only becoming more so with each passing day. Per WP:SS, the best approach to addressing that is keeping a high-level overview here, and deferring detail to subarticles. That means things like his Bible (as previously discussed) and his Bible collection should be included elsewhere.

By the same token FMSky's revert should be undone. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:30, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

The current consensus now supports the presence of the section in the article and I agree with User:FMSky's edit that reinstates the location of his Sunday School. As has been pointed out, religion plays an important role in the United States and a short section is helpful in this article. I just noticed that a large amount of information was just added to the article. If detail is to be removed, it can start there or elsewhere but a few sentences on Donald Trump's basic demographic information and upbringing should be mentioned in this article. I might recommend trimming information about his views on exercise, sleep time or golfing interest, all of which has less bearing on the biography than the role that faith plays in his life (and in the election). The inauguration itself, which was held yesterday, was shrouded in religious imagery and wishing to remove it seems short-sighted. I am open to seeing what others might have to say. Anupam 03:16, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

By all means propose removal of other extraneous details - that would be a great improvement. But in any event the Bibles should go. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:47, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

As a compromise, I could agree to removal of the just the sentence "Trump himself has a personal collection of Bibles", provided that there is another suitable place on Misplaced Pages where this information could be reinstated. Let me know your thoughts. Kind regards, Anupam 12:47, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

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

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

It has been noted in the articles for his second presidency and the J6 attack Btomblinson (talk) 03:33, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

As someone who is appalled by the pardons, I don't think so. The reference to "his involvement in the January 6 Capitol attack" seems sufficient for the lede. NME Frigate (talk) 03:14, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

Remove top article wording

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

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

Resolved Btomblinson (talk) 03:20, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

This is the most biased article in the entire Misplaced Pages

The essential point here is that, if done correctly, this thread would've been handled per consensus 61; i.e. immediately closed with a link to WP:TRUMPRCB, then archived after 24 hours. That fact that that was not done is not a reason to hijack the thread. It has been agreed to start new thread(s) for the new issue (s). Eligible for manual archival after this time tomorrow. ―Mandruss ☎ 17:45, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

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

Propose specific edits then EvergreenFir (talk) 05:11, 21 January 2025 (UTC) Please read WP:TRUMPRCB. ―Mandruss ☎ 06:17, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

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

At least the introductory paragraphs should be written in a neutral tone. Mention some positives. He is the President of the United States and a loved and respected leader around the world. Nir007H (talk) 05:01, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

While I disagree with the later half, the top section before the info box should be concise and neutral, the part of Cleveland and his felony conviction shouldn’t be at the top Btomblinson (talk) 05:09, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

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

User:Mandruss, please stop shutting down discussion. It is appropriate on WP pages to discuss ways to improve the article, even if you disagree. User:Nir007H and User:Btomblinson, please feel free to ignore the warning above and continue discussion. --JFHutson (talk) 16:51, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

All we ask. If anyone believe the article is biased, please propose a change. GoodDay (talk) 16:53, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Sounds good, let's talk about it. That's what this page is for I think. -- JFHutson (talk) 16:58, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

OK, then tell us one thing we say that is wrong. Slatersteven (talk) 16:59, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

As I advised you on your talk page, this one qualified for handling per consensus 61, but that didn't happen because the editor who got to it first (an admin by the way) was not aware of 61 or had forgotten about it. We conform to our consensuses even if you disagree. I don't think this is a hill you want to die on. ―Mandruss ☎ 17:02, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Are you saying that a consensus on a page that you give a special number to means that further discussion about it is verboten? No one is required to conform to "our consensuses," the article conforms to the consensus of editors formed on talk pages. -- JFHutson (talk) 17:08, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

No, it means there has to actually be a meaningful request not just "this page is biased", we need to have something we can say yes or not to. Slatersteven (talk) 17:10, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

A civil and productive way to respond would be to say that, rather than closing discussions before they start. -- JFHutson (talk) 17:15, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

No one is required to conform to "our consensuses," Well that's just patently false, unless we've been doing it wrong for the past 10 years. Hundreds of experienced editors have come and gone during that time, and you're the first to say anything remotely like that. Consensus is consensus. ―Mandruss ☎ 17:12, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

I mean that no one is required to conform their opinion to some consensus and never express disagreement. WP:Consensus can change -- JFHutson (talk) 17:14, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Absolutely. So open a thread to propose a change to consensus 61 and see how far you get. Until that passes, consensus 61 remains in effect and is respected. Thank you. ―Mandruss ☎ 17:16, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

What I'm reacting to is your disruptive and uncivil behavior of closing discussions. It violates WP:TPO and it discourages editors from discussion. -- JFHutson (talk) 17:21, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Its not policy, but just saying "this page is biased" adds nothing and can be seen as wp:soapboxing. After all I have to say is "not its not", and discussion stops. users need to make constructive comments. Or we just get a circular discussion of "Ohh yes it is, Ohh no it isn't". Which just wastes space and user's time in having to read it. For example, in the last 10 minutes what (constructive) has come out of this, have you (for example) made one concrete suggestion? Slatersteven (talk) 17:21, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

My suggestion is to stop closing discussion. If someone is soapboxing, there are ways to deal with that. They might ultimately end in closing a discussion, but what was done here makes Misplaced Pages look like it has thought police. -- JFHutson (talk) 17:24, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

My suggestion is for users to read the FAQ and stop wasting our time. Slatersteven (talk) 17:27, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

The FAQs can be helpful, but treating them like the approved narrative, where disagreement means your comment is hatted and you're accused of wasting the VIP Wikipedians' time makes us look bad. -- JFHutson (talk) 17:30, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

For the umpteenth time, this is not about any FAQ despite what Steven says. It's about a long-standing consensus at this article. ―Mandruss ☎ 17:33, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Editors should also be allowed to challenge the long-standing consensus. -- JFHutson (talk) 17:35, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

For the love of Pete, did I not already respond to that point?? ―Mandruss ☎ 17:39, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

I'm not sure I follow if you did. Are you saying that the only approved way to complain about bias on this page is to go to that special page and say "I hereby challenge Consensus 61" and give my reasons? That's not how this works. -- JFHutson (talk) 17:47, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

For illustration of how we propose changes to consensus, see #Superseding consensus #50, sentences 1 and 2 and #Proposed: Use 2017 portrait for the infobox. ―Mandruss ☎ 17:54, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

So I gather you disagree with consensus 61. I have already told you what you can do about that. This is not it. ―Mandruss ☎ 17:28, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

I haven't read it, so not sure. -- JFHutson (talk) 17:31, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Then how can you disagree with it? Slatersteven (talk) 17:35, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

You haven't read the consensus item, or the supporting discussion? If the latter, you really don't need to read the supporting discussion unless you suspect that the consensus item does not accurately reflect it. If the former, why are you raising such a fuss when you don't even know what we're talking about? ―Mandruss ☎ 17:36, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

I am raising a fuss over editors and apparently an admin hatting peoples conversations for disagreement with the approved narrative. -- JFHutson (talk) 17:38, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Aka complying with consensus. This is truly getting tiresome. ―Mandruss ☎ 17:41, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Complying with consensus means that the article complies with consensus. Commenting on a talk page in a way that does not agree with the consensus should be encouraged. -- JFHutson (talk) 17:44, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

That's a departure from how we've done things since #61 was established in May 2023. You're welcome to propose a change to that as well. Not in this thread. ―Mandruss ☎ 17:47, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Wow, all this time I assumed "Concensus 61" was something about the page not being biased against Trump. I apologize for the confusion. I disagree with that procedure and I believe it violates WP:LOCALCONSENSUS, but I guess you're right that it needs to be dealt with a different way. -- JFHutson (talk) 17:56, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

So, all this could have been avoided if you had bothered to follow the link I provided for your convenience at your UTP? Sigh. ―Mandruss ☎ 18:04, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Yes, that was dumb and I do apologize for wasting time. I assumed it was a content thing and not a procedure thing. Not a total waste of time because I do think this page is being handled in an Orwellian way and reflects badly on the project. -- JFHutson (talk) 18:07, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

So, let's see one suggested edit, just one we can discuss. Slatersteven (talk) 17:22, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

I did not close this discussion; it was closed by admin EvergreenFir. I reverted your incorrect attempt to reopen it. ―Mandruss ☎ 17:23, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

I do apologize for that misunderstanding. -- JFHutson (talk) 17:26, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

OK lets demonstrate "This page is biased", not a good post. "Donald Trump is X and we need to say this" is as it clearly states what needs to be done. Does that make it clear? Slatersteven (talk) 17:32, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

The editor said more than "this page is biased," and many productive talk page discussion start with a vague concern which is developed into a concrete proposal through discussion. -- JFHutson (talk) 17:37, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

OK, so lets treat it as valid, "Trump was the first sitting U.S. president to enter North Korea; he met with its leader Kim Jong Un without progress on denuclearization. " is that not a positive? Slatersteven (talk) 17:41, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Hi Slatersteven, two comments on this excerpt that I'd like to hear your thoughts on.

Progress on denuclearization: Putting in wikivoice that denuclearization constitutes progress is inappropriate.
The text reads ambiguously on Trump's responsibility for the lack of ensuing denuclearization, naturally reading as him being responsible. At a minimum, this is contested (e.g. structural factors more responsible) failing WP:YESPOV.

Best, Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 23:29, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Using this post as another opportunity to flag an issue, for others or myself if I can get around to it. Readers have flagged that the page reads as blaming Trump for bankruptcies, and it spends hundreds of words covering them. Yet, according to a Politifact article the page already cites, this is misleading:

"Experts told us during the primary season Trump alone didn’t cause the bankruptcies. While six in 25 years is a lot, five were tied to a struggling gaming industry.

Trump was acting, they said, as any investor would." Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 15:17, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

@Rollinginhisgrave: Thanks for the smear. You're reading something into our text that isn't there. No idea how a 2016 factcheck of something Hillary Clinton said ended up as the source for this sentence: Between 1991 and 2009, he filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection for six of his businesses: the Plaza Hotel in Manhattan, the casinos in Atlantic City, New Jersey, and the Trump Hotels & Casino Resorts company. Thia is a newly created issue by editors new to the article and its subject condensing and trimming content without attention to the sources. Here's a link to the page as it used to be, with the RS supporting our allegedly misleading text that Trump filed for Chapter 11 protection six times. I'll fix the problem as soon as I get around to it. Might be a while what with hundreds of edits every day. Space4Time3Continuum2x 🖖 15:51, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

The smear? I don't know what you mean by that, I was trying to be helpful, I apologise if I'm missing something. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 15:59, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

Ah, I see you edited the text while I wrote to clarify, thankyou. I do disagree that I'm reading something into the text that isn't there, it's a natural reading of highlighting Trump's bankruptcies by themselves to assume he was incompetent in some way, indeed that is a major point of the Politico piece. The context omitted is an issue for WP:YESPOV. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 16:05, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

"Flagging an issue" by adding it to a section with the heading "This is the most biased article in the entire Misplaced Pages" — that's saying "while we're on the subject" of bias. Readers have flagged that the page reads as blaming, it's a natural reading of highlighting Trump's bankruptcies by themselves — how do you suggest we describe e.g. the six bankruptcies so that readers will assume competency? Space4Time3Continuum2x 🖖 16:53, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

"Companies owned by Trump filed for..."? Slatersteven (talk) 16:55, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

Sole owner, and he personally took credit for them: What I’ve done is I’ve used, brilliantly, the laws of the country. And not personally, just corporate. And if you look at people like myself that are at the highest levels of business, they use – many of them have done it, many times. Space4Time3Continuum2x 🖖 17:04, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

So Trump sees this as a positive achievement? Slatersteven (talk) 17:07, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

During a 2015 presidential debate: And I made a lot of money in Atlantic City and I'm very proud of it. Space4Time3Continuum2x 🖖 17:21, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

I can create a new section in the future. The text in this instance is meaningfully skewed against Trump, as a product of failing WP:YESPOV. It's not about assuming competency, it's about not assuming incompetency. This can be done by giving DUE weight to what Politico describes as experts describing Trump's conduct as "acting as any investor would". Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 17:09, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

So, opinion good, as opposed to opinion bad? But yes, not piling on to these general anti-Trump bias comments would be an improvement. Space4Time3Continuum2x 🖖 17:25, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

Using this post as another opportunity to flag an issue, - Why? Your "opportunity to flag an issue" is the "New section" link at the top of this page. Can you say "hijack"? This thread should already be in the archive. ―Mandruss ☎ 17:27, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

Mandruss I did it based off Slatersteven's comment above: OK, so lets treat it as valid, "Trump was the first sitting U.S. president to enter North Korea; he met with its leader Kim Jong Un without progress on denuclearization. " is that not a positive?. I took from this that this thread would be used for discussing examples of potential NPOV issues. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 17:31, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

Lol. No. Offensive to any concept of organization. ―Mandruss ☎ 17:33, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

No worries, I can start threads for each issue. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 17:35, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

No, it was an example of why this approach does not work, as we are now moving onto other issues as well. Discussions need to be focused on specific issues, not random free-for-alls. Slatersteven (talk) 17:34, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

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

Infobox image - which official portrait?

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

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

No sources in intro?

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

THey are cited in the body. Slatersteven (talk) 09:35, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

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

End birthright citizenship?

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

Proposed: Use 2017 portrait for the infobox

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

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

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

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

Support per proposer, but the consensus item is not the problem here. Without it, we would still need consensus to stabilize the choice of infobox image. ―Mandruss ☎ 14:00, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
Which is fair, and part of the Misplaced Pages process. But imagine we get to a proposal that say "use the image used in the most viewed article of that year by the NYT on the subject". That would sound atrocious. Might as well make pages edited directly by an AI algorithm at that point. Cinemaandpolitics (talk) 14:05, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
I'm changing your heading to something that will attract more attention. Not everybody knows what #1 is, and the fact that this seeks to amend #1 is incidental. ―Mandruss ☎ 14:11, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
seems ok. Cinemaandpolitics (talk) 17:51, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
Oppose: Yes, the image is natural, the man is posing for the photo. Being an official image, it will surely be used by high-quality reference works. And "shock value" is for things like nudity or violence, not for a mere way to look at the camera. Cambalachero (talk) 14:26, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
Comment - reiterating my comments above regarding the current image. Again, we are not bound by official images, and we often use them as a matter of convenience because US Government works are free, high quality, and unremarkable/routine with regard to pose, lighting, composition, etc.. I would argue that the latter point comes into question here. Do we have any more recent alternatives, given the first White House portrait is now 7 years old? Connormah (talk) 15:35, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
- That's not exactly a good argument. If were bound to use official images, we wouldn't be having this discussion to begin with. We don't try to use official images because of being bound to do so, but because the official image is in most cases the most easily recognizable image of a topic. Cambalachero (talk) 15:52, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
Questions - I'm a bit confused here. All U.S. presidents' articles since FDR are using the last official portrait. Is this a Wiki-wide consensus if it's not in the rules? And, if so, why change it? Space4Time3Continuum2x 🖖 15:37, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
There is no "wiki wide consensus" to enforce anything of the sort. The reason for the change are in my original post. Cinemaandpolitics (talk) 17:53, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
Support per proposal, revert to the status quo 2017 White House portrait. The 2024 version is very jarring and unnatural to the reader due to the lighting's attempt to replicate the notoriety of his mugshot. The 2017 is a better reflection of his entire life. TNstingray (talk) 16:08, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
Au contraire, the official image of his from this year is probably a more accurate summary of his most important moments in life. Barnt Toust 16:13, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
Comment, the result of this discussion should apply to the JD Vance lede image as well. TNstingray (talk) 16:09, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
Negative. Changes to JD Vance are discussed at Talk:JD Vance. Discussion there can refer to discussion here, but that isn't binding. ―Mandruss ☎ 16:15, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
Support - restoring the 2017 image, until we get an updated standard looking image from the White House. GoodDay (talk) 16:17, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
Oppose: the MOS says that the image should be natural. This image is completely authentically Trump. It also says images should be neutral. WP:TRUMPRCB explains why content expressive of a less-than-ideal outlook of a subject is allowed, because it is reality. It's a reality that this 2025 photograph expresses the harsh reality of Trump to the best of Daniel Torok's ability. Barnt Toust 16:20, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
"harsh reality"? This is a promotional photo released by Trump itself. Cinemaandpolitics (talk) 17:55, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
Oppose. What could be more natural than to use the image the subject has chosen as their official portrait? Does anyone really think it's shocking to find the subject's official portrait at the top of their page? The examples used in the MOS for shocking images are of the Holocaust and genitalia. -- JFHutson (talk) 17:04, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
The subject itself has no priority on Misplaced Pages decisions. Misplaced Pages gives priority to other sources. the manual of style regarding lead images explains this well enough. Cinemaandpolitics (talk) 17:57, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
Support changing back to 2017. New portrait is jarring and clearly politically charged with odd, unnatural lighting and an expression clearly imitating his mugshot. Not very inviting for a Misplaced Pages article. Angusgtw (talk) 19:29, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
Oppose: I fail to see your point with "The shock value is undeniable to me". There is 0 shock value here. Its just a man staring at the camera. Calling it "extremely emotional and aggressive" is also a huge stretch. Databased (talk) 19:30, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
Oppose reverting to 2017 image. anikom15 (talk) 21:23, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
Support 2017 image. Misplaced Pages is not to be used as a propaganda venue for Trump. The new image, putting all copyright concerns (still unresolved) aside, is intended to be propaganda. That's not uncommon or limited to Trump - other presidents have used their inauguration materials to advertise themselves as "ready to get to work" or similar. His official image from 2017 is much more natural - note that natural does not mean "how this person always appears", but instead means "without any unnecessary emotion" and similar. The new image is not neutral - it is intended to invoke his mugshot from his booking in a civil criminal case, which itself was intended to be propaganda. Revisit if/when a new official portrait is issued, iff it is as neutral as his old one. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 21:29, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
Misplaced Pages is not to be used as a propaganda venue for Trump. I'm afraid that horse left the barn months ago. Zaathras (talk) 22:57, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for describing this in detail. This is blatantly constructed advertisement material. It has no place on a[REDACTED] article, nor for Trump or any other political figure. Cinemaandpolitics (talk) 17:59, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
Oppose: This is his official portrait, official portrait of the President of the United States. So why not, I am sure he is proud of this photo. Dasomm (talk) 22:06, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
It is not his official portrait as President. This was an image he had taken on his own accord before he was inaugurated. Official portraits are an entirely different thing, regardless of what Trump calls it. Regardless, Misplaced Pages does not care whether an image is "official" or not. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 22:10, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
wait, this isn't even the official portrait? then it should not even be favoured by consensus item 1! Cinemaandpolitics (talk) 18:02, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure Misplaced Pages does not care whether he's proud of it, either. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:19, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
Oppose Feelings for or against the subject do not matter. If the White House says today that this image is the official portrait, then it is the official portrait, as far as I'm concerned that is the end of the discussion for now. If in a few weeks they have Trump sit for a more traditional style and pose, then we'll switch to that one. The beauty and joy of being a non-paper encyclopedia. Zaathras (talk) 22:55, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
Misplaced Pages does not have to follow the White House choices for lead images. What is "end of discussion" for you is not an argument here. Cinemaandpolitics (talk) 18:03, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
Oppose - wishing to change the article image to one that is eight years old for what seems, from most supporters, to be admittedly political reasons, is a bizarre perversion of MOS policy.This policy has been determined by RfC in the past, and would most appropriately be challenged in the same manner.I'd also note that there have been half-a-dozen discussions on the use of this image here over the last week. I don't see it as great practice to just start a new discussion when you don't agree with an existing one.To those saying this portrait is not 'official', you are explicitly contradicted by the White House. Do you think there's some legal prescription for an official portrait? Like it only counts if the Secretary of Photography takes it with the Presidential Camera on Presidential Portrait Day? Ridiculous.I can guarantee that changing the image will open this talk page up to a torrent of objections from casual readers, as well as (justified) external criticism of Misplaced Pages's bias problem, which we just can't seem to resolve. Riposte97 (talk) 22:51, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
I'd also note that there have been half-a-dozen discussions on the use of this image here over the last week. I don't see it as great practice to just start a new discussion when you don't agree with an existing one. Well then feel free to blame me for that: ―Mandruss ☎ 23:06, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Before opening an RFC a full discussion has to take place. This photo does not correspond to the photos usually used in reference material about the subject, this is a fully doctored image, if this is for you a "political reasons" to remove it then everything is political, even MOS. Cinemaandpolitics (talk) 18:07, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
Weak oppose. Both images essentially show the same thing, and both were authorized by Trump himself (he seems to be somewhat fond of looking "serious" and "tough" on pictures, as he has used similar photos on his social media accounts for many years, and that is how he chose to look even on his mugshot). In my view, both images have roughly the same validity to be on the infobox, but perhaps the most recent one should be used. Badbluebus (talk) 02:46, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

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

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

Slightly Oppose only on the basis that the standard set by Gover Cleveland's page should be followed through on here. When his term ends, I think having it labeled "second post-presidency" would be better (I'm also not sure his second post-presidency will be very long nor very impactful, but that's just a matter of opinion and not too relevant). Twinbros04 (talk) 16:21, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Oppose as said above, follow Grover Cleveland page and use second post-presidency after this one. Ktkvtsh (talk) 23:00, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Comment - I'd rather "Out of office (2021–2025)". - GoodDay (talk) 23:19, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Egads no. That comes across like we're characterizing 2021 to 2025 as an interregnum, that Trump somehow rightfully deserved two terms but was interrupted. Zaathras (talk) 01:08, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
I’m not sure that follows. In studying Trump, it is simply a description of the sequence of events. It would obviously be out of place in a broader history of the US, or on an election page. Riposte97 (talk) 01:38, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

Oppose; I feel like labeling 2021-2025 as the "inter-presidency" implies that it was a planned break rather than an unsuccessful reelection, and that he was entitled to have another administration. I think for neutrality's sake we keep it as "between presidencies", as was done with Grover Cleveland. Tantomile (talk) 03:25, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

With all due respect, I don't see how inter-presidency implies such. To me at least, it's just the time between Trump's two non-consecutive presidencies. WorldMappings (talk) 15:01, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

Oppose. As Tantomile said, it sounds as if it was one presidency with an intermission. The current heading "Between presidencies" is the best option, short and to the point. Space4Time3Continuum2x 🖖 15:19, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

“Inaugural” vs “official” portrait

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

Support WorldMappings (talk) 16:49, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

It's on his White House page. I believe that's the definition of "official". ―Mandruss ☎ 16:50, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

There was an attempt to change the caption to "Official inaugural portrait, 2025" per the Description on the image's file page, but that was reverted. ―Mandruss ☎ 16:54, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Agree. According to the description at Wikimedia, it's the "Official Inaugural Portrait of Donald Trump" from the "Official 2025 Inauguration Invite". But good luck trying to add that. I did, and here's what happened. Space4Time3Continuum2x 🖖 16:55, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

According to Wikimedia - Could be wrong, but I don't think MediaGuy768 equates to Wikimedia. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:34, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Space4Time3Continuum2x 🖖 14:11, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

Exactly, I feel like the evidence is not clear enough yet to call the portrait his official one. (Discuss 0nshore's contributions!!!) 18:16, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

It is the official portrait until the White House states that it isn't. Trying to qualify it as "not really official" or "just the inaugural portrait" seem to be based on feelings and not facts. Zaathras (talk) 22:50, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

"Seem to be based" — was there a statement declaring the image to be the official portrait? It doesn't have a caption on the WH page where it's sitting next to a few lies about landslide victories and extremist policies of the radical left. We couldn't keep the official Fulton County Jail "portrait" because of WP policies, so now we have an official, even if somewhat airbrushed, imitation, so yay. Space4Time3Continuum2x 🖖 14:34, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

The BBC describes it as his official portrait, explicitly, rather than his inaugural one. The BBC probably would not make this claim and make it the basis of an article if they hadn't rigorously verified it. The wording in the article also shows that they believe it to be "official", contrasting it with the October 2017 portrait: "The portraits were released by the Trump transition team just days before Trump and Vance's inauguration on 20 January. The official portraits of Trump and his former Vice-President Mike Pence were not released until nine months after they were both sworn in." Tim O'Doherty (talk) 22:53, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Sounds sufficient per WP. Thanks for linking this. Dingers5Days (talk) 02:38, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

This is not the official portrait clicked or shot by the White House. It is just the portrait clicked by Trump's campaign team and Inaugural committee. The new portrait might be taken soon and released through the website and social media platforms of the President of the United States and the White House. In another news from BBC page, it shows that it is the portrait of President-elect and not of the President. Please see it - https://www.bbc.com/culture/article/20250120-donald-trumps-official-portrait-the-17th-century-painting-that-unlocks-this-mysterious-image . So I don't think to keep the new portrait right now. I propose to keep the old portrait of 2017 until a new portrait is issued. VNC200 (talk) 15:36, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

Strangely the BBC seem to have written several articles on this image. Here it is also explicitly compared to other official portraits, such as this one of Bush the Younger. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 15:47, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

Another article from The Guardian also shows that this is the portrait issued by Trump-Vance inaugural committee and not by the White House. Please look into it - https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2025/jan/16/donald-trump-jd-vance-official-portrait . Change it in old format. VNC200 (talk) 17:17, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

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

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

Consensus 61 was a solution to the ongoing problem of bias complaints from readers who knew nothing about Misplaced Pages content policy. Problems effectively addressed by #61 included:

The very significant amount of editor time consumed, time that editors could have spent improving the article.
Inconsistent, always incomplete, often disrespectful, sometimes just plain incorrect responses attempting to explain policy, now replaced by WP:TRUMPRCB.

As for PAGs and our authority to do this:

Why has no admin ever commented about that? Why has this issue never gone to WP:AE?
There is no Misplaced Pages policy prohibiting #61. Therefore it was within our discretion to do it. We used that discretion. It's called innovation.

AFAIK, most editors agree it has achieved its goals; at least I've heard positive feedback from a number of editors and negative feedback from none except you. I propose we not turn back the clock to that more primitive day. The consensus 61 discussion is at Talk:Donald Trump/Archive 155#Handling bias complaints for your review. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:05, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages has policies and guidelines regarding editor behavior. Are you suggesting that WP:TPO should anticipate the problem we were facing and explicitly authorize immediate closure of bias complaints from readers who don't understand Misplaced Pages content policy, provided they are provided explanation on a separate page? I don't think that's a reasonable expectation. Regardless, if necessary I have no problem invoking WP:IAR in this case: "If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Misplaced Pages, ignore it." ―Mandruss ☎ 20:36, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

I suspect you still believe, after all these years, that general discussion about bias at this article is a legitimate use of this page. It still is not; it still violates at least the spirit of WP:NOTFORUM. I believe I recall that you have been asked multiple times in the past to go to Village Pump to ask whether your belief is correct, and you have yet to do so. Refusal to do that is practically an admission that you know you're wrong. If you went to VP, they would tell you you're wrong, that would be on the record in the VP archive, and you would have to cease bringing this up periodically. You need to go get a community answer or stop flogging that horse carcass. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:23, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

One has to wonder how many times over the years this user has posted something of this nature, and how many times has it led to a course change. As some point, the complaining itself becomes tendentious. Zaathras (talk) 22:47, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

~8 and 0. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:05, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

I don't think anyone can argue that the article isn't at least a little bit slanted. Is there some way we can address that here, rather than in a grand Wiki-wide project? I see it as one of the most fundamental issues with this article, which is consistently one of the highest-traffic on the site. One suggestion could be that we agree not to blanket-ban deprecated right-leaning sources. Riposte97 (talk) 03:37, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

@Riposte97: How about a new subpage of this page for that purpose? Then advertise it here a la a normal discussion notice (just a heading and a wikilink), with the possibility of pinning if you don't get enough participation in 6 days. ―Mandruss ☎ 03:45, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

And I've already offered my UTP for that purpose, but I don't know how its 172 watchers would feel about that. ―Mandruss ☎ 06:04, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

I don't think anyone can argue that the article isn't at least a little bit slanted which just brings us back to the oft-quoted "Reality has a well-known liberal bias." The Misplaced Pages follows the sources, if you don't like that then go take that up with reality. Zaathras (talk) 14:26, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

I wouldn't go that far. ―Mandruss ☎ 14:29, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

Was thinking exactly the same thing earlier today, but it sets a terrible precedent and could do more damage to the encyclopaedia as these were deprecated for good reasons. It’d be good to balance the narratives from the two sides though, just not use them for facts. It’s worth exploring Kowal2701 (talk) 20:07, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

I perhaps should have been more precise, and referred to sources labelled 'biased'. I have noticed that in the past at this page, some right-leaning sources are dismissed out of hand as being biased (based sometimes on rather flimsy reasoning at RSN). They are routinely removed. However, the article is riven with left-leaning sources that are arguably equally biased. A good example is provided by Rollinginhisgrave below. That is definitely something we can address with sufficient attention.

Mandruss, thanks for the suggestion. I don't mind it. To be clear, is it to workshop alternative wording at a subpage, or discuss structural interventions? Riposte97 (talk) 21:50, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

It's to keep general article bias discussions off this page (such as the recent comments in this very thread). Otherwise, whatever people think is useful. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:59, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

Second nonconsecutive presidency/Grover Cleveland in the lead

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

And, since it's a bold edit that was challenged more than once, could someone please remove it unless and until there's a consensus to add it? I've used up my 3RR for the day. Space4Time3Continuum2x 🖖 18:06, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

Done – Muboshgu (talk) 18:18, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

Slight changes to lead section (proposal)

There's already an open discussion about the first sentence. Please contribute there. Space4Tcatherder 🖖 18:23, 22 January 2025 (UTC) Sentences 1 and 2, to be precise. #Superseding consensus #50, sentences 1 and 2. Eligible for manual archival after this time tomorrow. ―Mandruss ☎ 18:27, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

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

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

I think that this format is more grammatically correct and in general, flows easier. WorldMappings (talk) 18:10, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

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

Continuing discussion on bankruptcy

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

Space4Time3Continuum2x The two sources I flagged there for opinion were:

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

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

I have a headache and Jim Beam, signing off for today. I'll get to this tomorrow. Space4Tcatherder 🖖 18:25, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

No worries, enjoy your evening, I hope you feel better with rest. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 18:29, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

Clearly simply noting the number of bankruptcies is misleading as it is a small portion of his failed businesses. And the casino industry was not having difficulties when his three casino businesses went under. O3000, Ret. (talk) 22:02, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

Format of Second presidency early actions

Donald Trump#Second presidency early actions

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

Upon taking office, Trump:

signed a series of executive orders that withdrew the U.S. from the World Health Organization and Paris Agreement

rolled back transgender rights and recognition of any genders outside male and female

froze new regulations

froze hiring of non-military federal workers

founded the Department of Government Efficiency

barred federal involvement in criminal investigations of political adversaries

prevented federal censorship of free speech

reversed the withdrawal of Cuba's designation as a state sponsor of terror

reversed sanctions on Israeli settlers

issued a mass pardon of approximately 1,500 January 6 rioters

designated Mexican drug cartels as foreign terrorist organizations

attempted to end birthright citizenship for new children of undocumented immigrants

renamed Denali back to Mount McKinley

renamed the Gulf of Mexico to the Gulf of America

granted TikTok a 75-day pause before it would be banned

declared a national emergency on the southern border that would trigger the deployment of armed forces

granted Ross Ulbricht a full and unconditional pardon

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

Sources

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

Duplicate section headings

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

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

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

Categories: