Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 19:18, 16 May 2023

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

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

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

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

Other talk page banners

Donald Trump was a Social sciences and society good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake. Article milestones Date Process Result June 2, 2006 Good article nominee Not listed February 12, 2007 Good article nominee Not listed September 17, 2016 Good article nominee Not listed May 25, 2017 Good article nominee Not listed December 2, 2018 Good article nominee Not listed July 15, 2019 Good article nominee Not listed August 31, 2019 Featured article candidate Not promoted April 29, 2020 Peer review Reviewed Current status: Former good article nominee This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Biography: Arts and Entertainment / Politics and Government This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography This article is supported by the arts and entertainment work group (assessed as Mid-importance). This article is supported by the politics and government work group (assessed as Top-importance). Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Business Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Business, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of business articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BusinessWikipedia:WikiProject BusinessTemplate:WikiProject BusinessWikiProject Business Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Template:WikiProject Donald Trump Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. New York City High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject New York City, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of New York City-related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.New York CityWikipedia:WikiProject New York CityTemplate:WikiProject New York CityNew York City High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Conservatism High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Conservatism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of conservatism on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ConservatismWikipedia:WikiProject ConservatismTemplate:WikiProject ConservatismConservatism High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Politics: American / Political parties High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by American politics task force (assessed as Top-importance). This article is supported by Political parties task force (assessed as High-importance). Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. United States: Television / Presidential elections / Presidents / Government Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by American television task force (assessed as Mid-importance). This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. presidential elections (assessed as Top-importance). This article is supported by WikiProject United States Presidents (assessed as Top-importance). This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. Government (assessed as High-importance). Template:WP1.0 Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Television Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to develop and improve Misplaced Pages articles about television programs. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join the discussion. To improve this article, please refer to the style guidelines for the type of work.TelevisionWikipedia:WikiProject TelevisionTemplate:WikiProject Televisiontelevision Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Template:Vital article This article has been viewed enough times to make it onto the all-time Top 100 list. It has had 233 million views since December 2007. This article has been viewed enough times in a single year to make it into the Top 50 Report annual list. This happened in 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020, and 2021. This article has been viewed enough times in a single week to appear in the Top 25 Report 126 times. The weeks in which this happened: June 14 to 20, 2015 June 28 to July 4, 2015 July 19 to 25, 2015 July 26 to August 1, 2015 August 2 to 8, 2015 August 9 to 15, 2015 August 16 to 22, 2015 August 23 to 29, 2015 August 30 to September 5, 2015 September 6 to 12, 2015 September 13 to 19, 2015 September 20 to 26, 2015 September 27 to October 3, 2015 December 6 to 12, 2015 December 13 to 19, 2015 January 3 to 9, 2016 January 10 to 16, 2016 January 17 to 23, 2016 January 24 to 30, 2016 January 31 to February 6, 2016 February 7 to 13, 2016 February 14 to 20, 2016 February 21 to 27, 2016 February 28 to March 5, 2016 March 6 to 12, 2016 March 13 to 19, 2016 March 20 to 26, 2016 March 27 to April 2, 2016 April 3 to 9, 2016 April 10 to 16, 2016 April 17 to 23, 2016 April 24 to 30, 2016 May 1 to 7, 2016 May 8 to 14, 2016 May 15 to 21, 2016 May 22 to 28, 2016 May 29 to June 4, 2016 June 5 to 11, 2016 June 12 to 18, 2016 July 3 to 9, 2016 July 10 to 16, 2016 July 17 to 23, 2016 July 24 to 30, 2016 July 31 to August 6, 2016 August 21 to 27, 2016 August 28 to September 3, 2016 September 4 to 10, 2016 September 11 to 17, 2016 September 18 to 24, 2016 September 25 to October 1, 2016 October 2 to 8, 2016 October 9 to 15, 2016 October 16 to 22, 2016 October 23 to 29, 2016 October 30 to November 5, 2016 November 6 to 12, 2016 November 13 to 19, 2016 November 20 to 26, 2016 November 27 to December 3, 2016 December 4 to 10, 2016 December 11 to 17, 2016 December 18 to 24, 2016 January 1 to 7, 2017 January 8 to 14, 2017 January 15 to 21, 2017 January 22 to 28, 2017 January 29 to February 4, 2017 February 5 to 11, 2017 February 12 to 18, 2017 February 19 to 25, 2017 February 26 to March 4, 2017 March 5 to 11, 2017 March 12 to 18, 2017 March 19 to 25, 2017 March 26 to April 1, 2017 April 2 to 8, 2017 April 23 to 29, 2017 May 14 to 20, 2017 May 21 to 27, 2017 May 28 to June 3, 2017 June 11 to 17, 2017 June 25 to July 1, 2017 October 8 to 14, 2017 October 22 to 28, 2017 November 26 to December 2, 2017 January 14 to 20, 2018 June 10 to 16, 2018 September 30 to October 6, 2018 October 28 to November 3, 2018 November 4 to 10, 2018 November 11 to 17, 2018 November 18 to 24, 2018 November 25 to December 1, 2018 December 9 to 15, 2018 September 22 to 28, 2019 December 15 to 21, 2019 January 5 to 11, 2020 February 23 to 29, 2020 March 1 to 7, 2020 April 12 to 18, 2020 May 31 to June 6, 2020 June 7 to 13, 2020 June 14 to 20, 2020 June 21 to 27, 2020 June 28 to July 4, 2020 August 9 to 15, 2020 August 16 to 22, 2020 August 23 to 29, 2020 September 27 to October 3, 2020 October 4 to 10, 2020 October 11 to 17, 2020 October 18 to 24, 2020 October 25 to 31, 2020 November 1 to 7, 2020 November 8 to 14, 2020 November 15 to 21, 2020 November 22 to 28, 2020 November 29 to December 5, 2020 December 6 to 12, 2020 December 13 to 19, 2020 January 3 to 9, 2021 January 10 to 16, 2021 January 17 to 23, 2021 January 24 to 30, 2021 January 31 to February 6, 2021 July 10 to 16, 2022 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) 181 7,682 Second presidency early actions 5,539 5,539 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 411,160 411,160 Health of Donald Trump was nominated for deletion. The discussion was closed on 13 June 2019 with a consensus to merge. Its contents were merged into Donald Trump. The original page is now a redirect to this page. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected article, please see its history; for its talk page, see here. This article has been mentioned by multiple media organizations: Cuozzo, Steve (November 16, 2013). "Don't Trust Anything on Misplaced Pages". New York Post. Popper, Ben (July 22, 2015). "Someone just deleted Donald Trump's entire Misplaced Pages page". The Verge. Merrill, Jeremy (February 1, 2016). "On Misplaced Pages, Donald Trump Reigns and Facts Are Open to Debate". New York Times. Germ, Erik (May 28, 2016). "5 Secretly Bizarre Sections Of Websites You Use Every Day". Cracked.com. Guo, Jeff (October 25, 2016). "Misplaced Pages is fixing one of the Internet's biggest flaws". The Washington Post. Alcantara, Chris (October 27, 2016). "The most challenging job of the 2016 race: Editing the candidates' Misplaced Pages pages". The Washington Post. Staff Writer (December 21, 2016). "Most-edited Misplaced Pages pages of 2016 revealed". BBC News. Gartenberg, Chaim (January 20, 2017). "Misplaced Pages editors can't decide if Trump is the president yet". The Verge. Wyrich, Andrew (June 5, 2017). "Someone is trying to get Trump's official portrait deleted from Misplaced Pages". The Daily Dot. Warren, Tom (22 November 2018). "Siri thinks Donald Trump is a penis". The Verge. Blumenthal, Eli (22 November 2018). "Misplaced Pages vandalizing causes Siri to show a lewd image when asked about Donald Trump". USA Today. Griffin, Andrew (23 November 2018). "Asking Siri for information about Donald Trump shows explicit image after Misplaced Pages edit". The Independent. Gander, Kashmira (23 November 2018). "Someone hacked Donald Trump's Misplaced Pages page, replaced photo with image of penis". Newsweek. Martin, Alan (26 November 2018). "The Trump penis Misplaced Pages war has kicked off again". The Inquirer. Brandom, Russell (December 3, 2018). "Misplaced Pages engages the 'nuclear option' after Trump penis hack". The Verge. Mak, Aaron (May 28, 2019). "Donald Trump's Misplaced Pages Entry Is a War Zone". Slate. Alex Pasternack (7 March 2020). "How Misplaced Pages's volunteers became the web's best weapon against misinformation". Fast Company. Retrieved 9 March 2020. Mike hunt (21 May 2020). "Misplaced Pages co-founder Larry Sanger says online encyclopedia scrapped neutrality, favors lefty politics". Fox News. Retrieved 22 May 2020. Dan Evon (11 November 2020). "Does Loser.com Redirect to Trump's Misplaced Pages Page?". Snopes. Retrieved 19 November 2020.

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

• v
• e

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

39. Supersedes #21 and #36. Do not include any paragraph regarding Trump's mental health or mental fitness for office. Do not bring up for discussion again until an announced formal diagnosis or WP:MEDRS-level sources are provided. This does not 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)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Age

I feel like it's worth mentioning that Trump was the oldest elected president until Biden's election in 2020. At age 70 in 2016, Trump surpassed the previous record-holder, Ronald Reagan (age 69 on Election Day 1980). Given how much attention presidential ages have gotten in recent years, both among office holders and candidates, I would think this little factoid deserves an insertion somewhere in the article, to give context to such a hotly debated issue, especially with President Biden's recently announced reelection bid. Age was even brought up as an issue with John McCain (age 72) back in the 2008 election. In both the 2016 and 2020 elections (and likely the 2024 election as well), all major candidates were above age 69, with Hillary Clinton turning 69 only days before the 2016 election, Donald Trump at 70 in 2016 and 74 in 2020 (and 78 in 2024), and Joe Biden at 77 in 2020 (and 81 in 2024). A lot of emphasis is placed on Biden's age and practically none on Trump's when in reality, Trump and Biden are less than 4 years apart! They could've attended the same high school together for goodness sake! In fact, although Biden holds the current record for oldest serving and oldest elected president, if Trump wins in 2024 and serves all four years, he will retake the records on both accounts! Four years to men who've roamed the earth nigh on four score represents about 5% of their life spans! Fair's fair. If one is attacked for his age, so should the other. Perspective, people. Just thought someone could edit it in since the article is locked. Thank you. 66.91.36.8 (talk) 07:10, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

So he was a record holder until someone beat him, unsure we need that. Slatersteven (talk) 09:34, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

Seems a bit trivial here. The article is already excessively long, and adding low-importance information to it at this time seems like a bad use of space. --Jayron32 16:10, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

"Roamed the earth nigh on four score" . Grassley has roamed the earth nigh on four score and ten, and Iowans reelected him to a six-year term in the Senate last year. If Trump wins in 2024 — we'll cross that bridge when we get to it (or jump off it). Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 16:15, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

I don't think it's necessary to include, as it's not a notable fact and doesn't really say anything about his fitness for office. It was notable, for example, when Kamala was elected vice president, and even more notable when Obama was elected president, because the first black president and the first female and black vice president are relevant to not only why they were elected but the broader context of their post-election policy and the like. Trump's age isn't why he was elected, and isn't really relevant to anything about him. Cessaune 16:37, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

I'd exclude this here, and include it in the 2024 campaign article (and the articles on Trump and Biden's respective campaigns), iff age turns into a major issue of the campaign. There's just far too much to say in the main BLPs. DFlhb (talk) 20:27, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

There are too many inaccuracies in this to give it credibility 2601:340:4201:93A0:BD3E:2FA6:136F:1B77 (talk) 23:43, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

This is obviously a notable topic. It needs to be somewhere in the article, probably in the "2016 campaign" section. —Lights and freedom (talk ~ contribs) 16:28, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

It's not obvious to me, and the source you cited is an opinion piece with some stats on oldest and youngest to take office. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 19:09, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

These are not opinion pieces:

• https://www.insider.com/donald-trump-oldest-president-us-history-2016-11
• https://www.ajc.com/news/national/donald-trump-the-oldest-president-elect-history/h7ipsR6rRHXGEbjcY3LnWP/

—Lights and freedom (talk ~ contribs) 19:14, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

It's still stats trivia, he's no longer the oldest president-elect to take office, and this is still low-importance information that seems like a bad use of space, to quote another editor. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 19:48, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

This is being edit-warred back into the article, with no resolution of the concern voiced by at least two editors that it is trivia. Somebody needs to remove it pending any consensus to include. WP:ONUS. SPECIFICO talk 19:57, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

Disagree that it is trivial. It's covered by high quality reliable sources including NPR, CBS, NYT, etc.: I have added these sources to the content, and removed the "ronald reagan" part. If someone would like to add that it was later surpassed by Biden's election, I would be fine with including that as well. — Shibbolethink 19:58, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

Please read and advocate your position according to WP:ONUS. Merely asserting that you are correct will not lead to consensus to include it. And meanwhile, please self-revert. SPECIFICO talk 20:07, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

Please refrain from telling me how to argue my own points. I think I can do that quite well on my own, thanks. I made an argument along WP:RSUW and WP:DUE. I then linked to 8 sources out of many which mention this fact when discussing Trump's election. That my argument is not convincing to you is honestly not very important to me. I will state my reasoning, and if you disagree with it, that is your purview. Consensus will win out, and I will be happy with that consensus if and when it does. At the moment, I'm not sure you do have consensus on your side either. I would personally close this (if I were in a position to do so) as "no con". — Shibbolethink 20:10, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

Should there be an RFC for this? And if there is no consensus in the RFC, then it would go back to the way it was originally (which I think is excluding this)? —Lights and freedom (talk ~ contribs) 20:15, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

Personally I think an RFC would be unnecessary. But if others would like to stonewall and exclude these 18 words without any interest in compromise, then yes it may become necessary. — Shibbolethink 20:20, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

I also agree this is not trivial information when covered by so many sources. I support consensus to add this. The Capitalist forever (talk) 20:11, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

How is this situation handled at the Ronald Reagan page? Concerning when he held the oldest-serving US president record. GoodDay (talk) 20:13, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

That depends, was it a topic of conversation covered in many multiple independent reliable sources at that time? If it was, then it should be included. If not, then it should be excluded. That's the nature of WP:DUE. I don't consider whether it is "right now" included at that page very relevant, given that the encyclopedia is ever-changing. — Shibbolethink 20:18, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

Well, I was thinking about how 'age' was brought up, during the 1984 presidential debates, between Reagan & Mondale. GoodDay (talk) 20:20, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

Right, I do think it was a common criticism of Reagan: , (so much so that an American Experience PBS documentary covered this exact topic in an hour-long documentary in 2011. And in many news pieces both contemporary and modern: That is the essence of staying power, that it was still relevant enough for PBS to devote an hour to it 27 years later. So I would overall agree at a glance, that it is DUE for that page and likely DUE here. — Shibbolethink 20:28, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

This is not the criterion we use to evaluate NPOV due weight. "At that time" is exactly what we do not use. On the biography of a notable individual we give weight to what is of lasting significance. Reagan's age has had some lasting significance due to his incipient senility while in office. Trump's age is the least of his noteworthy achievements. SPECIFICO talk 20:27, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

Trump's being the oldest elected at that time has continued to be discussed in multiple independent reliable sources now in 2022/2023. See those linked above: — Shibbolethink 20:29, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

There are more and more "old" folks due to the longer lives of boomer and subsequent generations. There will therefore be a succession of oldest presidents now and in the future. It's trivia unrelated to anything essential about the individuals. Biden apparently suffers from spinal stenosis, Trump from baldness. These are common and unremarkable aging effects widely seen in the population. SPECIFICO talk 20:43, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

all of the above appears to be your opinion, but it isn't what our highest quality RSes find notable enough to cover. They have repeatedly covered Trump and Biden's age, as a notable subject worthy of newsreader attention. — Shibbolethink 20:44, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

Yes, reliable sources cover a wide range of views. If in doubt of the importance of a topic that is covered in many reliable sources, it's better to err on the side of inclusion unless it violates WP:PUBLICFIGURE. In general Misplaced Pages editors are not qualified to decide what subjects are important and which are not if they are covered in reliable sources. —Lights and freedom (talk ~ contribs) 20:49, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

Re the above hatting, there are multiple RSes which support the statement that 'Trump and Biden have both been accused of senility/old age.': Axios · The Guardian · PsychologyToday · USAToday · The GLP · Newsweek · WaPo · NYT · NBC · Alzheimers UK · Snopes · Dallas News. It isn't a BLP violation to simply state that such accusations have been made. Such statements also do not require MEDRS unless they are asserting the validity of the claims, which no one appears to have done here.— Shibbolethink 20:43, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

I see you decided to dive into the cess pool after all. WP is not a newspaper. We don't mention Trump's hair, whatever that shiny stuff on his face is, or his verbal garbling, either, and they have all received plenty of coverage in RS. It's a trivial statistic that may have a place in a shorter article but not in this one. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 11:15, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

Yes, the effects of age are discussed by reliable sources:

• This has been discussed by reliable sources: for example. This is a place for discussing how to make the article accurate, not a place for removing people's comments. —Lights and freedom (talk ~ contribs) 20:45, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

Response to claims of bias

I rewrote the Response to claims of bias page:

User:Cessaune/Trump/Response to claims of bias

What do y'all think? Cessaune 20:09, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

Significant improvement. DFlhb (talk) 20:17, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

Very good. May still be improved, no doubt, but I would be fine with immediate implementation. Thanks for this effort. On a related note, I learned from Officer Mandruss this afternoon that I have violated penal code 13.0 archiving a dead thread. I'm a bit confused by this. We often summarily revert or archive unconstructive "suggestions" and complaints to avoid rubbernecking and soapboxing. Something seems wrong with this rule. SPECIFICO talk 21:10, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

It's cool, with me. GoodDay (talk) 21:15, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

I went ahead and changed it. Cessaune 22:13, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

Two hours and four minutes and — presto — consensus? Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 12:34, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

You're welcome to oppose the change if you like. Cessaune 17:44, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

(summoned by Chief Magistrate Mandruss) I like the new version. Of course, the biggest problem will be to get the people posting to read the response blurb. Most of the time, it seems the people posting that we are biased are one-time posters (IPs or SPAs) and are uninterested in what we have to say in defence. While I like the suggestions to point the person to appropriate avenues for them to raise their comments further (and think they are an improvement), I think it's more of a futile effort, as they rarely engage beyond the first initial post anyway. However, if we manage to send just a couple people there who will read it and act on its suggestions, we have done our job. :) Mgasparin (talk) 05:25, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

Handling bias complaints

After a discussion with Bob K31416 (permalink), I would like to try for a consensus on what I believe is the best way to handle bias complaints at this article. There were discussions about this a couple of years ago, but no explicit consensus. I figured the benefits were obvious enough that it would just "catch on", but I was apparently mistaken.

The key elements of this method are:

• Instead of dismissively removing a bias complaint, inform the reader respectfully and give them time to read that.
• Otherwise, avoid wasting editor time repetitively fielding complaints from readers who don't understand Misplaced Pages policy.

The method is as follows:

• Reply briefly with a link to Talk:Donald Trump/Response to claims of bias.
• Close the discussion using {{archive top}}/bot.
• Wait at least 24 hours per current consensus #13.
• Manually archive the discussion.

If we can reach a consensus on this, I will create a new item in the consensus list. If not, I will drop the issue and abandon the method. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:36, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

Given the unfortunate fact that editors on all pages end up in little debates, policy scolding, etc on vague complaints and unspecific edit requests, I think we need to be able to do what we do everywhere else -- which is sometimes to delete or archive such posts. SPECIFICO talk 22:53, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

For the sake of Misplaced Pages's image, a good-faith complaint deserves a respectful reply. Not all complaints are in good faith, but this one was. Ignorance is not bad faith, and Misplaced Pages's policies are somewhat counterintuitive. Try to imagine yourself on the outside looking in. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:18, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

When the same telltale language appears over and over, it's most likely somebody who's been hanging out and repeating what they see in a chat room or something. But in the recent one, there was a kind reply and the archiving was to prevent an extended discussion. I do however see that we need to give the visitor enough time to return to read the reply to their query. SPECIFICO talk 00:18, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

If it'll cut down drive-by editors/ips, complaints. Then indeed, close & archive. If an editor chooses to go the RFC route? then that's (of course) a different situation. GoodDay (talk) 22:55, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

I lke the idea, but preemptive closing of discussions without giving the editor a chance to respond (I assume that's what's being proposed) just seems unfair. At the very least, asking the editor to reword the statement to comply with what is present on the Bias page, giving them 24 hours, then closing the discussion seems reasonable to me. Cessaune 00:06, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

Nothing prevents them from starting a new and better discussion after reading the response page, and I think that should be obvious to them. In fact, the response page makes that abundantly clear beginning with Any user, including you.... But in all my years at this article I have yet to see a single one of these readers come back with the requisite suggestion for a specific, policy-based improvement. They simply don't care to dig into the policy enough to know what "policy-based" means, exactly (nor would I, probably). That suggests that your suggestion would merely add unnecessary complication to the process. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:17, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

Okay, but this is irrelevant. It's not ultimately that disruptive to keep a discussion open for 24 hours, and, as SPECIFICO says above, we need to give the visitor enough time to return to read the reply to their query. To not give a user that time at all isn't fair, regardless of whether or not the editor simply care to dig into the policy enough to know what "policy-based" means. I went and looked through policies, when I made my first edits here, so when you say I have yet to see a single one of these readers come back with the requisite suggestion for a specific, policy-based improvement—I tried to in the past, and continue to try to now. I definitely know I wouldn't be a Misplaced Pages editor at all if someone had shut down my first Trump talk page contribution without even giving me a chance to reply.

Also, I made changes to the Bias page, and included a bunch of relevant policies (WP:AGF, WP:DGF, WP:CIVILITY, WP:RSP). We can be more specific and encouraging to motivate these newcomers to actually create those specific, policy-based improvements that we speak of, which was the whole point of my edits, and should be the whole point of the bias page. Our words should also reflect that when pointing the editor towards the bias page. Cessaune 00:36, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

It's not ultimately that disruptive to keep a discussion open for 24 hours Not so much disruptive as a waste of time. Basically we're spending our time educating readers about Misplaced Pages policy, when the policy is already written down for them to read if they're interested (and they aren't, as I said). We're here to work on this article, not to educate readers who have no interest in being educated. Our responsibility ends after we point them to the policy pages.as SPECIFICO says above, we need to give the visitor enough time to return to read the reply to their query. Exactly right, and this method gives them 24 hours to read the reply. If that wasn't considered enough time, consensus 13 wouldn't read as it does.Your proposed changes to the response page are a separate and independent issue. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:48, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

Basically we're spending our time educating readers about Misplaced Pages policy, when the policy is already written down for them to read if they're interested—I'm only suggesting two sentences or so. It wouldn't be that big of a deal. Cessaune 01:07, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

Here are three sentences, pursuant to step 1 of the proposed method. The rest is on the response page and would be redundant (and incomplete) within the thread. ―Mandruss ☎ 01:14, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

Here's how I would do it:

• Reply briefly with a link to Talk:Donald Trump/Response to claims of bias, making sure that they are aware that no response within 24 hours will lead to closure of the topic.
• Wait at least 24 hours.
• Close the discussion.
• Wait at least 24 hours per current consensus #13.
• Manually archive the discussion.

In an ideal world, I would like it if we articulated that they are not only welcome to try again, but that we encourage them to try again. My issue with an immediate close is that, for someone who isn't familiar with Misplaced Pages policy, closing a thread they started before even giving them a chance to reply fully hinders their want to restate anything. Closing someone's thread immediately also may have more negative consequences: people may start a new thread, claiming that we are censoring/silencing their opinions. There is little downside to simply waiting 24 hours, and, if needed, we can add a clause so that if the conversation starts heading south, it can be closed before the 24-hour period. Cessaune 02:37, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

I would like it if we articulated that they are not only welcome to try again, but that we encourage them to try again. By all means, feel free to change "welcome to" to "encouraged to" on the response page. The whole point is that anything that needs to be said can be said on that page, and the thread itself should be kept to little more than is required to point them to it. In the example above, I added just a little extra just because that's how I roll. It wouldn't be a requirement under my method. Otherwise, I still think your extra steps add unnecessary complication, but that consensus would be better than none. ―Mandruss ☎ 03:04, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

Fair. Cessaune 03:43, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

A 24-hr waiting period, also suffices. GoodDay (talk) 01:21, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

I think consensus item 13 is a good policy, and I've been adhering to it, although on occasion my responses may have been less diplomatic than they could have been. The 24-hour waiting period before archiving the closed discussion probably is a sufficient amount of time for the complainant to see the response to their complaint since in all likelyhood they'll be watching the page for it. It may be a good idea, though, to leave it on the talk page for a longer period (a week?), for other potential complainants to see and be deterred. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 12:48, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

I've never seen any indication that other potential complainants read existing discussions before complaining. Your suggestion would result in three different retention periods: (A week?) for bias complaints, 24 hours for other closed discussions per #13, and 14 days for everything else (automated archival). Again, can we avoid over-complicating things? ―Mandruss ☎ 18:52, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

In consensus item 13, the discussion that the 24 hour time was based on, was closed with the following statement. "Consensus to keep bot archive at 7 days and allow manual archiving of formally closed threads after 24 hours." The term "formally closed" means that there was a request made at Misplaced Pages:Closure requests. The statement of consensus item 13 improperly generalized "formally closed" to "closed" without consensus. With that in mind, the 24 hour rule for archiving in the case considered here would be new. So what is the argument for archiving after only 24 hours a summarily closed discussion, not a formally closed discussion, consisting of only two messages? Bob K31416 (talk) 13:40, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

First, I don't see any indication that the closer used your interpretation of "formally closed" — even if you could point to a guideline that supports your interpretation. More likely, he was simply contrasting the use of {{archive top}}/bot to {{collapse top}}/bot, the latter being more common at that time than it is these days at this article. Collapse is not closure, but it was being used that way a lot.The argument for 24 hours is that it's ample time for the OP to read the reply, if the OP is interested in reading it. (It's 24 hours after the close, not 24 hours after the opening comment, just to be clear.) It's a concession being asked of the editors who would prefer to shoot on sight, without acknowledgement or reply, as we saw the other day. Maybe you could meet them halfway.It is not unimportant that item 13 has gone unchanged since Nov 2019 without a challenge. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:50, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

I think we can mostly agree, that it can be a tricky situation to handle. We must take caution, not to be seen as 'anti-Trump', when shutting down discussions. GoodDay (talk) 00:30, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

I generally agree with the sentiment, but I think we should avoid the phrase "shutting down discussions". We're not shutting down discussions, which is anathema at Misplaced Pages, but rather nipping them in the bud before they get started. We're shutting down pointless threads. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:59, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

When Misplaced Pages speaks of "freedom of discussion", I do not believe we have uninformed readers in mind. Discussion is part of Misplaced Pages editing, and Misplaced Pages editing is best left to Misplaced Pages editors, who have invested considerable time and energy in learning policy and common practice. It takes years to grasp a lot of this stuff, and non-editing readers have nothing useful to say regarding this article's neutrality. That's true whether they love Trump or despise him, and we do see complaints that the article is not tough enough on him. Trump haters want us to use the words "lies" or "liar", and that's prohibited by consensus 22, for example.It's not unlike using representative government, instead of deciding every issue by popular referendum. Common citizens are not qualified to govern, and the world has known this for thousands of years. (Our governments may not be qualified to govern, either, but that's a separate issue.) The analogy ends when you recognize that we're not elected representatives, but it's a useful one as far it goes. Per policy, unlike our governments, we're not supposed to represent the public. We have no constituents except reliable sources. ―Mandruss ☎ 02:12, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

Everyone is uninformed until, well, they're not. Freedom of discussion applies to anyone, not just Misplaced Pages editors, otherwise there would be no Misplaced Pages editors. To give editors no time to discuss under the pretense that discussion may be pointless and may waste editor time is antithetical to the entire point of Misplaced Pages. Everyone deserves at least a chance to back up their statements, editor or not. Cessaune 03:12, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

Freedom of discussion applies to anyone, not just Misplaced Pages editors, otherwise there would be no Misplaced Pages editors. So Misplaced Pages editors become editors so they can engage in discussions with non-editing readers? I was not aware of that. Are they trying to educate the population about Misplaced Pages policies? If not, they're violating WP:NOTFORUM. And neither is good.pretense that discussion may be pointless and may waste editor time Sorry, no. The history of this article could not possibly be clearer: It is pointless and does waste editor time. No reader bias complaint has ever resulted in a change to the article. If that's not a waste of time, I don't know what is. If an editor sees the bias complaint and it stimulates him or her to think of a "specific, policy-based" suggestion, no problem — he or she may start a new thread about it. There's no benefit to doing it in the complaint thread.Everyone deserves at least a chance to back up their statements, editor or not. I won't argue that point, but we are not denying them that chance. We are merely asking them to do it in a new thread, this time "specific, policy-based". The time required to start a new thread will be insignificant compared to the time required to read the policy and even attempt to put together something "specific, policy-based". As I've said previously, we have yet to see a complaining reader come back with something "specific, policy-based". The history of this article could not possibly be clearer: They have nothing further to say. But if they do, they may — within policy. ―Mandruss ☎ 04:20, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

Something I would like to say: editors are not required to respond to anything. The fact that discussion is going on doesn't mean that you have to put your $0.02 in, and, if you do, that's a personal limitation. Timesink arguments have always struck me as dumb: Since I'm addicted to doing something, rather than avoiding that thing, no one else should be able to do it, to help me avoid doing it, because my time can be spent elsewhere. Yes, editors might, in their pursuit of one topic, forget/ignore another one, but the truth is, at least on this page, that doesn't happen often, except in the case of RfCs overshadowing smaller issues. Two, three, sometimes four separate discussions take place simultaneously on this page all the time. As long as we all generally agree to avoid WP:FORUM situations (something that essentially all editors on this page are guilty of) we should be fine on a timesink level.

My main point is that the path to becoming a good editor generally requires one to fail. A lot. We are merely asking them to do it in a new thread—my belief is that asking them to start a new thread with a new question has the effect, unintended or not, to stifle discussion completely.

Now, it is entirely fair to say that people who are unwilling to take the time to understand policy are not worth editor time. However, I enjoy giving people the benefit of the doubt. Being unwilling to reasearch policy is perhaps an unintended consequence of having so much policy to research. It is much easier to understand Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines by observing policy in action, especially observing discussions about the implications or actual meanings.

Basically, the system as it stands now sets up users to fail. Guiding users to intentionally vaguely defined guidelines such as MOS:LEADCITE or MOS:OVERLINK simply serves to confuse, and the broader pillar policies such as WP:NPOV or WP:NOR, despite seeming simple on a surface-level, are so complex and massive, and require such an extensive knowledge of the secondary and tertiary policies around them, that it is almost unfair IMO to say 'go read this and come back with something coherent.'

In addition, the Bias page, and consensus item 13, are essentially formalities, put up as if to pretend that we care about these users' opinions. We don't. And that's sad, at least to me.

This is why I say that Everyone deserves at least a chance to back up their statements, editor or not. In the same thread, I might add. While the closing of one thread and the opening of another might seem trivial to one who understands that the implications of doing so are next to nothing, it is not the same to a good faith user who doesn't understand it. Instantly shutting down their good faith opinions (because that's how closing is perceived when you aren't an established editor) disincentivizes new good faith and policy-based opinions.

Now, all this being said, if it's not good faith, everything above is irrelevant. Cessaune 05:53, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

WP:CIR is "only" an "explanatory essay", but you see it come up regularly anyway at places like ANI. It's not some obscure thing that nobody subscribes to. If we apply it to editors, why are non-editing readers exempt? Q.E. effin D. ―Mandruss ☎ 06:53, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

CIR is only applied after all other options have been exhuasted, and it applies only to repeated mistakes, not a singular one. You cannot reasonably judge the competence of anyone after a singular interaction, and for Misplaced Pages's purposes, you cannot reasonably judge the competence of anyone even after an arbitrarily high number of interactions, unless it's obvious they aren't acting in good faith (vandalism, sockpuppetry, personal attacks, etc.) or it's a language barrier thing. Cessaune 07:03, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

Great, then they can demonstrate their competence by opening a new thread with something "specific, policy-based". If they want to become Misplaced Pages editors, they are welcome to come on board. In my opinion, the article would benefit from more people on the Trump side who know the policy and are prepared to comply with it and use it. Once on board, it will be worth more-experienced editors' time to help them along. ―Mandruss ☎ 07:19, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

My point is not that users are necessarily 'competent until proven otherwise', but that competence is acquired. It's not about demonstrating competence, it's about becoming competent in and of itself. Which, again, circles back to my main point: pointing people to policies and guidelines doesn't work that well if the goal is to actually foster good conversation and to have people actually start new threads that ask specific, policy-based questions—but, as I said before, I believe the Bias page and consensus item 13 are not intended to actually foster good conversation, but to stop bad conversation under the guise of fostering good conversation, which is a tactic I despise.

Secondly, the path to becoming a Misplaced Pages editor is not so simple. I'm only an editor because I played so much random article Misplaced Pages game with friends that I began to optimize links and fix grammar mistakes at big articles to gain an unseen advantage. If they want to become Misplaced Pages editors, they are welcome to come on board—becoming an editor is, at least in my limited experince, a gradual process that requires failure. To become an editor by saying "hey, I want to edit, time to read up on the rules to figure out what I should and shouldn't do"—that almost delves into a Citizendium or Nupedia-type formality, one that Misplaced Pages is directly against. This is why I believe it's important to actually help people instead of telling people to do stuff, and then claiming that we tried to help but they were unwilling to listen, when, in reality, we didn't really try to help at all. Cessaune 07:50, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

You should sign up as a mentor for Misplaced Pages:Adopt-a-user or contribute at WP:TEAHOUSE. Those are places where editors have signed up to spend significant amounts of their time and energy helping uninformed people along. I didn't sign up for that, I find your arguments unconvincing, and you can't dictate that I must do that. There's a time and place for almost everything. I understand that a lot of people are averse to organization. ―Mandruss ☎ 08:14, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

I understand that a lot of people are averse to organization—can you clarify the meaning of this? Thanks. Cessaune 08:26, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

Well, to many, organization is synonymous with bureaucracy. To say, "If you need this kind of help, go here" seems to them like imposing an undue burden. To them, any limits on what can be said in any particular venue, per its purpose and mission, are contrary to some sacred, lofty Misplaced Pages principle. To them, such limits hinder the free exchange of ideas, and the encyclopedia suffers as a result. Open range is good and barbed wire fences are evil. My brain doesn't work that way.The purpose and mission of an article talk page are to work on the article. "Helping" others with policy is limited to what's necessary to protect that article. ―Mandruss ☎ 08:34, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

Hmm. I'd advocate for a more active role, but I guess we've just gotta agree to disagree. Cessaune 15:38, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

easier and obvious solution is if there is only one disruptive user who keeps reverting obvious closes, then remove them from the topic area. ValarianB (talk) 12:10, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

We have a consensus list for a reason, so you and SPECIFICO don't get to arbitrarily decide when to archive, and OneClickArchiving without abiding by the 24 hour closure period isn't allowed at all. Of course, Bob probably should've brought the issues to the talk page, but, per consensus, he was in the right. Cessaune 13:29, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

No, Bob was not in the right, and his reversions are almost exclusively focused on Specifico. to the point where if it was me, I would be filing harassment and wiki-hounding charges. if SPAs and IPs come to this talk page with blatantly loaded and inflammatory "this is biased, remove it now!" posts, I will freely and cheerfully remove them, invoking WP:IAR if necessary. ValarianB (talk) 16:27, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

Bob is only in the right per consensus item 13, unless there is something I am missing about Bob's reverts. Please point my mistakes out if needed.

I agree that Bob's edits undermine SPECIFICO and your good faith edits. However, my point above still stands. The consensus says we have to do something, so we do it, and if Bob is abiding by consensus, then a topic ban is entirely unwarranted. Also, SPECIFICO is basically the only person who archives in such a way. To claim that reversions are almost exclusively focused on Specifico is a true statement, but a statement that misses the bigger picture. Cessaune 16:44, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

I doubt the bit about only me is true. Anyway, it's beside the point. Bob's entire record speaks for itself. SPECIFICO talk 16:59, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

Not necessarily only you, but mostly you. Cessaune 17:07, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

IAR is often code for "fuck consensus". It is not some kind of trump card that immunizes an edit from challenge. Thankfully, an edit against consensus will be reverted, and a re-revert will be actionable disruption. I don't use IAR, never saw a need for it. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:02, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

The monkey under the bed

The real problem (the monkey hiding under the bed, the lizard in the closet, etc.) is WP editors who pile on and use such inquiries -- good faith or not, well-formulated or not, specific or vague -- as an opportunity for a late-night college dorm debate. Once a reply has been given, WP editors need to step back and not continue to reply to OP, at least until OP has responded with some new addition. So I suggest, when we respond the first responder should use the green checkmark to show the issue has been addressed. And everyone else needs to start a new thread if they are inspired to share their thoughts. SPECIFICO talk 12:45, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

Basically, avoid WP:FORUM situations. GoodDay (talk) 14:47, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

Given how often I have had to deal with "Ahh no one has replied in 1 hour to my latest post, I have consensus" scenarios I am not sure that will achieve the aim of stopping forum debate. Slatersteven (talk) 14:52, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

Yup, it's the old 'last word' approach. An editor will keep arguing their point, with the hope that those who oppose them, will eventually stop answering them. Then, the editor takes the silent treatment as a sign of consensus. GoodDay (talk) 21:27, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

What about anti-Trumpers?

What about unspecific bias complaints from anti-Trumpers? These complaints are less common than the other kind, but they do occur and should not be given greater consideration merely because they are anti-Trump. To prevent them from being given greater consideration, they need to be covered by any consensus arising from this discussion.

Almost all of the response page applies equally whether they are pro- or anti-Trump. The last sentence of the second paragraph does not: Since reliable sources are widely critical of Trump, this article must reflect that.

Should there be a separate response page for the anti-Trumpers, or will the existing one suffice — possibly with a slightly different reply in the thread? Or, should the existing response page be modified so that it works equally well for both camps? ―Mandruss ☎ 23:31, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

I just changed "must reflect" to "reflects". Other than that, I think "biased towards/against" in the FAQ and the response page suffice. I don't remember any unspecific complaints that the page is too positive towards Trump (then again, maybe I'm blind on that eye), just specific requests wanting his latest outrageous toots, running tallies of the lawsuits, etc. mentioned. Can you point out one or two? Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 11:45, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

I recall the odd comment in regards to we need to be more negative about him, they also get short shift. Slatersteven (talk) 11:49, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

Can I close this and revert to status quo? Cessaune 01:24, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

Conspiracy theorist in lead sentence?

Given there's a whole article (based on almost 70 reliable sources) and category, it looks like the majority of editors involved don't consider this redundant, that there is precedent for mentioning this, and that this forms a significant part of Trump's notability and impact on politics and public discourse (including before, during, and after his presidency), therefore meeting WP:SUSTAINED.

To name but two, his involvement as the figurehead of the birther movement is often described as the harbinger of his presidency and now going into the next election reports indicate roughly 70% of Republicans believe Trump's big lie. GhulamIslam (talk) 14:20, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

No. --Jayron32 14:32, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

To be clear, are you proposing changing, "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." to "Donald John Trump (born June 14, 1946) is an American politician, media personality, businessman, and conspiracy theorist who served as the 45th president of the United States from 2017 to 2021."?

If that is your proposal, I would oppose it as I do not think that conveys enough context and nuance. ~ ONUnicornproblem solving 14:59, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, and how you've linked to the article is preferable and directs to the context, but more than that there's a section devoted to it.
It isn't being used as a negative attack term by the way, he's undoubtedly the most prominent conspiracy theorist in the world. If such a term is appropriately substantiated by extensive reliable sources, it may be included in the lead paragraph to describe Donald Trump without running afoul of WP:BLP. It's a description widely used by unbiased reliable sources both academic and journalistic.
Trump is beyond a WP:PUBLICFIGURE so there is a huge exception to the usual care taken to be careful to avoid negative info in BLPs. "In the case of public figures, there will be a multitude of reliable published sources, and BLPs should simply document what these sources say. If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs in the article—even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it." GhulamIslam (talk) 16:10, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

I'm not sure why it would need to be mentioned in the lede sentence when it's already mentioned in the lede section. ––FormalDude (talk) 16:36, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

The third paragraph of the lead (not lede) says that "Trump promoted conspiracy theories and made many false and misleading statements during his campaigns and presidency, to a degree unprecedented in American politics." We have many RS describing the theories he promoted but are the majority of them saying he's a conspiracy theorist? Recent RS: PBS—embracing and amplifying false fringe QAnon conspiracy theory, museJHU—conspiracy theory after Trump, CNN—has been a conspiracy theorist for years, FactCheck.org—espousing or leaning into conspiracy theories, VOA—moving closer to QAnon conspiracy, TIME—weaponized conspiracy theories, Atlantic—Trump needs conspiracy theories for political and personal ends, AP—Donald Trump is overtly embracing QAnon. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 17:21, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

@Space4Time3Continuum2x: Could these sources be added together with a reference like ref. 4 on the Marjorie Taylor Green article? GhulamIslam (talk) 18:02, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

We don’t call Trump a conspiracy theorist in the body because RS don’t call him that, so we can’t call him that in the lead. (List of conspiracy theories promoted by Donald Trump doesn’t call Trump a conspiracy theorist, either, and I don’t know that the one-sentence lead of that article is correct about Trump having created any of the conspiracy theories the article lists.) RS say that pushing conspiracy theories is one of Trump’s patterns of behavior. He uses them as long as he thinks they’re useful, and moves on to the next one when they appear to have outlived their usefulness. Promoting—check, amplifying—check, but only one RS, CNN fact checker Daniel Dale, calls Trump a conspiracy theorist. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 14:40, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

Well, he is an executive. So, like most of that cohort, he doesn't really do anything. He causes actions to be effected by his staff and entourage. But sources attribute at least Stop the Steal directly to him. As to what's a conspiracy theory and what's a passing falsehood, the line is not always clear. Sometimes the incidental falsehoods come back as a recognizable refrain. In general, I think labels are too easily misunderstood and not encyclopedic. But I would agree with OP that some indication of the conspiracy theory content needs to be prominent up top. That's why I think we should consider ways to put it in a second lead sentence of the first paragraph or to elevate that and some related content to an extension of the first paragraph or swap of #4 above 2 and 3. SPECIFICO talk 15:45, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

Please provide sourcing to indicate that this is currently the dominant mainstream description of him. Without that, it cannot be stated up top in his bio. We editors cannot make an inference from a collation of conspiracy theories he has promulgated or endorsed. SPECIFICO talk 16:05, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

However, we should consider swapping the third and second lead paragraph positions to put the more current significant part first. SPECIFICO talk 17:05, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

I imagine the former, similarly to Marjorie Taylor Greene and Mike Lindell's lead paragraphs, except "conspiracy theorist" would link to List of conspiracy theories promoted by Donald Trump. GhulamIslam (talk) 17:20, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

The second paragraph covers education and private business endeavors prior to the presidency. The third and fourth paragraphs are about Trump's election and presidency. I don't think it would be an improvement to move the second paragraph in between those two. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 17:37, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

This is already dealt with well enough in the third paragraph. ser! 17:35, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

But it should, IMO, be in the second paragraph. The life details are not significant relative to his official acts and the influence and visability of his current roles far exceeds his business and American silly-media presence. SPECIFICO talk 17:38, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

Fair enough, I'm just opposed to the addition to the lede in the way the proposer suggests. ser! 17:47, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

@GhulamIslam: What do you think of swapping the positions of the second and third paragraphs? SPECIFICO talk 18:13, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

The first paragraph doesn't seem as immediately important but swapping them confuses the chronology, I'd either leave it as it is or not include it in the lead. GhulamIslam (talk) 18:35, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

I'd disagree that the "pre-politics" details aren't significant. It led to the whole emoluments thing, which was pretty huge for a brief period (and which we mention in the body) and he was already notable decades ago for the 2nd paragraph stuff in contemporary sources. It also wouldn't make sense, since it would break the chronology — DFlhb (talk) 18:16, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

I don't think sources treat his TV show or his business failures as being more significant than his presidency or ongoing role as a political leader. I also don't see a rationale for following chronology when we'll still have it high up in the lead position 3 and his prior life was so unimportant compared to his life in politics. Nor for that matter is the emoluments allegation among the most noteworthy things about his life. SPECIFICO talk 18:38, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

Current sources, sure, but not the decades of sourcing prior to that. Recentism in BLP leads is one of my pet peeves. I think MOS:CHRONOLOGICAL backs me up on that, and current practice across almost all BLP leads. (Emoluments are certainly not among the most noteworthy things, hence why it's not mentioned in the lead) — DFlhb (talk) 19:02, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

That's not how we define recentism. Chronological order is more like a middle-school writing assignment. Not following why you raised emoluments initially. SPECIFICO talk 19:17, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

Chronological order is essential to good lead writing, and I see no benefit to going against that. If some readers lack the attention span to make it to the third paragraph, TikTok is thataway. I find our lead quite excellent, and it's the most scrutinised part of one of our most scrutinised articles; changing it would require quite an obvious consensus — DFlhb (talk) 16:43, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

Chronological order is essential to good lead writing That is the part I don't understand or agree with. "Essential" is an absolute standard, and I don't think it's always required. Otherwise we'd start our articles with babies in the hospital. here is a counterexample. The manger doesn't even appear in the lead. SPECIFICO talk 17:05, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

I am unsure this is one of the things he is most noted for. Slatersteven (talk) 11:51, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

I recommend excluding, fwiw. Keep in mind, that around this time next year, info in this BLP's body, will quite likely go through quite a few changes. GoodDay (talk) 16:01, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

Alternative proposals

What about just moving the first sentence of the third paragraph and making it the second sentence? "Trump's political positions have been described as populist, protectionist, isolationist, and nationalist." You don't need to follow it immediately with accusations of conspiracism, lying and racism since these positions already infer that. TFD (talk) 18:21, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

Bad idea, although Trump would probably support the move since he was and is running on all four. Populists, protectionists, isolationists, and nationalists may also be conspiracy theorists, liars, and racists or any combination thereof but that's not indicated by any of the terms. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 12:06, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

While I agree that those 4 views do not imply or entail "conspiracy theorist, liar, racist" I think TFD provided the germ of a good suggestion, to wit: A minimal summary in the opening short paragraph before launching into the biographical array. I think we can find a satisfactory middle ground. SPECIFICO talk 12:48, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, I'd oppose putting those in the first paragraph too, since threshold to put traits in the first paragraph is much higher (they must be definitional, i.e. labels that are frequently mentioned in passing every time his name is mentioned). Trump's "populism" is, at least per some sources, more of an electoral strategy than something he actually believes in. Not to mention the constant flip flops. None of those political positions are definitional; they're opportunistic. DFlhb (talk) 13:04, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

But the lies, conspiracy theories and pandering to racist views are definitional. I agree the other four are better understood as modalities to engage aggrieved voters. That's why it's important to put a concise indication of his modus operandi in the first paragraph. We have long acknowledged that RS erred for several years on the side of deference to Trump due to the stature of his office. RS have now acknowledged that error and recent narratives are very clear in emphasizing the core modalities, and -- as you say -- not defining him in terms of gross categories such as "populism" and "nationalism". SPECIFICO talk 15:06, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

Trump is microphone, willing to amplify whatever his supporters views are & possibly what some independents' views are. That's the premise that I'm seeing, but I'll go along with whatever write up, the rest of you can work out. GoodDay (talk) 15:29, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

• No, conspiracy theorist should not be in the first sentence of this article. His promotion of conspiracy theories has not been identified by reliable sources as a defining characteristic of Trump in the same way as politician, businessman, and media personality. Also, no, the second and third paragraphs of the lead should not be swapped in an attempt to give Trump has promoted conspiracy theories... more prominence or weight. Doing so would put the lead out of a rough chronological order and I reject the notion that his pre-political career is not important (see the reasons by DFlhb). Iamreallygoodatcheckers 15:00, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

  That is an illogical comparison. It compares parameters from two different dimensions. Similarly, "businessman" is not a more defining characteristic than "human" "male" "two-legged" but we do not see those in the first sentence. So -- as you state -- conspiracy, lies, etc, is not "in the same way" as professional roles, but it describes most noteworthy characteristic of his behavior in all of those roles. Such clarification in a brief additional sentence would not violate chronological order. Forget about "populism" etc. which may indeed by empty words. The disregard for fact is described by RS as his core. For compact mentions of non-professional non-chronological content up top, there are many examples on WP, e.g. Jesse James Benito Mussolini John N. Mitchell Robert F. Kennedy Jr. Anthony Weiner Joseph McCarthy Leona Helmsley. A short additional sentence in the first paragraph will not create disorder. SPECIFICO talk 16:19, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

• Not in the lead sentence. The lead sentence is usually used to describe the subject's profession(s), as it now does: "politician, media personality, and businessman". Descriptions of the most noteworthy behavioral characteristics - such as believing in and spreading conspiracy theories - belong later in the lead section. Exactly as our lead section currently does in the third paragraph. -- MelanieN (talk) 16:57, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

  P.S. And I don't agree with swapping the second and third paragraphs, either. -- MelanieN (talk) 17:02, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

  I think both of those are no longer proposed. What do you think about adding one sentence to the first paragraph that incorporates the characterization that's currently farther down, after the life chronology? It would not need to use "conspiracy theories", just something to describe his approach to politics and public life? SPECIFICO talk 17:07, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

  No, I would oppose that. And it's against MOS. See MOS:OPENPARABIO. The first paragraph of a biography is often very short, often a single sentence as it is here. Here is what the opening paragraph is supposed to cover: Name and title, dates of birth and death, context (such as nationality), "One, or possibly more, noteworthy positions, activities, or roles that the person is mainly known for, avoiding subjective or contentious terms," and possibly "The main reason the person is notable (key accomplishment, record, etc.)" That's the first paragraph. The remainder of the lead section - the later paragraphs - can go into biographical detail, what they have done or accomplished, and even what their most noteworthy opinions are. That is exactly what this article's lead section does and we should leave it alone. -- MelanieN (talk) 21:19, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

  P.S. I wish you were right about those ideas being "no longer proposed", but in the paragraph immediately below this one, the person who originally made this proposal makes it again, as if none of the preceding discussion had happened. -- MelanieN (talk) 21:19, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

  I took care to cite half a dozen counterexamples to the claims above that such content would violate the canons of the lead. There are hundreds more like those that briefly characterize the BLPerson in the opening paragraph. Particularly, it seems, when the individual's most significant features were recognized somewhat late- or mid-career. SPECIFICO talk 21:45, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

I propose changing the lead sentence to "Donald John Trump (born June 14, 1946) is an American politician, media personality, businessman, and conspiracy theorist who served as the 45th president of the United States from 2017 to 2021."

According to the Collins English Dictionary, a conspiracy theorist is "someone who believes in or spreads conspiracy theories". As I've said before, if appropriately substantiated by extensive reliable sources, such a term may be included in the lead paragraph to describe Donald Trump without running afoul of WP:BLP. It's a description widely used by unbiased reliable sources both academic and journalistic. Trump is beyond a WP:PUBLICFIGURE so there is a huge exception to the usual care taken to be careful to avoid negative info in BLPs. "In the case of public figures, there will be a multitude of reliable published sources, and BLPs should simply document what these sources say. If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs in the article—even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it." GhulamIslam (talk) 20:12, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

Re "It's a description widely used by unbiased reliable sources both academic and journalistic." — How do you know they are unbiased? Bob K31416 (talk) 21:14, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

Actually we don't, but they're considered reliable and they're making the same inference. GhulamIslam (talk) 22:13, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

If someone provides a wide list of reliable sources—an actual wide list of reliable sources (not the 8 or so above)—then let's talk. Trump is beyond a WP:PUBLICFIGURE so there is a huge exception to the usual care taken to be careful to avoid negative info in BLPs—since he's an active, extremely prominent politician, not only in America but to a limited extent worldwide, I would err very far on the side of caution. There is no real benefit to characterizing Trump as a conspiracy theorist in my mind (we have a page devoted to the conpiracy theories he has promoted, so if people want to, they can still find the relevant info), and as I see it, the potential negatives are so much greater than any potential benefit.

If the only benefit to calling Trump a conspiracy theorist is that it is a relevant characterization, I would most definitely advocate against this. Especially since any characterization of this sort could realistically have an impact as great or greater than the Seigenthaler incident. It's not an issue I think we as Wikipedans need to drag ourselves into, and, again, relevant info about it is present on multiple pages, including this one. Cessaune 01:07, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

We are only discussing where to locate content that is already in the lead. That comparison is off the wall. SPECIFICO talk 01:38, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

Maybe I'm mistaken, but I thought OP was advocating for a change—I propose changing the lead sentence to "Donald John Trump (born June 14, 1946) is an American politician, media personality, businessman, and conspiracy theorist who served as the 45th president of the United States from 2017 to 2021." I'm confused. Cessaune 01:40, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

Removals of content

Previous added major information to the article with multiple sources, which @Space4Time3Continuum2x: removed and gave some commentary on.

As this is a Misplaced Pages article covering the topic of Donald Trump, and Misplaced Pages is not WP:CENSORED, all of the information is clearly critical and notable. Donald Trump article is not just a biography, but is also an encyclopedic article about a figure in world history. Further all the content relates biographically to Donald Trump and is cited to reliable sources (RS).

The following two passages were removed together.

In the Real Estate Manhattan developments section

By 2012, the Industrial and Commercial Bank of China was Trump Tower's largest office tenant.

Note: Cited to reliable sources and more can be found. The largest tenant of Trump Tower, during any length of time, in a historical article, is major information about Donald Trump. That's why we have the whole section about his business career and not just the presidency.

In the Conflicts of Interest section

According to Forbes staff, by October 2020, Trump had received approximately $5.4 million from the China state-owned bank ICBC through its $1.9 million annual rent in Trump Tower. Trump also maintained a Chinese bank account until 2018 which became a 2020 campaign issue. It was revealed that in 2016 and 2017, he paid more taxes to China ($188,561) than to the United States ($750).

Note: This is very critical to the encyclopedic concept of conflicts of interest certainly the biggest 'individual' detail for a section with that heading, and articles are sourced from late 2020. If the year was 2100 and this was a history article and Donald Trump was no longer a political subject, this would be amazingly crucial content to read about.

For both of the above, some context was given during removal, but doesn't seem like an actual removal reason except a suggestion of "moot". The edit summary was: Mention and cites at Trump_Tower#Commercial_tenants. The bank has been a tenant at Trump Tower (not Trump Building) since 2008 and downsized its space in 2019. Conflict of interest/emoluments: moot after Trump’s term had ended, per SC decision.

Counterargument: downsizing the space in 2019 doesn't reduce the historical relevance, this detail was true and reported on for over a decade into 2020 and 2022 which makes it easily relevant for the encyclopedia. Same for conflicts of interest. The widespread coverage makes it notable to include and even if it is just an event in time, it's critical and should easily pass the WP:10YEARTEST, like the other chronology in the article. The RS's cited are a fraction of the widespread coverage of both passages but are enough to justify inclusion.

This third passage was also removed.

The section about Truth Social currently has an incomplete version of events that is not updated to 2023.

A previous version, which was updated to 2023 using reliable sources, was removed. It looked like this:

Trump registered a new company in February 2021. Trump Media & Technology Group (TMTG) was formed for providing "social networking services" to "customers in the United States". In October 2021, Trump announced the planned merger of TMTG with Digital World Acquisition, a special-purpose acquisition company (SPAC). A main backer of the SPAC is China-based financier ARC Group, who was reportedly involved in setting up the proposed merger. The transaction is under investigation by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. Shanghai-based ARC also offered $2 million to get Digital World Acquisition off the ground. The CEO of Digital World Acquisition, hired from Wuhan-based operation Yunhong Holdings, broke ties with China in December 2021.

The removal edit summary was: Moved newly added content to the umbrella brand, Trump Organization. Too much detail in Chinese company & personnel for top bio.

First of all, 80% of this passage is already in the article. Let's say we're worried about that section looking like minutiae about registration; the additional info that RS's like Reuters and The Guardian discovered in 2023, actually clarifies why it is notable and is notable in itself.

I would consider the removal reasoning weak, because events this massive and international are relevant to readers seeking information about Donald Trump and Wiki is WP:GLOBAL as well as not WP:CENSORED. Given wide RS coverage, this is arguably the most notable information about Truth Social besides its other controversies and funding concerns. It also connects directly back to Trump and in its widespread coverage is fit for "top bio".

In summary, the above passages are major content to include on the Donald Trump article and both biographically important cited to reliable sources and also encyclopedically important in world history.

Thanks for reading. Feel free to comment below -- Rauisuchian (talk) 20:56, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

Trump Tower tenant ICBC

The Chinese bank rented the offices in 2008, and they were only the third-largest tenant after Gucci and the Trump Organization. In 2008, Trump was a reality TV celebrity, and I doubt the bank had a clairvoyant on its payroll who predicted Trump's 2015 presidential announcement. Emoluments: why did the bank downsize its Trump Tower office in 2019 when he was in office and the tower had plenty of vacant space? Conflicts of interest: tenants tend to pay rent, unless your Clarence Thomas's mother and Harlan Crow is your landlord. The Forbes article doesn't say whether the rent was high, low, or average for a NY 5th Ave. location. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 11:43, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

TMTG

Clarifying: you're proposing to add Shanghai-based ARC also offered $2 million to get Digital World Acquisition off the ground. The CEO of Digital World Acquisition, hired from Wuhan-based operation Yunhong Holdings, broke ties with China in December 2021. Too much detail for this top bio. The first four sentences of the paragraph are in the article. You mention additional info that RS's like Reuters and The Guardian discovered in 2023. What are you talking about? The Reuters article you cite is dated February 10, 2022, and your sources don't include a Guardian article. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 11:30, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

I found the Guardian article, at Truth_Social#Russian_finance, which is where the mention belongs, for now. "According to sources familiar with the matter", NY prosecutors are investigating Trump Media for money laundering. The article mentions then-Trump Media CFO Philip Juhan, Trump Jr., and a few others, no mention of Trump. Until we know whether anything comes of this WP:NOTNEWS applies. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 13:07, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

I appreciate your attention to detail in discussing this. I'll revisit in a bit -- Rauisuchian (talk) 20:52, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

Post-presidential investigations

Can this section be updated? All the info is now out-of-date. Prisoner of Zenda (talk) 09:39, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

I don't think so. Per WP:NOTNEWS "Misplaced Pages considers the enduring notability of persons and events." The criminal investigations mentioned are ongoing. The next hearing in the NY case he was indicted on isn't scheduled until December. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 11:16, 7 May 2023 (UTC) Just updated one item (Trump Org. CFO's conviction for tax fraud). Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 12:29, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

Should add E Jean Carroll's suit against him Swizzard (talk) 19:21, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

Guilty as charged 81.77.149.7 (talk) 19:37, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

No finding of "guilt" has occurred. This content needs to be worded closely follwing RS. He has been found liable for damages relating to sexual assault and defamation. There has not been finding of "rape" and there is no criminal finding. SPECIFICO talk 19:53, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

No as it wasn't a criminal trial. However, any of these phrases would be accurate: "Perpetrator of sexual assault and defamation" "Offender of sexual assault and defamation" "Liable for sexual misconduct and defamation" "Responsible for sexual assault and defamatory actions". Chicago god (talk) 22:46, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

Agree with the two above. Guilty isn't the word as a criminal finding is absent. But, clearly WP:DUE with the correct language. O3000, Ret. (talk) 00:10, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

Lead

In the lead, does to a degree unprecedented in American politics require an inline citation/citations? Surely something like this needs to be cited if we are going to state it in Wikivoice so matter-of-factly. Cessaune 02:52, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

I don't see any harm in adding this source for it: ––FormalDude (talk) 03:36, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

References

1. McGranahan, Carole (May 2017). "An anthropology of lying: Trump and the political sociality of moral outrage". American Ethnologist. 44 (2): 243–248. doi:10.1111/amet.12475. It has long been a truism that politicians lie, but with the entry of Donald Trump into the U.S. political domain, the frequency, degree, and impact of lying in politics are now unprecedented Donald Trump is different. By all metrics and counting schemes, his lies are off the charts. We simply have not seen such an accomplished and effective liar before in U.S. politics.

I don't think we should add the reference to the lead. Per Misplaced Pages style, we do not cite references in the lead section. We put the references where the same material appears in the text. In this case, the claim is made and supported in the 2016 presidential campaign section, where it says "His campaign statements were often opaque and suggestive, and a record number of them were false. The Los Angeles Times wrote, "Never in modern presidential politics has a major candidate made false statements as routinely as Trump has." So the claim that his use of false statements is "unprecedented in modern politics" has five strong references in the body of the text. -- MelanieN (talk) 20:26, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

Per Misplaced Pages style, we do not cite references in the lead section—this is directly contradicted by MOS:LEADCITE: "Leads are usually less specific than the body, and information in the lead section of non-controversial subjects is less likely to be challenged and less likely to require a source; there is not, however, an exception to citation requirements specific to leads." I think the citation is warranted. Cessaune 05:03, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

Consensus item 58 says this as well. ––FormalDude (talk) 05:49, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

Stating that the jury found him not liable for rape

Trump claimed that a vaccine was less than a year away

"Trump claimed that a vaccine was less than a year awaya vaccine was less than a year away, although HHS and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) officials had repeatedly told him that vaccine development would take 12–18 months."

If this is true, Trump was correct. These are using old sources than may wrongly depict the reality. If it's not true, it also wrongly depicts the reality. Lights and freedom (talk ~ contribs) 02:52, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

Do you have a specific proposal, backed up by some new sources? Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 10:36, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

"Trump was correct", in addition to being false in this case, is also an example of his having claimed he would accomplish dozens of feats on which he took no meaningful action. He continues that rhetorical approach to this day. In fact, the proportion of such predicitions that have "come true" is far less than the statistical expectation of successful outcomes for a random variable of relevant distribution. SPECIFICO talk 12:42, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

Here's a source for you, Trump scores a long-awaited coronavirus win with vaccines on the way. Bob K31416 (talk) 14:32, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

Published 6:50 PM EST, Tue November 17, 2020. Be better, Bob. Zaathras (talk) 14:45, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand your point, but here's another source, December 21, 2020 — Biden receives Covid-19 vaccine, praises Trump's 'Operation Warp Speed'. Bob K31416 (talk) 15:25, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

To be fair, your first source also contains the quote "Donald Trump probably doesn't know the difference between a white cell and a prison cell, but the administration got this right" which makes it pretty clear that any praise and/or credit is not aimed at Trump, but the administration, and Biden does the same - "I think the administration deserves some credit getting this off the ground with Operation Warp Speed" - neither credit Trump personally with anything: Trump held out the promise of a vaccine as part of his reelection strategy, but his very public bluster appears to have done very little to influence the actual process and so on. Chaheel Riens (talk) 15:42, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

Trump pushed the effort personally. NYT April 29, 2020 , "President Trump is pressing his health officials to pursue a crash development program for a coronavirus vaccine that could be widely distributed by the beginning of next year, despite widespread skepticism that such an effort could succeed and considerable concern about the implications for safety." In an earlier statement by Pfizer April 9, 2020

• Potential to supply millions of vaccine doses by the end of 2020 subject to technical success of the development program and approval by regulatory authorities, and then rapidly scale up capacity to produce hundreds of millions of doses in 2021.

• BioNTech will contribute multiple mRNA vaccine candidates as part of its BNT162 COVID-19 vaccine program, which are expected to enter human testing in April 2020

Bob K31416 (talk) 16:51, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

This point has got its response, rebuttal and recognition and is ripe for closure. SPECIFICO talk 15:45, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

I object. Bob K31416 (talk) 15:51, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

At the very least, what the article says is out of context and gives the wrong impression. I don't know how much Trump was behind this but it seems like things that happen because of the executive branch in a presidency are usually mentioned on the president's article.

Also, I don't know what is meant by "Published 6:50 PM EST, Tue November 17, 2020. Be better, Bob." These sources are from March 2020... a source from November 2020 is clearly better. —Lights and freedom (talk ~ contribs) 16:00, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

The sentence is in the section describing Trump and his administration's first response to the pandemic (downplay the seriousness of the pandemic, promote quack remedies), and this is the cited source for the sentence. “So you’re talking over the next few months, you think you could have a vaccine?” Trump asked during a meeting with top health officials on Monday. "You won’t have a vaccine," corrected Health and Human Services Secretary Alex Azar after some cross talk. "You’ll have a vaccine to go into testing." "All right, so you’re talking within a year," Trump said moments later. "A year to a year and a half," interjected Anthony Fauci, a government veteran of disease outbreaks under six presidents. I've just amended our phrasing to a vaccine was a few months to less than a year away. (Bob, for the umpteenth time, Pfizer/BioNTech were not part of the U.S. "crash program".) Lights, do you have a reliable source that contradicts this description of events? Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 17:44, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

Space4Time3Continuum2x, Although Pfizer didn't accept US government money for R&D, it was a part of Operation Warp Speed. But that wasn't the point of mentioning the April 9 statement of Pfizer in my above message. The point was to give some of the background for Trump's April 29 position on having a vaccine for use by the end of the year. I agree with the opening message point that the article item is misleading. Bob K31416 (talk) 11:46, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

There's no reason to contradict that because it's true. However saying this in the first sentence without further commentary suggests that Trump was wrong. That was perfectly fine info in spring 2020, but now that we are looking back at the description there should be a less chronological description. See

• https://www.forbes.com/sites/jemimamcevoy/2021/03/21/operation-warp-speed-head-says-trump-administration-responsible-for-90-of-vaccine-rollout/?sh=5b7343ba1848
• https://www.cbc.ca/news/health/operation-warp-speed-trump-pfizer-moderna-vaccine-1.5806820
• https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/2020/12/14/trump-operation-warp-speed-vaccine/

—Lights and freedom (talk ~ contribs) 18:01, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

"The point" was, we do not use old, outdated news articles. The notion that the former president was responsible for its success, or that it was even much of of a success at all, is debunked to today by more recent analysis, (The crash landing of ‘Operation Warp Speed’), and...well, the former president himself - Trump’s effort to disavow Operation Warp Speed shows how far he’s fallen. Zaathras (talk) 20:53, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

@Zaathras Did you link to the wrong article? The page in your link 'The crash landing of ‘Operation Warp Speed' is actually titled 'Operation Warp Speed Head Says Trump Administration Responsible For 90% Of Vaccine Rollout'.

Also, this sentence is sourced to a page from March 2020, so it IS an old, outdated news article. It would be better to use only sources from 2021-2023 when talking about vaccines. Before then, there was just predictions and speculation by various people, some of which ended up being wrong (for example, whoever said the vaccines would take 12-18 months ended up being wrong). —Lights and freedom (talk ~ contribs) 20:59, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

(User:Lights and freedom, You might consider acting on the first response to your opening message re proposal. If not, that's OK. Bob K31416 (talk) 22:23, 14 May 2023 (UTC))

Zaathras, The NY Post source that you used for the other link is considered unreliable by Misplaced Pages. "There is consensus that the New York Post is generally unreliable for factual reporting especially with regard to politics, particularly New York City politics. A tabloid newspaper, editors criticise its lack of concern for fact-checking or corrections, including a number of examples of outright fabrication." Bob K31416 (talk) 01:11, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

Support inclusion of the 1 year remark - I think from the sources above and a quick lit review, the claim was made, is WP:DUE, and it should be mentioned. — Shibbolethink 15:53, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

I'm ... a little confused as to what's being discussed here.

So the article currently says:

Trump claimed that a vaccine was a few months to less than a year away, although HHS and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) officials had repeatedly told him that vaccine development would take 12–18 months.

It cites this March 2020 Politico article, but frankly the better source would be this May 2020 NBC News article, which says:

"Vaccine work is looking VERY promising, before end of year,' Trump tweeted on Thursday.

But I think the point Bob & Lights are making is that ... the vaccine did emerge within a year—he points to this November 2020 CNN article noting its upcoming rollout.

As I understand, Bob and Light think it should be noted that Trump was right, while SPECIFICO, Space, and Chaheel are saying that it shouldn't be noted because Trump wasn't responsible for the vaccine being completed in the year. Do I have that right?--Jerome Frank Disciple 18:43, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

The reason I'm not a huge fan of the Politico article being cited for the proposition is that the "few months" comment Trump made was ... in the form of a question.

“So you’re talking over the next few months, you think you could have a vaccine?” Trump asked during a meeting with top health officials on Monday.

After receiving an answer, Trump followed up, "All right, so you’re talking within a year."

From my perspective, the article's current text is a little weird in light of the fact that the vaccine did come out within a year of Trump's remarks.--Jerome Frank Disciple 18:46, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

There's no consensus for this. Why are you prolonging this pointless discussion? Trump does not make statements because he thinks they are true or predictive. He speaks out of impulse and self-interest. That has nothing to do with vaccines, etc. This is a dead end. No consensus for this. SPECIFICO talk 19:12, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

First, what are you talking about? I didn't propose anything, I recapped the discussion and asked for clarification. "There's no consensus for me to ask for clarification"? Thanks for repeating "There's no consensus for this" twice. By the way, a talk page is where we often try to build consensus.

In terms of the discussion being "pointless" ... I understand you decided that. But you do not own this page. Both Bob & Light disagreed with your "ripe for closure" remark above, and I'm disagreeing with it, too. As I said, I don't believe the discussion is pointless, because, rom my perspective, the article's current text is a little weird in light of the fact that the vaccine did come out within a year of Trump's remarks.--Jerome Frank Disciple 19:18, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

• IIRC, there was a Hungarian woman who spent over a decade working on mRNA vaccines whose research formed the basis for the COVID vaccines. She had a difficult time with funding in the US and had to move to Europe to finish her research. I can’t remember her name as no one talks about her. Frankly, I’m disgusted at any politician of any stripe taking any credit. O3000, Ret. (talk)

Multi-part proposal for content on E. Jean Carroll v. Trump

The above discussion has gotten rather complex and messy. I split this new proposal because it seemed to me that a significant point of contention was the rape content, so hopefully, we can quickly achieve consensus on the other content, which are the basic facts, to include in the article first. I invite all editors to weigh in on this discussion to decide what content to include, and where. starship.paint (exalt) 03:04, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

To make it easier to follow this long unwieldy section, here is a summary of the three questions at hand:— Shibbolethink 15:22, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

Part 1. Should we include the following text?

Proposed text:

In November 2022, columnist E. Jean Carroll sued Trump for battery, alleging that he "forcibly raped and groped her" in a Manhattan department store in 1995 or 1996, and also sued him for defamation for his October 2022 statement, which included Trump's claim that Carroll "completely made up" the allegation. The jury's verdict, delivered in May 2023, stated that Carroll had proven that Trump sexually abused her and defamed her; thus the jury ordered Trump to pay $5 million to Carroll for damages. Trump has appealed the verdict against him.

starship.paint (exalt) 03:04, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

Part 2. Should we include the content on rape?

Bolded text is the additional text that is being proposed.

... Carroll had proven that Trump sexually abused her and defamed her; thus the jury ordered Trump to pay $5 million to Carroll for damages. The jury also ruled that Carroll had not proven that Trump raped her. Trump has appealed the verdict against him ...

starship.paint (exalt) 03:04, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

Part 3. Where should the content be placed?

Should it be a subsection in the Post-presidency section, perhaps as a subsection titled Lawsuit for sexual battery and defamation, or should it be under the Public profile section under the subsection Misogyny and allegations of sexual misconduct? starship.paint (exalt) 03:04, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been advertised at the following places: WP:BLPN, WP:NPOVN, WP:AmPol, WT:GGTF, WP:RYT, and WT:LAW.— Shibbolethink 15:37, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

@Shibbolethink: That is a very bad idea at this point. The discussion is chaotic and impossible to follow. It's tough enough for editors who have been engaged with this from the start. It's going to be nearly impossible for an uninvolved editor to come here, with no clearly defined issues and try to make any constructive contribution. Please remove whatever notifications you've made. If we get this to the point where we have a small number of clearly defined choices, it may then and only then be appropriate to ask for more uninvolved eyes. Or we may simply have resolved the issues here among ourselves. SPECIFICO talk 15:52, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

This appears to be your opinion, and not a claim with any support in any policy or guideline. I have advertised the discussion at appropriate and relevant noticeboards and wikiproject talk pages in the neutral manner recommended by WP:CANVAS. I think with the above summary and below discussion, editors are perfectly able to determine their own opinions, read the options, and participate. Doubtless, many multiple discussions far worse than this are advertised widely every day without issue. If you have an issue with my notifications, feel free to bring it up at WP:ANI. I have no intention of removing them. Thanks — Shibbolethink 15:55, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

Note: We are not determining here precisely which version of the text should be included. These proposals are rough drafts. The question here is "Should we include this content? and where?" The specifics of "What form should this content take, if included?" are more closely delineated and debated in the "Different versions of the text" section at the bottom. Thanks.— Shibbolethink 15:42, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

Part 1: Should we include the basic facts following text?

POV caption stricken and replaced SPECIFICO talk 11:44, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

In November 2022, columnist E. Jean Carroll sued Trump for battery, alleging that he "forcibly raped and groped her" in a Manhattan department store in 1995 or 1996, and also sued him for defamation for his October 2022 statement, which included Trump's claim that Carroll "completely made up" the allegation. The jury's verdict, delivered in May 2023, stated that Carroll had proven that Trump sexually abused her and defamed her; thus the jury ordered Trump to pay $5 million to Carroll for damages. Trump has appealed the verdict against him.

starship.paint (exalt) 03:04, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

Votes for part 1

• Support as proposer, see the green box in my sources in part 2, this lawsuit and verdict has received widespread coverage in reliable sources, and satisfies WP:DUE. starship.paint (exalt) 03:11, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
• Support: this has been widely discussed and I don't see a good reason to exclude it. —Lights and freedom (talk ~ contribs) 03:31, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

  I should clarify: by "support" I mean I support including the verdict and what it was for. I don't think it HAS TO be in this wording, or including all the other information in this paragraph. —Lights and freedom (talk ~ contribs) 03:43, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

• Support: Agree with this proposed text. The Capitalist forever (talk) 06:13, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
• Support as an appropriately weighted and DUE set of facts covered in many multiple WP:RSes. — Shibbolethink 06:31, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
• Support if part 2 is also included, otherwise oppose and support alternative by Space4Time3Continuum2x. I'm not sure I agree the jury finding can be split into "basic facts" and non-basic-facts—though I think the proposal by Space4Time3Continuum2x comes closest and presents the fewest NPOV concerns. Each of the findings were the basic facts; no one has pointed to a reliable source covering verdict that considered the rape finding to be so insignificant as to merit omission. I think an NPOV issue might emerge if the content is selectively included. But given the rarity of civil lawsuits against former presidents, I'd actually contend that any finding is notable, and they should therefore be included.--Jerome Frank Disciple 13:03, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
• No This suit should not be introduced as noteworthy except in a statement of the verdict. See previous discussion and polling. This option assumes a consensus to include statement of Carroll's suit that has not been established. SPECIFICO talk 15:27, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
• Strongly oppose, more proseline is precisely what this article doesn't need. No good reason to quote the allegation, mention the department store detail, quote Trump's response... A truly bad idea. The "original short version", and Space4T's new proposal below, are better. DFlhb (talk) 04:04, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
• Support Concise, sufficiently comprehensive, and accurate. Looks good! --Jayron32 11:43, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
• Support (contingent on acceptance of Part 2) — Along with Part 2 it contains facts of the case that help inform the reader about the lawsuit and verdict. Bob K31416 (talk) 12:22, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose, WP:NPOV and misquoting. We have a verdict, so we’re past "alleged" and "denied the allegation". For good measure, I removed "claim" for Trump's statement. Replaced Fortune with original AP article. Counter-proposal:

In November 2022, columnist E. Jean Carroll sued Trump for "battery 'when he forcibly raped and groped her' in 1995 or 1996 and for defamation for his October 2022 statement that she "completely made up a story". In May 2023, the jury found Trump liable for battery sexual abuse and defamation and ordered him to pay Carroll $5 million in compensation and damages. He appealed the verdict.

Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 14:29, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

Alternatively: ... found Trump liable for sexual abuse, one of three types of battery applicable under New York law, and defamation ... Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 14:47, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

Is the battery sexual abuse phrase intentional? (Just checking!) Also if we're going to say she accused him of rape, I think the npov concerns come up even stronger, because then it makes it look like, in accepting the battery claim, the jury also accepted the rape claim, when it rejected the rape claim and accepted a sexual abuse claim. (For purposes of this discussion I'm using "claim" in a legal sense—a plaintiff's claim against a defendant.)--Jerome Frank Disciple 14:31, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

Yes. It's one of the "three types of battery for which Mr. Trump might be liable under New York law: rape, sexual abuse and forcible touching", per the judge's instructions, as cited in the NYT. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 14:37, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

... I think we're maybe shooting past each other here. I mean the term "battery sexual abuse"—like words in that order. I'm 100% not an expert, but that doesn't strike me as a legitimate phrase, and I don't see it in the Times article or the jury instructions.--Jerome Frank Disciple 14:45, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

• I support the notion that we should include the tenets that Carroll has accused Trump and that the jury found him liable of sexual abuse and defamation contingent that it also mentions that the jury found him not liable for rape as well. This content is WP:DUE considering that this has a court ruling. This !vote should not be one taken as a full support for the specific text above because I think we could do better. Iamreallygoodatcheckers 14:53, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

References

1. Neumeister, Larry (November 24, 2022). "Elle advice columnist who accused Trump of rape has filed a new upgraded lawsuit". Fortune. Associated Press. Retrieved May 11, 2023.
2. ^ "Read the full Trump-E. Jean Carroll verdict text here". CBS News. May 9, 2023. Retrieved May 11, 2023.
3. Neumeister, Larry (May 12, 2023). "Trump appealing jury's sexual abuse verdict and $5 million award". Associated Press. Retrieved May 14, 2023.
4. Neumeister, Larry (November 24, 2022). "Elle advice columnist who accused Trump of rape has filed a new upgraded lawsuit". Fortune. Associated Press. Retrieved May 11, 2023.
5. Neumeister, Larry (May 12, 2023). "Trump appealing jury's sexual abuse verdict and $5 million award". Associated Press. Retrieved May 14, 2023.
6. Neumeister, Larry (November 24, 2022). "Writer who accused Trump of 1990s rape files new lawsuit". Associated Press. Retrieved May 15, 2023.
7. "Read the full Trump-E. Jean Carroll verdict text here". CBS News. May 9, 2023. Retrieved May 11, 2023.
8. Neumeister, Larry (May 12, 2023). "Trump appealing jury's sexual abuse verdict and $5 million award". Associated Press. Retrieved May 15, 2023.

Discussion for part 1

Part 2: Should we include the content on rape?

Bolded text is the additional text that is being proposed.

... Carroll had proven that Trump sexually abused her and defamed her; thus the jury ordered Trump to pay $5 million to Carroll for damages. The jury also ruled that Carroll had not proven that Trump raped her. Trump has appealed the verdict against him ...

starship.paint (exalt) 03:04, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

Votes for part 2

• Support - the content is WP:DUE, as shown in international coverage in sources below, and the content closely follows the verdict form, which states: Did Ms. Carroll prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that 1. Mr. Trump raped Ms Carroll? NO. Using this wording, we avoid connotations that suggest that Trump did rape Carroll but should not pay anything, or connotations that suggest that it was proven that Trump did not rape Carroll, which is slightly different. There is also a WP:BLP issue to resolve if we describe the rape allegation but do not describe that that it was found to be unproven. starship.paint (exalt) 03:05, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
  • Here is the link to my green box list of 25+ mainstream sources on the rape content that was obviously shifted by another editor. starship.paint (exalt) 23:14, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
• Support: Adding that Trump was not found guilty of rape solves some possible NPOV issues. The Capitalist forever (talk) 06:17, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
• If the article says anything about "forcibly raped and groped her", then it should say that the rape was not proven. If the article doesn't say this allegation, then it doesn't matter to me. I don't have an opinion whether the article should mention the allegations or not. —Lights and freedom (talk ~ contribs) 03:34, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
• Support inclusion not for the NPOV description, but rather for the more strict WP:DUE and WP:RSUW reasoning. It is covered in many prominent HQRSes about this topic (DJT) lasting over time and in depth. It is a very notable event in Trump's life, and our sources reflect that. This content, thereby, deserves at least minimal inclusion. — Shibbolethink 06:34, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
• Support inclusion on NPOV and DUE grounds. Regardless of the specific arguments by editors hoping to exclude the rape finding, let's just be clear about the result they desire: a page that only mentions the findings that were adverse to Trump and excludes the non-adverse findings. That's an obvious NPOV defect, and it's not consistent with how reliable sources have covered the jury's findings: As starship's list shows, and as I said above, every reliable covering the findings has reported the rape finding and the sexual abuse/defamation findings. See CNN, NBC News, New York Times, CBS News. And, frankly, the notion that readers can scour this other page if they want to know about the existence of the non-adverse finding is just ridiculous. I'd also incorporate my full opinion above, in which I responded to various arguments made in favor of exclusion.--Jerome Frank Disciple 13:01, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
• No This is all WP:NOTNEWS framing of the content. Misplaced Pages is not a newspaper. We would need tertiary RS and expert opinion to establish that mention of rape is DUE for this article. This question and the citations to news coverage ignores the views stated by many editors in the prior discussion. SPECIFICO talk 15:27, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose Part 1 is sufficient. --Jayron32 11:44, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
• The problem is that part 1 is already too detailed and too long, yet it requires the inclusion of part 2 since we can't bring up the rape allegation without bringing up the jury verdict about it. I oppose the framing of either proposal. DFlhb (talk) 11:50, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
• Support — The single sentence proposed is required, otherwise only the formal accusation that succeeded is included and not the formal accusation that failed, and the depiction would be one-sided. Bob K31416 (talk) 12:25, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

• Support inclusion of the rape verdict per Jerome Frank Disciple. As in Part 1, my !vote is not meant to be an endorsement of the specific text, just the notion that the rape verdict should be mentioned. Ultimately, there are two strong argument for inclusion. (1) The rape verdict has been extensively covered in reliable sources and the same sources that include the other findings. Go see the numerous references brough by starship below. (2) There is a NPOV issue in only mentioning what he was found liable for. It's POV cherry-picking of the verdict to only show the adverse findings by the jury. Iamreallygoodatcheckers 15:02, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
• No. Oddly, Trump himself isn't announcing that he was found liable for sexual abuse and not for rape. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 15:15, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

Comment: POV Framing of question

This section is framed with POV prominence given to the rape text. Here is the alternative:

In May 2023, a federal jury in Manhattan found Trump civilly liable for sexually abusing and defaming E. Jean Carroll, awarding her $5 million.

This fits the longstanding narrative of the article. It should have been posted with equal prominence to get neutral reactions to the proposed choice. SPECIFICO talk 12:18, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

*Support — The single sentence proposed is required, otherwise only the formal accusation that succeeded is included and not the formal accusation that failed, and the depiction would be one-sided. Bob K31416 (talk) 12:25, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

• @Bob K31416 I just want to make sure—are you meaning to support starship.paint's proposal or the proposal SPECIFICO added in the middle here? @SPECIFICO I'm going to segment off your proposal into its own section to avoid this kind of confusion later. Bob, for now I'll leave your support under Specifico's proposal (even though based on your other comments I don't think that's what you meant) and let you move it up if that's what you intended.--Jerome Frank Disciple 12:41, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. I am moving it to the section where it was originally. Bob K31416 (talk) 13:20, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

Of course! He just reverted me turning his proposal into a subsection ... so we'll just have to keep an eye here, because no, in order for people to properly voice their opinion on the part 2 proposal, they need to make sure they're keeping their position above the "alternative" that was shoehorned into the middle of the section.--Jerome Frank Disciple 13:35, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose SPECIFICO alternative: This proposal censors the non adverse finding while including the adverse findings. See additional reasoning below. Would be willing to accept Space's "battery and defamation" alternative below.--Jerome Frank Disciple 12:44, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

SPECIFICO, Could you move this discussion of POV Framing of question, which looks like a subsection, to the discussion section? Otherwise it may be disruptive. Bob K31416 (talk)

I've added the word "comment" to address your concern. It is the same question being asked by OP, except that OP framed the question in a way that presumes the response that "rape" etc. should be included. I added the short version that was in the article and endorsed by various editors. This is one of the reasons I tried (and failed) to save everybody's time and attention by first getting agreement as to whether this poll was a good idea or well-constructed. SPECIFICO talk 14:14, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

It is the same question being asked by OP ... Sorry, just for clarification, are you saying that it's a comment on Part 1?--Jerome Frank Disciple 14:18, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

Discussion for part 2

These are contemporaneous news reports and are not indicative of due weight for Trump's top-level biography page in an encyclopedia. Any judgment based on such inference is invalid. SPECIFICO talk 15:37, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

This argument holds very little weight in my opinion, per WP:NOTFINISHED. If that's true, then you are welcome to remove it in the future when it is no longer relevant. Until then, our sources clearly say it is DUE, so it should be included. — Shibbolethink 17:03, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

@SPECIFICO: We would need tertiary RS and expert opinion to establish that mention of rape is DUE for this article.
Where in the policies and guidelines are you deriving this argument from? WP:DUE and WP:TERTIARY do not say that. They say it only comes down to tertiary sources when the secondary sources disagree. In this case, they do not. There are tens of thousands of news sources (many high quality) covering this event in just the last 5 days, in some places even more than the Access Hollywood tape:

	"Trump verdict E Jean Carroll"	"Trump Access Hollywood Tape"
Google News:	111,000	4,460
Google Scholar:	7,910	10,900
Gale OneFile:	797	3,990
EBSCO:	117	383

— Shibbolethink 17:49, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

Misuse and misunderstanding of search results to support invalid and false conclusion "lies, damned lies, and statistics" as the saying goes, does not tell us anything about due weight for an encyclopedia article. Search results that have survived seven years are highly significant per our 10-year test and this is a strong indication of noteworthiness for an encyclopeda. Search results that have barely made seven days are an artifact of the sorting algorithms used by search engines to produce results that are highly probable to be what users sought. This is a baldfaced equivocation and this table is worthless to us. The fact is that with each passing day, a smaller percentage of the secondary and tertiary sources on the trial even mention "rape". The significant fact is that he was found liable for battery and defamation. BTW: Nobody has cited the WP:TERTIARY policy section. That is a strawman. SPECIFICO talk 11:52, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

I must admit, I also didn't understand your comment that we would "need tertiary RS and expert opinion to establish that mention of rape is DUE".--Jerome Frank Disciple 12:50, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

Search results that have barely made seven days are an artifact of the sorting algorithms used by search engines to produce results that are highly probable to be what users sought
Why would that affect more impartial/comprehensive databases like EBSCO and Gale? — Shibbolethink 14:56, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

Same issue. SPECIFICO talk 15:01, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

Part 3: Where should the content be placed?

Should it be a subsection in the Post-presidency section, perhaps as a subsection titled Lawsuit for sexual battery and defamation, or should it be under the Public profile section under the subsection Misogyny and allegations of sexual misconduct? starship.paint (exalt) 03:04, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

Votes for part 3

• In the misogyny and sexual harassment section. —Lights and freedom (talk ~ contribs) 03:35, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
• I would say in misogyny and sexual harrassment section as well.— Preceding unsigned comment added by The Capitalist forever (talk • contribs) 07:21, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
• Agreed with the above for Option B, for Misogyny and allegations of sexual misconduct. Per the principle of least astonishment, we have an imperative to put content where it would be most sought after. A person reading this table of contents would see the heading "Misogyny and allegations of sexual misconduct" and expect some content there about E. Jean Carroll's allegations of sexual misconduct and Trump's defamation towards her. Someone would not equally be "astonished" if this content were not present where investigations about his financial misconduct are, as these are largely two different spheres of Trump's WP:DUE-establishing WP:RSes. — Shibbolethink 06:29, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
• Post-presidency section, subsection "Sexual battery and defamation lawsuit", for now. Subsection heading possibly to be changed to "civil cases", later; there will likely be at least one other civil case, the NY case for fraud. I would not look for post-presidential criminal and civil actions against Trump in the "public profile" (Trump's public image) section or on Public image of Donald Trump, I'd look in post-presidency and Legal affairs of Donald Trump. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 12:28, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
• Narrowly Option B. I sort-of see what Space4Time3Continuum2x is saying, but I also think that someone looking at the misogyny and sexual harassment section would be surprised to not see the lawsuit there. The lawsuit is just inherently germane to that section--Jerome Frank Disciple 13:06, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
• In the sexual harassment section. --Jayron32 11:45, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
• It depends - If we end up with it being short, like a sentence or two, I think the misogyny and sexual harassment section would be fine, but if it's long it could be UNDUE in that section and require a separate section under post-presidency. I think ideally we should have a shorter sentence in the misogyny section. Iamreallygoodatcheckers 15:09, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

Discussion for part 3

Re @Iamreallygoodatcheckers would you support having a longer inclusion in the post-presidency and then a shorter mention in the misogyny section? — Shibbolethink 15:10, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

I don't think so. I don't like redundancy in article, especially articles that are too long. Iamreallygoodatcheckers 15:12, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

eh, it was worth a try. — Shibbolethink 15:12, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

Miscellaneous

References

1. ^ Cite error: The named reference verdict-text was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

starship.paint (exalt) 03:04, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

• @Iamreallygoodatcheckers, Anythingyouwant, The Capitalist forever, SPECIFICO, and DFlhb:. See above multi-part discussion. starship.paint (exalt) 03:24, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
• @Alcibiades979, Slatersteven, The Four Deuces, Objective3000, and Jerome Frank Disciple:. See above multi-part discussion. starship.paint (exalt) 03:25, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
• @Jayron32, Space4Time3Continuum2x, Bob K31416, Mandruss, and NeverEndingForever:. See above multi-part discussion. starship.paint (exalt) 03:25, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
• @Lights and freedom, MelanieN, ValarianB, Some1, and Shibbolethink:. See above multi-part discussion. I think that's everyone who participated in the recent past discussions, and I apologise if I left anyone out. starship.paint (exalt) 03:29, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
• @Starship.paint: have you considered turning this to a RfC? Iamreallygoodatcheckers 04:18, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
  • @Iamreallygoodatcheckers: - I thought there were enough potential participants even without an RFC, but I do not object if you choose to turn it into one. starship.paint (exalt) 07:01, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

• Comment I prefer structuring text to emphasize important information rather than using a chronological narrative. In this case, the jury decision is more important than details about the original complaint. So the para should begin with the decision. Also saying that someone had proved something is tendentious. We would say for example that Charles Manson was found guilty of murder, not that the prosecutor proved he was guilty of murder. Furthermore, the decision is not final since it is subject to appeal and civil courts decide on a balance of probablities. So we should avoid a triumphant tone in the text. TFD (talk) 04:24, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

  Agreed. I think the propositions shouldn't be text-proposals, just general ideas being brought forth, such as "Part 1: should we include he was found liable for sexual abuse and defamation" and "Part 2: should we say he was not found liable for rape." Iamreallygoodatcheckers 04:35, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

  Agree largely with TFDs arguments above, I will also say the wording is awkward not just tendentious. There has to be a better way to word the content than such a roundabout phrase about having not proved X or Y. If there isn't, I am glad it is close to the source. — Shibbolethink 06:35, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

  @The Four Deuces, Iamreallygoodatcheckers, and Shibbloethink: - apologies that I did not word it in the way that would best satisfy you. May I suggest supporting the content in spirit but raising the possibility of some re-ordering and re-wording to the text? starship.paint (exalt) 07:01, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

  yes I agree, I support the text as written but would prefer a tighter version. I do agree with the choice (intentional or unintentional) to leave out certain UNDUE details like 1) which court these things are in (NY state supreme, 2nd circuit appeals), 2) the very specific dates, 3) the makeup of the jury, etc. I think any of those details would likely be UNDUE on this page. — Shibbolethink 16:48, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

  @Shibbolethink:, typo, ^ starship.paint (exalt) 07:02, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

  I think given the particulars of the jury finding, it actually makes sense to lead with the explanation (that's what I did in my proposed version). I do think the order here is a little strange—I'd personally state all the findings before the damages (e.g., "Applying the preponderance of the evidence standard, the jury found that Carroll had proven that Trump sexually abused and defamed her but not that he had raped her; Carroll was awarded $5 million in damages."), but of course if we lead with "Trump was found liable for", then that will be even harder to do. I also think the second half of the first sentence in part 1 is a bit awkward. (Maybe "In November 2022, columnist E. Jean Carroll sued Trump for battery, alleging that he "forcibly raped and groped her" in a Manhattan department store in the mid 1990s, and for defamation on the basis of Trump's 2022 comment that Carroll "completely made up" the allegation.? Idk rough drafts.) But we can nitpick the wording after the RFC.--Jerome Frank Disciple 13:16, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

• Comment. Both proposals are too detailed for this bio. In May 2023, a jury found Trump liable in a civil case for battery and defamation of journalist E. Jean Carroll and ordered Trump to pay her $5 million in total damages. Trump appealed the verdict. Either with {{Main}} or inline link, depending on location. I agree with TFD that the jury decision is more important than the original complaint, and don't agree with the other proposals. This version is devoid of any "tone" and sufficient until the verdict becomes final or is thrown out by the appeals court. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 13:22, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

  I would be okay with this version (no NPOV concern), but I disagree that a version that names the claims is inherently too much detail. I do think some have been confused because this was, temporarily, given its own subsection, and they didn't realize that was controversial at the time—that's the impression I was under when I drafted my proposed long version. As I've said, given the rarity of civil suits against former presidents, and the even greater rarity of jury findings, I do think the suit and the findings are inherently relevant and sufficiently notable to include here. And even my hyper-detailed "long version" was ultimately ... four sentences.--Jerome Frank Disciple 13:41, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

  "battery and defamation" is not a good summary. This is not "Legalapedia" it's Misplaced Pages. We should say "sexual abuse and defamation" as that is what our highest quality RSes say. Otherwise I think @Space4Time3Continuum2x's version is fine, if perhaps too tersely worded. I would, for example, say "Shortly after, Trump appealed the verdict" or "Trump has appealed the verdict" or similar and remove the "her" in "pay her". I would also include at least one or two more sources since this is a BLP issue and that guideline recommends multiple independent sources on stuff like this. I would combine @Jerome Frank Disciple's version and your version, STC. E.g. copyedit:

  In May 2023, a jury found Trump liable for sexual abuse and defamation against columnist E. Jean Carroll and ordered Trump to pay $5 million in total damages. Carroll had sued Trump in civil court, alleging that he "forcibly raped and groped her" in a Manhattan department store in the mid 1990s. Trump has appealed the decision.

— Shibbolethink 16:49, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

I'd, with regret, have to strongly object to that proposal. Particularly and especially if we mention the rape accusation (as your proposed version does), I think we have to mention the rape finding. (Though, to be clear, as I've said, I think we should mention that finding regardless.) I know that it doesn't mention the findings first—as I said above, I'm not convinced doing so is prudent here given the semi-complex findings—but I think this is the best version: (I'm leaving out references, which I've previously included, because they're easy to add and nothing here is controversial):

--Jerome Frank Disciple 17:16, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

Several others have said the version you included here is not their ideal because of the order of sentences.if we mention the rape accusation (as your proposed version does), I think we have to mention the rape findingfair point. I would agree if we use that quote, we should also mention that the jury did not find him liable for that. If we end up leaving out the rape finding, then we could summarize instead as:

In May 2023, a jury found Trump liable for sexual abuse and defamation against columnist E. Jean Carroll and ordered Trump to pay $5 million in total damages. Carroll had sued Trump in civil court, alleging that Trump sexually assaulted her in a Manhattan department store in the mid 1990s. Trump has appealed the decision.

— Shibbolethink 17:18, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

Several others have said the version you included here is not their ideal because of the order of sentences. But even more have said that the rape accusation and finding should be included. (I'm also not sure a consensus agree with TFD's argument. In the above discussion, one thing that was repeatedly mentioned was that we should say that a jury found that Carroll didn't prove that Trump had raped her, not that the jury found that Trump didn't rape her. Shouldn't the same logic apply to the other findings?) Now, Iamreallygoodatcheckers suggested a Part I that says the adverse findings and a Part II that says the non adverse finding, but I'm not sure how to phrase that without a lot of awkwardness. Frankly, I don' think it's at all unusual to start with a lawsuit being filed before saying the result of the lawsuit—particularly in a span of 3 sentences.

@Shibboleth: Best I can do (to meet Iamreallygoodatcheckers's suggestion combined with yours and Space4Time3Continuum2x's proposals):

In May 2023, a jury found Trump liable for battery and defamation against columnist E. Jean Carroll and ordered Trump to pay $5 million. Carroll had said that Trump, in the mid 1990s, "forcibly raped and groped her" and, in 2022, falsely commented that Carroll "completely made up" the allegation. The jury found that Carroll established that Trump sexually abused and defamed her but not that he had raped her. Trump appealed the decision.

--Jerome Frank Disciple 17:33, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

I would be fine with this version, as a compromise between my preferences and those of others. It's comprehensive, succinct, takes up very little space, and is clearly DUE. — Shibbolethink 17:38, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

Aw look at us go. I kept fumbling with how to mention the adverse findings first without awkwardly mentioning the rape finding ... and this possible solution came to me when I took another look at @Space4Time3Continuum2x:'s proposed text. Also pinging @Iamreallygoodatcheckers: and @Starship.paint: to see how they feel about this.--Jerome Frank Disciple 17:47, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

Immediately after the verdict, the Fox headline was “Trump exonerated from rape charge”. I fear saying that rape was not found without explaining just what the finding of sexual assault means will lead to guys thinking that’s just like when I stole a kiss from Betty Sue after the prom and she said “yecch”. Much ado. Sexual assault is a grievous attack and we may come across as belittling it by saying, well, could have been worse. O3000, Ret. (talk) 20:31, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

So the official finding was "sexual abuse". Just want to make sure we're using the right terms. Separately, frankly, though I usually hate when this is invoked, that strikes me as a WP:RGW argument—that we should set the record straight. Update: And I also don't think anyone would seriously see a "sexual abuse" finding and think "oh he probably just kissed her without her consent". That seems like a pretty absurd stretch. If you want to spend more words describing the claims, that's one thing, but "Let's censor the rape finding so that people don't have this absurd interpretation of a sexual-abuse finding" just doesn't fly with me. It's enough to describe the claims and findings accurately—using their proper names—and depend on the article on the case to delve into more detail.--Jerome Frank Disciple 20:37, 14 May 2023 (UTC) --21:00, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

Nothing whatsoever to do with RGW. This has to do with leaving the reader with an accurate picture. The jury found for battery, which is worse than assault. Yes, use the correct terms. O3000, Ret. (talk) 20:50, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

You can strike them. As for what other people might think, there were women at his rallies after the Access Hollywood tape with t-shirts pointing downward saying "grab me here." It would be a mistake to believe everyone who reads WP thinks rationally about sexual battery. O3000, Ret. (talk) 21:08, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

Clarification: I updated my prior post, marked it as updated, even pinged the user to alert him to the update. The user then accused me of deleting a post after he had responded to it. I pointed this out on the user's talk page ... alas, the claim is still here. Oh well.--Jerome Frank Disciple 21:37, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

I have run into four ECs trying to respond to you as you keep editing your own responses. And anyone is welcome to read the nonsense you posted to my TP, along with Bish's response to you. O3000, Ret. (talk) 22:05, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

So you concede what you said is wrong? Thanks, I'll RPA it.--Jerome Frank Disciple 22:07, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

Read Bish's response to you and stop these attacks. O3000, Ret. (talk) 22:24, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

I'm going to end the discussion here. You said that I deleted a comment after you responded to it. I said that wasn't true. You came back and said "well you were editing your comment so much that I ran into edit conflicts". I apologize for the edit conflicts! But those edit conflicts don't make what you said true. I brought this up on your page. You asked me not to respond there. I tried collapsing the discussion here because we are way off point, but you—despite complaining about how I leave snide comments in edit summaries—called that collapse "disgusting behavior" and reverted.

If you want to keep discussing this, feel free, but it's not really appropriate for this talk page, and, as such, I'm not responding to this thread anymore. Once you're done spilling ink, if you would collapse, I'm sure I and the other editors trying to discuss the topic at hand would appreciate it.--Jerome Frank Disciple 22:31, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

You just falsely accused me of making a PA by leaving an RPA after an admin said it was you that caused the problem. It was not a PA. Yours was. Stop it. It is not conducive to collaboration. O3000, Ret. (talk) 22:47, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

Space4T's version is good. "Battery" is accurate and can be wikilinked. Oppose the Shibbolethink and JFD versions. We already say that many women accused him of rape, so there's no NPOV benefit to going into detail about one (in fact it harms NPOV, since we'd be going into more detail about the one rape claim that was rejected, than about all the others). There's also no point in adding falsely commented that Carroll "completely made up".... That's the reason for the defamation claim, but the link isn't made explicit, so readers who don't understand what sexual assault has to do with defamation won't understand it any better. Readers should just be directed to the Carroll v Trump article. "Falsely" is also redundant with mentioning the verdict. Too many words that don't serve any purpose. Strunk wept. DFlhb (talk) 04:31, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

Would you apply the reverse logic? If he had been found liable for rape, would you say, "Well we can't include that because going into that detail might make readers think the other accusations are also true?"--Jerome Frank Disciple 12:32, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

Also: "falsely" isn't redundant? That sentence is describing Carroll's allegations. Falsity is inherent to a defamation claim.* (Okay they're like two states where that's not always true but I'm talking generally.)--Jerome Frank Disciple 13:21, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

Meta-question

Should we proceed with the new structured poll above , or is further discussion better so we agree on options to be polled?

1. Proceed with the "multi-part proposal" as identified in the poll above.
2. Abort this poll and continue discussion to collaboratively identify questions for any new poll.
   

SPECIFICO talk 11:31, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

• Option 2 As already commented above, Starship - despite all good intentiions -- has not worded the poll well enought to reflect what editors think would be constructive choices. Excessive structure and limited choices only force editors to add more and more alternatives, which is what Starship says they wanted to remedy. Cancel this poll and continue discussion, first identifying key issues of disagreement. Unfortunately, the poll above fails to do so. See hat below for further rationale SPECIFICO talk 11:38, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

This poll is premature and poorly constituted, because it does not address the the crux of the issues raised by editors above. Forcing a discussion into a second structured poll, when the first was premature, will only impede the effort to agree on what text should be added to this article -- which entails NOTNEWS and WEIGHT, rather than how many secondary news sources we can google. Without any disrespect to Starship.paint, this was a bad move, and we can return to any future poll after WP:RFCBEFORE has given us the right structure to find a good solution. Now that we've been asked to go through another poll, we need first to determine whether that is a reasonable way forward at this juncture. SPECIFICO talk 15:27, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

• Option 1. I do think the selected possibilities were unfortunate, but I don't think this discussion is close to agreeing on some basic points, points that I think it would help to resolve before we try to find the perfect wording. At the very least, the RFC can hopefully provide consensus on those points.--Jerome Frank Disciple 13:18, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

  Yes, but the poll does not address the most fundamental issues. It's a glaring entrenchment on the very problem it purports to solve - a premature poll with narrowly defined choices that leads to further alternatives and dissents.— Preceding unsigned comment added by SPECIFICO (talk • contribs) 13:38, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

• Option 1 the structured proposal above is perfectly delineated to move forward on this. I think a consensus will likely arise out of it, and we can move on from there. If necessary, we can solicit wider input from the applicable noticeboards. But no, I do not think we should abandon that format and to do so would be tendentious/counterproductive to achieving consensus, in my opinion. — Shibbolethink 17:00, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
• Option 2, strongly. Presenting two proposed texts, with one as the baseline and one as the add-on, basically guarantees that the baseline text will "win". Not an effective way to structure a discussion or resolve a dispute, especially when the "baseline" text is far too detailed and not a straightforward, common-sense option. DFlhb (talk) 22:44, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
• Option 2. What DFlhb said. Should we include the basic facts? vs. Should we include the content on rape? - Starship.paint, that's an evaluation right there, i.e., who wouldn't want to include the basic facts. The basic facts for this top bio are that a jury in a civil case found Trump liable for battery and defamation and that he is appealing the verdict. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 11:21, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

Different versions of the text (RFC?)

I, personally, think this is headed towards an RFC, and we should probably discuss what, exactly will be proposed there.

I don't think we need to present the question of where to include the information. Instead, I think we should present options for discussing the lawsuit. Since I don't think we're going to come to a consensus on our own, we should probably stop criticizing each other's proposals, and, instead, each faction should start making sure their view is captured by the proposal we present at an RFC. As a starting matter, I would suggest the following four options be included:

1. @Space4Time3Continuum2x:'s version:
   1. In May 2023, a jury found Trump liable in a civil case for battery and defamation of journalist E. Jean Carroll and ordered Trump to pay her $5 million in total damages. Trump appealed the verdict.
2. @SPECIFICO:'s version:
   1. In May 2023, a federal jury in Manhattan found Trump civilly liable for sexually abusing and defaming E. Jean Carroll, awarding her $5 million.
3. My/@Shibbolethink:'s version:
   1. In May 2023, a jury found Trump liable for battery and defamation against columnist E. Jean Carroll and ordered Trump to pay $5 million. Carroll had said that Trump, in the mid 1990s, "forcibly raped and groped her" and, in 2022, falsely commented that Carroll "completely made up" the allegation. The jury found that Carroll established that Trump sexually abused and defamed her but not that he had raped her. Trump appealed the decision.
4. No discussion of lawsuit.

From my perspective, Space4Time3Continuum2x's version is the most neutral but also the least informative; Specifico's version is brief and more informative, but the least neutral; my/shibbolethink's version is the most informative but a bit long.--Jerome Frank Disciple 13:20, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

I just wanted to add, I don't think we necessarily need an RFC, if there is a consensus clearly established in the section above. RFCs are not necessary to establish consensus, the section above can do just fine, especially if, after some time as passed, we ask for a formal closure at WP:CR.We for sure do not need option 4 or option 2 in an RFC, given that these are overwhelmingly not going to establish consensus given the section above. Option 2 can be included if you want. But it would be wrong to include option 4 when there is a clear and evident consensus to include something.I do agree that your framing of directly comparing versions is ideal for an RFC, though. I just don't think we need an RFC. — Shibbolethink 15:00, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

Fair enough! Obviously it's a tough ask for an involved editor to put on closer shoes, but can I ask which way you think the consensus is going? In terms of headcount (insert standard "not a vote" disclaimer here) in part 2: I see 6 include; 4 exclude; and 1 saying if the rape allegation is mentioned, then include.--Jerome Frank Disciple 15:20, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

Yes I would say, though I am obviously partial, I think it's quite clear we have a building consensus in favor of both part 1 and part 2. Part 2 is less clear than part 1, but I think if I were to close it right now, I would say "marginal consensus in favor" or similar. What would really help is some outside input, so I'll probably place notices at the WP:BLPN, WP:NPOVN noticeboards. (and then note it at the top, as is recommended at WP:CANVAS) — Shibbolethink 15:26, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

I sort-of wonder if we should start a new (cleaner) section to present these options before getting other noticeboards. For example, I think the specific wording proposed in part I (which invokes one theory of battery Carroll prevailed on while excluding the theory of battery Trump prevailed on) has an NPOV issue without Part II, but that Space's short proposal doesn't have that issue, and more than a few editors have said they don't support the specific wordings proposed.--Jerome Frank Disciple 15:31, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

I think doing so after we already have a lot of participation here could be considered tendentious and counterproductive to achieving consensus. People aren't dumb, they can figure out the debate that's ongoing, I really do think so. And then, once consensus on Part 2 is clearer, then we can move forward on a version. It's a moot point to consider some of the above versions if Part 2 is clearly a yes or a no. — Shibbolethink 15:45, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

• If we are going to have a RfC do we really need to include both 1 and 2? They are practically the same sentence. Iamreallygoodatcheckers 15:02, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

  For me, version 1 is more acceptable than version 2. Bearing in mind that the causes of action in this lawsuit there were for battery and defamation, but there were three theories of battery (rape, sexual abuse, and forcible touching) the plaintiff argued—the jury only had to accept one of those theories (hence the verdict form allowing them to skip sexual abuse and forcible touching if they found rape ... and allowing them to skip forcible touching if they found sexual abuse). I think it's accurate and complete to say that Trump was found liable for battery and defamation. But I think once you open the door to the specific theories of battery—i.e. once you mention sexual abuse—you have to discuss all the findings on those theories—i.e. that they found that the evidence indicated that Trump sexually abused Carroll but not that he raped Carroll. That said, few people have expressed an option like version 1 as their "first choice"—almost everyone's proposed drafts (and even SpaceX's longer version) include the sexual-abuse theory (and, if they support its inclusion, the rape theory)--Jerome Frank Disciple 15:09, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

Forbes estimate repetition/concerns

Hello! I'm not sure precisely where to place the content, but it seems to me that, though cited to different articles, this page repeats Forbes's estimates of Trump's wealth in the wealth section. Now, arguably, the first comment is more of a mini-lead, especially because the second mention gets more detail, but given how short the section is, overall, I think it might be worth it to only include the estimates once. First reference:

Records released by the FEC showed at least $1.4 billion in assets and $265 million in liabilities. Forbes estimated his net worth at $4.5 billion in 2015 and $3.1 billion in 2018.

The latter is cited to this Business Insider article.

Forbes estimated in October 2018 that his net worth declined from $4.5 billion in 2015 to $3.1 billion in 2017 and his product licensing income from $23 million to $3 million.

This sentence is cited to this Forbes article.

Just in case it concerns someone else: The identity of the dollar figures but variance in years here concerned me, though, upon further investigation ... I think it's okay? The second source (the Forbes article) was written in October 2018 and says:

His net worth, by our calculation, has dropped from $4.5 billion in 2015 to $3.1 billion the last two years, ....

I think the product-licensing info should be included, but I was wondering if anyone had thoughts about only including these numbers once. If we are using the first paragraph as a preview of the biggest points, we could perhaps phrase it differently? I.e. "Forbes estimated his net worth dropped by $1.4 billion between 2015 and 2018."?--Jerome Frank Disciple 18:40, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

Wording change re:Greenberg call

Hello! I saw @SPECIFICO: reverted me here and asked that I get consensus for this change, so I figured best to bring this to the talk page.

I'd like to discuss this sentence in the article

Journalist Jonathan Greenberg reported in 2018 that Trump, using the pseudonym "John Barron" and claiming to be a Trump Organization official, called him in 1984 to falsely assert that he owned "in excess of ninety percent" of the Trump family's business to secure a higher ranking on the Forbes 400 list of wealthy Americans.

I noticed a few things about that sentence: First, having read the source, let's be clear: Greenberg was saying that Trump falsely made a claim to him. The point wasn't what Trump intended to do on the call. As such "Trump called him to falsely assert" is unfortunately ambiguous, and it's probably better stated that Trump called him and falsely asserted the info. Second, the double "to X" in the sentence makes the sentence, in my opinion, a bit awkwardly constructed. As such, I suggested:

Journalist Jonathan Greenberg reported in 2018 that Trump, using the pseudonym "John Barron" and claiming to be a Trump Organization official, called him in 1984 and, to secure a higher ranking on the Forbes 400 list of wealthy Americans, falsely asserted that he owned "in excess of ninety percent" of the Trump family's business.

Admittedly, I still don't love that wording. A bit more radically, I might say:

In 2018, journalist Jonathan Greenberg reported on a 1984 call he had with Trump, who was using the pseudonym "John Barron" and claiming to be a Trump Organization official. According to Greenberg, Trump falsely asserted that he owned "in excess of ninety percent" of the Trump family's business in order to secure a higher ranking on the Forbes 400 list of wealthy Americans.

Any thoughts?--Jerome Frank Disciple 22:44, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

Wow yeah I find this entire set of content really confusingly worded. Especially the "him" with unclear antecedent. I would personally change it to something like:

Journalist Jonathan Greenberg reported in 2018 that Trump, during a phone call with Greeberg in 1984, used the pseudonym "John Barron" and claimed to be a Trump Organization official. Greenberg said Trump used the Barron pseudonym to falsely assert that he (Trump) owned a stake "in excess of ninety percent" of his family's business to secure a higher ranking on the Forbes 400 list of wealthy Americans.

As it stands, the current wording is really difficult to parse. I had to read it several times to actually understand what claims are being made. And, as a scientist/physician, I guarantee I regularly read more dense and strange jargon on a daily basis than the average Misplaced Pages-reader. — Shibbolethink 16:29, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

I'm glad I don't need to question my literacy after giving the article text a double take. I'm good with your proposal—certainly prefer it to the status quo, though I wonder if we need the second reference to the pseudonym (and repetition of the word pseudonym). Could we just say, combining your version with my last proposed version, "Greenberg said that Trump falsely asserted that he (Trump) ...."? Not super important to me either way; your call.--Jerome Frank Disciple 16:37, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

Yeah I was on the fence about it. I think that is a fair change. Oh I see how this can become even more confusing. I was toying around with removing the "he (Trump)" but I think we need it to make clear that Trump wasn't asserting that John Barron owned >90%, but in fact, (as Barron) asserted that Trump did. Okay i think that's fair, to remove the second pseudonym reference and maintain the "he (Trump) owned a stake..." It makes sense, there are no unclear antecedents, and it's relatively concise. Will implement unless significant disagreement arises here. — Shibbolethink 16:38, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

What? Huh? I think I just simplified and clarified that sentence without the use of a stake. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 19:19, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

The current version looks fine to me, but also does have a few overly long sentences. It would be my second choice, but I'm generally open to compromise. — Shibbolethink 19:36, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

I'd also prefer the shorter version, but honestly from my perspective both versions are better than the previous version, so I'm content. :) --Jerome Frank Disciple 19:45, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

The most recent change is not an improvement. Please continue to use this talk thread instead of jumping into the article, where revert rules and other needless complications are forced.

Journalist Jonathan Greenberg reported that Trump called him in 1984, introducing himself as the fictitious Trump Organization offical "John Barron". Greenberg said Trump used the Barron pseudonym to falsely assert that he (Trump) owned a stake "in excess of ninety percent" of his family's business to secure a higher ranking on the Forbes 400 list of wealthy Americans.

that's better, but there are many similar improvements that could be made. See how it's described on the John Barron page. Also, there's no reason to confine this content only to Greenberg's experience. SPECIFICO talk 22:29, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

Was following Space's lead and being bold :) I personally prefer Space's and Shibbolethink's versions to yours, but we'll see what they think! Just for clarification, this was Space's version:

Journalist Jonathan Greenberg reported in 2018 that Trump, posing as Trump Organization official "John Barron", called him in 1984 and falsely asserted that Trump owned "in excess of ninety percent" of his father's business to get a higher ranking for himself on the Forbes 400 list of wealthy Americans.

The change I suggested was:

Journalist Jonathan Greenberg reported in 2018 that Trump, posing as Trump Organization official "John Barron", called him in 1984 and, to get a higher ranking for himself on the Forbes 400 list of wealthy Americans, falsely asserted that Trump owned "in excess of ninety percent" of his father's business.

I'll revert that change since you objected here and reinsert Space's version, which I think 3 people said they preferred to what was there before.

I'm not sure what you mean about "confine this content only to Greenberg's experience" ... it's Greenberg ... describing a phone call he had. Not that many other people would have experienced that!--Jerome Frank Disciple 22:37, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

@SPECIFICO@Space4Time3Continuum2x@Shibbolethink ... I actually think the current version is massive improvement over what used to be! Great work all.--Jerome Frank Disciple 14:24, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

Intro to 2016 presidential campaign

Jerome Frank Disciple, I don't think that we need to say that but meh. The bigger problem in this long article was the additional cite. BTW, except for Obama, the articles on other presidents also don't mention the announcement. The first African-American candidate was historic, golden escalator — not so much. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 13:23, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

Hey fair enough! If you feel strongly on it, feel free to revert—I won't suggest another intro. For me, I thought it was a little jarring that we heard about Trump deciding to run or speculating about a run in 2000 and 2011/12, but then for 2016 it felt like it just jumped straight into "anyway so trump was in the primary, and ...". And absolutely agree re: Obama/Trump. (Though if he sees this, I expect Trump will commission the world's first gold-plated sculpture of a man riding a golden escalator in order to add to the historicalness.)--Jerome Frank Disciple 13:29, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

Agreed with @Space4Time3Continuum2x. I think if we find in a few years that the "golden escalator" has staying power and is still mentioned in RSes despite time passing, then we could revisit this and consider inclusion. But I don't see a lot of evidence that this particular factoid is still relevant/DUE. — Shibbolethink 16:34, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

Wording re: Rebukes

Hello! @SPECIFICO: reverted this edit , and I'd like to open the floor to more discussion.

The passage as it currently stands is in the "Presidency" section. It reads:

As president, Trump disparaged courts and judges whom he disagreed with, often in personal terms, and questioned the judiciary's constitutional authority. Trump's attacks on the courts have drawn rebukes from observers, including sitting federal judges, who are concerned about the effect of Trump's statements on the judicial independence and public confidence in the judiciary.

It cites two articles from 2017 and one from 2019.

As I see it, the sentence as it currently stands is a mix of present perfect and present tense. But ... why? Based on the years of the sources, it's clear the rebukes that are cited refer to what the paragraph opens with—the disparagement he made "as president". Now, I'm sure some 2020 and maybe 2021 sources could be found re-echoing those points, but is there a present-day continuation that makes present-perfect structure really useful here? I would suggest:

As president, Trump disparaged courts and judges whom he disagreed with, often in personal terms, and questioned the judiciary's constitutional authority. Trump's attacks on the courts drew rebukes from observers, including sitting federal judges, concerned about the effect of Trump's statements on the judicial independence and public confidence in the judiciary.

SPECIFICO said that this edit "completely changes the meaning of the text". I disagree, but if that's true, then all the more reason for the text to be changed, since neither the 2017 or 2019 articles could possibly be used to support a present-day continuation.--Jerome Frank Disciple 13:50, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

Edit was completely justified. Does not change the content or tone of the text, and is appropriately past tense, as all Misplaced Pages articles about past events (e.g. when Trump was president) are supposed to be. — Shibbolethink 16:03, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

FBI Investigations into Trump

Hello! At this point, I'm fairly used to @SPECIFICO: reverting me with a generic edit summary and then not following up when I post here, but I'd like more input on this revert, where, amongst other moves, SPECIFICO added back an uncited claim.--Jerome Frank Disciple 15:25, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I also cannot find any evidence in sources for that claim (folded into investigation, not ended) either. I'm going to restore these changes as supported by sourcing, and appropriately removing unsourced material. I will say SPECIFICO's reverts are sometimes justified, as in this edit, which I agree with. But yeah, wholesale and continual reversions here are often not very helpful, especially when not followed up by appropriate discussion per WP:BRD. — Shibbolethink 16:04, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

Yeah that particular edit was (prior to the reversion) discussed at #Intro to 2016 presidential campaign, and Space4Time3Continuum2x also expressed disagreement with it, so I think I'm the only one who thought it was an improvement—not objecting to that revert at all!--Jerome Frank Disciple 16:16, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

4000 legal actions

The second paragraph of the lead says he or his companies have been involved in more than 4,000 legal actions. According to a reliable book on this general subject, “Statistically, the typical US company making $1 billion plus in annual revenues faces 556 lawsuits per year, ranging from employment disputes to consumer injuries, copyright violations and contract performances.”* I’d remove the “4,000” number from the lead because it’s devoid of such context, it doesn’t even hint that almost half of those 4,000 cases were in regards to Trump’s casinos, with the overwhelming majority of those lawsuits brought by Trump, rather than brought against him. Is there a single article at Misplaced Pages about any American business that gives the number of that company’s legal cases in the lead? If there is such a lead at Misplaced Pages (I doubt it) then let’s see if it provides some context instead of just a contextless number.

• Noam, Eli. Media and Digital Management, p. 206 (Springer, 2019).

Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:09, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

I ... think I agree? For some extra context for people chiming in here, the number stems from the really cool USA Today graphic story. My problem is ... I'm not sure what legitimate message is supposed to be taken from the 4000 suits line—especially given that, as @Anythingyouwant notes, the 4000 suits number combines suits in which Trump/Trump entities were the plaintiff with suits in which they were the defendant. That USA Today story also confirms that Close to half the court cases involving Trump and his businesses over the last three decades involved his casinos. About 1,600 cases involve suits against gamblers who had credit at Trump-connected casinos and failed to pay their debts.

I'm not saying the number should be excised from the article, but why is it in the lead?--Jerome Frank Disciple 21:22, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

Follow up I would also lean towards thinking it's fine to note the source of a dominant plurality of the lawsuits, as Anythingyouwant did here (though I saw that was neverted on WP:DUE grounds). Wouldn't use that exact wording, but no need to nitpick on my end.--Jerome Frank Disciple 21:45, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

Follow up x2 Oh, I'm not sure I agree with the entire removal of the content from the article . I think more than one source actually reported on this, and it's probably due.--Jerome Frank Disciple 22:39, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

It might be okay with further sourcing and context. Such as mentioning what the biggest category of legal actions was (suits brought by his casinos). Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:50, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

I'm sorry—I think I have to revert there. I was in favor of the additional sentence you added, but I think it was a fairly well documented fact that he had been involved in many lawsuits. See: Slate, the Guardian, BBC, CNN GQ. But I'm definitely open to reworking what's there to add some context.--Jerome Frank Disciple 22:53, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

There used to be plenty of context. Here’s what it said in November 2019, for example: “ As of April 2018, Trump and his businesses had been involved in more than 4,000 state and federal legal actions, according to a running tally by USA Today. As of 2016, he or one of his companies had been the plaintiff in 1,900 cases and the defendant in 1,450. With Trump or his company as plaintiff, more than half the cases have been against gamblers at his casinos who had failed to pay off their debts. With Trump or his company as a defendant, the most common type of case involved personal injury cases at his hotels. In cases where there was a clear resolution, Trump's side won 451 times and lost 38.” Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:00, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

Clearly UNDUE detail for this bio article. He did not know how to run the casino business and extended credit where he shouldn't. SPECIFICO talk 23:18, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

Do we have a source saying that? (Confession: I know nothing about the casino industry.) --Jerome Frank Disciple 23:21, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

Yes we do. Here is a very lengthy article:. There are others. O3000, Ret. (talk) 00:12, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

Thanks! Though wait ... I might still be confused. So the contention is that Trump had to pursue debtors in court more than he should have because of mismanagement, right? Sorry, would you mind just pointing me to the section of the article that says that? (I'm sure it's there! It's just a long article—I'm mostly seeing reporting on how Trump borrowed at crazy high interest rates to build the casinos.)--Jerome Frank Disciple 00:19, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

Please, please, please read edits in context before responding with imagined reasoning and snarkiness. You asked for a source that said: He did not know how to run the casino business and extended credit where he shouldn't and I responded with an article exactly on point. Where did I contend that Trump had to pursue debtors in court more than he should have because of mismanagement? O3000, Ret. (talk) 00:28, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

First, let's just chill with the tone. You don't need to say please three times. You know that. I thanked you for providing the link; you can be nice back.

Second, ironically, ... uh, the context. Yes, you didn't contend anything. SPECIFICO, in reaction Anythingyouwant's note that most of the lawsuits were related to Trump's pursuit of casino debtors, said such a note was undue because "He did not know how to run the casino business and extended credit where he shouldn't."

Either way, I'm sorry for the confusion! I clearly didn't articulate my question well enough. I was thinking of what we're discussing in this section, i.e. whether it's worth it to note the amount of claims in which Trump/his casinos were pursuing casino debtors.--Jerome Frank Disciple 00:33, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

If it helps, I'm genuinely sorry if you sent a lot of time looking for that link. I can see how that would be frustrating. The reason I asked in the follow up message what the exact contention was ... was precisely because I realized we might not be on the same page. Regardless, we can get back to the article and the question at hand now.--Jerome Frank Disciple 00:37, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

Preliminary point: Is the "As of" not right? I just realized that the USA TODAY counter doesn't have a date that it was last updated. In the article right now, it says "As of 2016", but based on what you just posted ... it seems like that's wrong (your count says "as of 2016" and the total is in the 3000s, not 4000s. I'm going to excise that from the article.

I'm personally okay with most of that being added back? Although I have some concerns about the sourcing—where did we get the numbers? Just manual arithmetic with the USA Today page? I think it's best to avoid material that can date itself too easily. Either way, let's start with a "starting point" and field suggestions from there.

Trump and his businesses had been involved in more than 4,000 state and federal legal actions. In 2016, USA Today found that Trump or his entities were involved in more lawsuits than five other well-known real estate scions combined, with most of the lawsuits relating to debtors of Trump's casinos. Among the cases with a "clear resolution", the paper determined that Trump was the victor in 451 lawsuits and the loser in 38.

References
"Donald Trump: Three decades, 4,095 lawsuits". USA Today. Archived from the original on April 25, 2022. Retrieved April 17, 2018.
Penzenstadler, Nick; Page, Susan (June 1, 2016). "Exclusive: Trump's 3,500 lawsuits unprecedented for a presidential nominee". USA Today.

--Jerome Frank Disciple 23:19, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

Here’s a link to the 2019 version I quoted above. Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:00, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

In my view, this content belongs at The Trump Organization, and information about lawsuits should be limited to cases where Trump himself is personally involved, not commonplace hotel slip-and-fall cases or suits against deadbeat gamblers. Cullen328 (talk) 00:05, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

That would probably be the best way to handle this. Second best would be to explain what we’re talking about. Worst would be status quo. Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:20, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

I can see that argument, although a lot of people did seem to associate these lawsuits with Trump himself—after all, it's not like USA Today was just coincidentally looking into Trump enterprises in ... uh ... July 2016. Bit I also think the amount of attention I suggested above might be undue. What if we cut the last sentence, would that be a compromise that pleased everyone?--Jerome Frank Disciple 00:23, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

That is,

(still a little awk)

--Jerome Frank Disciple 00:24, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

The problem is that, presumably, the other five "real estate scions" are probably not heavily involved with hotels and casinos, which generate more lawsuits than other types of real estate investments. Cullen328 (talk) 00:38, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

Fair point, so:

According to USA Today, Trump and his businesses had been involved in more than 4,000 state and federal legal actions, with roughly 1,600 of those lawsuits relating to the pursuit of the debtors of Trump's casinos.

? --Jerome Frank Disciple 00:41, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

Clarification: the should be at the end of the entire sentence.--Jerome Frank Disciple 00:44, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

The longstanding text was fine. Editors have spent years slimming this page to its summary style. It's not an improvement to add scattershot detail. SPECIFICO talk 00:47, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

Can't find my way through the jungle, responding to There used to be plenty of context. Here’s what it said in November 2019, for example. By May 2020, most of it was gone, and by October, all of it, and the website was at 498,000 bytes. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 13:27, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

That's fair! I'm a bit on the fence, to be honest, although I'd maintain that it probably shouldn't be in the lead. That said, Anythingyouwant and Cullen are suggesting additional context and (as I understand) saying they'd prefer the page without a reference to the 4,000 suits if it doesn't have that context. I don' think I'm with them there, but I'm at least open to the additional context, but I do understand you're saying you prefer the article as is.--Jerome Frank Disciple 00:50, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

I agree it probably shouldn't be in the lead, and am sure Judge Frank would realistically concur. If it stays in the article body, it should be slimmed down from what it used to be, but not anorexic like it is now. As of now, three editors have supported removing the “4000” stuff from the lead (Disciple, Cullen, and me), one opposed (SPECIFICO), and one who has not evidently opined about it (Objective3000). Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:16, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, I have a COI as I know three lawyers and folks who have sued casinos, unrelated to gambling debts, and doubt the defendants are all related to such. No !vote. O3000, Ret. (talk) 01:31, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

That's totally fair! (Can you get me a job? jk jk ... unless ...) --Jerome Frank Disciple 14:04, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

For us folks with a day-time job, it's a bit hard to keep up with this sudden influx of editors and edits. Why is it in the lead? Seems relevant, considering that Trump ran on his "hugely successful businessman, self-made billionaire" image. It's been in the lead with this exact wording ever since this edit on July 28, 2020. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 13:02, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

Hey sorry I got rid of the "in the lead" segmentation because Anything's comment is touching on both.

In terms of the lead, I realize this is annoying, but can you spell out what the lawsuit number means in relation to Trump's "hugely successful businessman, self-made billionaire" image"? Like, you're saying it supports that image?--Jerome Frank Disciple 14:06, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

Back to discussion of text in body

I am basically okay with the draft language for the article body but would tweak it a little:

According to USA Today, Trump and his businesses had been involved in more than 4,000 state and federal legal actions, with roughly 1,600 of those lawsuits relating to action by Trump's casinos to recover money from indebted gamblers.

Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:49, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

Trump and his businesses have been involved in more than 4,000 state and federal legl actions, including six bankruptcies.

is the current text and is the best among any proposed in this discussion. There's no reason to attribute to the RS that reported public record information and there's no reason to delete the modest number of bankruptcies or to get into the causes of the actions. This top-level bio provides links with all salient detail. SPECIFICO talk 02:15, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

That language in the lead needs to be fixed, it’s misleading because the majority of the 4000 legal actions were routine stuff that lots of comparable businesses deal with, and also because he never had a personal bankruptcy. Consensus so far is to remove the “4,000” so I plan to do this: “Trump and his businesses have been involved in many state and federal legal actions, including six bankruptcies of his businesses”. Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:57, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

I reverted your edit. Is there such a thing as "consensus so far" after 18 hours? BTW, you also messed up the link. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 10:47, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

Been down this road before, adding link to January discussion and copying my responses from that discussion: "According to USA Today, he sheer volume of lawsuits is unprecedented for a presidential nominee. No candidate of a major party has had anything approaching the number of Trump’s courtroom entanglements, and he was involved in more lawsuits than five top real-estate business executives combined: Edward DeBartolo, shopping-center developer and former San Francisco 49ers owner; Donald Bren, Irvine Company chairman and owner; Stephen Ross, Time Warner Center developer; Sam Zell, Chicago real-estate magnate; and Larry Silverstein, a New York developer famous for his involvement in the World Trade Center properties. Due to the size of this article, I haven't added this USA Today article, used in the main article Legal affairs of Donald Trump, to the USA Today lawsuit tally we do use." "Do any RS say that lawsuits concerning the casinos don’t count? Operating casinos was one of his businesses, and extending credit to gamblers was a business decision — a bad bet, as indicated by the lawsuits and the bankruptcies. The House doesn’t win if the customers gamble with the House’s money, unless you’re the mob laundering money obtained elsewhere. Follow the link in the text to another USA Today article, Trump casino empire dogged by bad bets in Atlantic City, for more information." Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 10:15, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

Question for the people proposing to change the wording: this thread starts off with a quote that the typical US company making $1 billion plus in annual revenues faces faces 556 lawsuits per year. So, where are the sources saying that the Trump Organization has ever made $1 billion plus in annual revenues? Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 10:23, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

If a typical US company making $1 billion plus in annual revenues faces 556 lawsuits per year, such a company would accumulate 4000 lawsuits in less than 8 years. Trump accumulated 4000 lawsuits in 30 years, so why do we need to show that the Trump Organization has ever made $1 billion plus in annual revenues? In any event, regarding your revert of this edit to the article body, would you please state your objection here; although a link to past discussion is helpful, so would be a comment from you about this particular reverted language. The language you reverted was this: "According to a report in USA Today, Trump and his businesses had been involved in more than 4,000 state and federal legal actions. The largest portion of those lawsuits, roughly 1,600 of them, related to action by Trump's casinos to recover money from indebted gamblers." (footnotes omitted). Why do you prefer a one-sentence paragraph that will suggest many different things to many different readers, such as that he's been sued 4000 times, he can't stay out of trouble, he's been in court way too much, etc etc? The paragraph in question currently says, "Trump and his businesses had been involved in more than 4,000 state and federal legal actions, according to a running tally by USA Today." Anythingyouwant (talk) 10:52, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

This is beyond absurd. If you are hoping that we will deprecate USA Today's reporting to the level of Fox News/NY Post, then you should make that argument explicitly at WP:RSNP. The content of this page has been discussed in detail by a large number of well-informed editors over a period of many years. The promotion, mismanagement, and failures of his far-flung empire (notably the casinos and other pre-Apprentice ventures) was and remains a subject of ongoing RS coverage and comment. It's just wasting our time to rehash that. SPECIFICO talk 12:30, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

More questions: are there any sources saying that it is routine (or was routine back when Trump owned them) for other casinos suing gamblers they've extended credit to? Or any sources on casinos having to declare bankruptcy or file for Chapter 11 protection? Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 10:55, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

I answered your previous "Question for the people proposing to change the wording" and would prefer to resolve one question at a time, if you wouldn't mind telling me if that answer was satisfactory to you. Additionally, the proposed edit does not say anything about what's routine, nor does it say anything about bankruptcy. Bankruptcy is discussed later in the subsection of this article. Anythingyouwant (talk) 10:59, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

This article discusses the subject at the time all three Trump AC casinos were open. Casinos generally engaged in debt collection. They were loath to sue their best customers as bad gamblers continue gambling. There was a 1.3% loss in 1998 in AC, which was while Trump's three AC casinos were open. The point, as made by Space4Time3Continuum2x, is it's a business decision, and 1.3% is not bad. Credit card losses are worse. I might add that under NJ law, a casino is a financial institution. You can't even cash a cashier's check when the banks are closed. You can borrow money, as you can from a bank, after a credit check. A big difference between a credit card company and a casino is that a casino may not be paid for a loan; but the money is commonly spent at the casino, so they commonly still have the money. O3000, Ret. (talk) 11:07, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

Right, it was a business decision, these were not 4000 instances of sexual harassment suits, bankruptcies, and other stuff that looks bad for Trump, though we should (and do) describe the lawsuits that look bad for him. Why not give readers a clue about what the number 4000 indicates? Anythingyouwant (talk) 11:13, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

Actually, we don't discuss many of the lawsuits that looked bad for him. I'm not saying we should track them down and that would go in a sub-article anyhow. Just that we only touch the surface. As for the 4,096, we don't have much detail. Keep in mind that a suit about a bad casino debt may have been filed against the casino, like the Leonard Tose suit against the AC Sands. More common than one might think as rogue casinos can be sued for losses incurred by plying a gambler with alcohol. O3000, Ret. (talk) 11:28, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

This BLP properly discusses plenty of lawsuits that look bad for Trump and/or were controversial, such as: Trump sued “to intimidate the press” and Trump faced a “lawsuit that alleged housing discrimination” and Trump “was sued for violating the Domestic and Foreign Emoluments Clauses” and Trump sued “to prevent the disclosures” and Trump faced a lawsuit that alleged he “made false statements and defrauded consumers” and Trump faced a lawsuit that alleged he “defrauded or lied to its students” and Trump sued to “block release of his tax returns” and “78% of Trump's proposals were blocked by courts or did not prevail over litigation” and Trump joined a lawsuit to get a court to hold “the ACA unconstitutional” and his January 2017 executive order on immigration from Muslim countries “resulted in nationwide preliminary injunctions” and a judge ordered “family separations stopped” and “Trump and his allies filed many legal challenges to the results” and a court “imposed a fine of $10,000 per day” and Trump “filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection”. If you have a COI as you stated above, maybe you should skip this discussion? Anythingyouwant (talk) 12:11, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

Trying to bump off a witness? SPECIFICO talk 12:30, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

I have no personal connection to Trump or his affairs. O3000, Ret. (talk) 12:40, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

NJ allowed credit cards to be used for the purchase of chips in 1993. Four of his casino bankruptcies occurred before then (three NJ casinos and the New York Plaza hotel). Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 12:25, 16 May 2023 (UTC) Struck typo. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 13:44, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

Yep. That was considered a cash advance from the CC company; not a loan by the casino. I remember the Plaza sale. Trump said he sold it to Prince Alwaleed, et al, for more than it was worth. But, Trump lost money on the sale. O3000, Ret. (talk) 14:00, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

This thread is a testament to the power of the google machine to find a web-readable quotation that can be weaponized for SYNTH and equivocation. Are we done? SPECIFICO talk 13:19, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

AGF. Anything is just suggesting adding a detail that's in the source that's currently cited.--Jerome Frank Disciple 14:07, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

It has nothing to do with Good Faith. It has to do with editors recognizing when an argument fails to support its stated thesis. And it has to do with the amount of effort it takes for editors to explain issues that have already been thoroughly discusssed and archived, when the ONUS is on editors advocating a change to devote their own time and effort to a review of the archive, once it's been pointed out to them. SPECIFICO talk 14:19, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

Accusing an editor of "weaponiz" Google searches for SYNTH is absolutely a GF and civility issue. I understand if you're frustrated by your perceived "ONUS", but the solution to frustration is to take a step back, not lash out.--Jerome Frank Disciple 14:22, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

Questions for input

Hello! Based on the above discussion, there are two questions regarding the lawsuits figure that's currently presented twice in the article. Currently, in the lead, the article says:

Trump and his businesses have been involved in more than 4,000 state and federal legal actions, including six bankruptcies.

and, later, in the legal affairs section, the article says, in a single-sentence paragraph:

Trump and his businesses had been involved in more than 4,000 state and federal legal actions, according to a running tally by USA Today.

The source cited is this (admittedly awesome) USA Today graphic counter the really cool USA Today graphic story. There's no date on the counter (it's hard to tell if it's still updated), but USA Today also ran a story in 2016, when the graphic was first released, and the count was 3500 lawsuits.

@Anythingyouwant: has argued that the number, alone, is misleading, and suggests removing the number from the lead and adding context to the second mention. Specifically, Anythingyouwant thinks the 4000 number is misleading because it makes it appear that Trump or his entities were the target of 4000 lawsuits, when that's far from the case. According to the USA Today graphic, the 4000 number combines cases in which a Trump entity (or Trump himself) was a plaintiff and in which a Trump entity (or Trump himself) was a defendant. A plurality of the lawsuits—more than 1600—were actually lawsuits against Trump casinos' debtors. And, in cases that reached a conclusion, Trump or the Trump entity prevailed 451 times and lost 38 times. Absent at least some of that context, Anythingyouwant supports removal of the text from the article. So, the questions are:

• Should the figure be in the lead?
• What context, if any, should be added to the figure in the body?
• Should the figure be removed in the absence of context?

Pinging editors already involved: @Cullen328, Space4Time3Continuum2x, Anythingyouwant, SPECIFICO, and Objective3000:: Hello! I'm segmenting off thissection so we can all say our peace in a single point, without getting trapped in reply chains, and so that other editors can chip in a bit more easily :)--Jerome Frank Disciple 14:51, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

Opinions

• Remove 4000 figure from lead (keep bankruptcy figure); add the casino-plaintiff number to the body; keep in body even without context. I do agree the 4000 number is misleading on its own—I mean, I work in law, and when I read it I still assumed he had been the target of 4000 lawsuits. I saw Space4Time3Continuum2x say the fact related to Trump's promotion of his image as a "hugely successful businessman, self-made billionaire". But, if anything, that comment made me more concerned. In reality, there's not an inherent connection between how often an entity is involved in lawsuits and whether that entity is well run: consider insurance corporations, which are named as defendants in thousands of suits—it's just the nature of their game. (And, of course, a well-run business initiates lawsuits all the time!) I'm okay with adding both the above figures (the casino-plaintiff number and the wins/losses number) to the article, but I'm torn about the wins/losses number because, based on my own knowledge, I think that figure is misleading (the problem is the selection bias in restricting the sample to cases with a clear outcome). But the casino-plaintiff figure is an additional piece of information that does provide more context to the 4000 number and concerns a huge percentage—40%!—of those lawsuits. Finally, I think we should keep the figure in the body even if the context isn't added, as the frequency with which Trump was involved with lawsuits was noted by several media entities. See: Slate,BBC, CNN, GQ.--Jerome Frank Disciple 14:48, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

Admin state line

Hello! I wanted to bring this up on the talk page before editing, because I assume it'll be controversial.

I'm a little skeptical of this line, in the Dergulation subsection:

Defenders of the administrative state said it exists "to protect those who would otherwise be at the mercy of better-organized, better-funded interests".

The line is cited to a Time magazine op ed, which I have no problem with.

Full disclosure, I'm ... generally ... a fan of a strong executive/admin state (very context dependent), so I'm arguing against my own pov here, but I'm not sure this line should be here unchecked—I think there's an WP:NPOV issue. For full context, here's the full subsection (citations omitted):

In January 2017, Trump signed Executive Order 13771, which directed that, for every new regulation, federal agencies "identify" two existing regulations for elimination, though it did not require elimination. He dismantled many federal regulations on health, labor, and the environment, among other topics. Trump signed 14 Congressional Review Act resolutions repealing federal regulations, including a bill that made it easier for severely mentally ill persons to buy guns. During his first six weeks in office, he delayed, suspended, or reversed ninety federal regulations, often "after requests by the regulated industries". The Institute for Policy Integrity found that 78 percent of Trump's proposals were blocked by courts or did not prevail over litigation.

Defenders of the administrative state said it exists "to protect those who would otherwise be at the mercy of better-organized, better-funded interests".

Here's the problem: everything before that line is just a description of what Trump did. There's not effort at providing the underlying theory behind those actions. So, the subsection is, in effect, "Trump did X. Here's a theoretical critique of X." But there many theoretical critiques of the administrative state—arguments that the administrative state is bloated and unaccountable, etc. (In case anyone needs a source—they're easy to find: Here's one defense of Trump's plan to deconstruct the administrative state by David French.)

I'm not sure if a theoretical discussion is really worth including in the article at all—as a first choice, I'd support just deleting that ultimate sentence, but if we're going to include the theoretical critique, we should probably also include the theoretical justification.--Jerome Frank Disciple 17:05, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

Go ahead and remove it. It is SYNTH, among other things. You don't need permission to remove SYNTH. SPECIFICO talk 18:09, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

Huh, I would've said a bad weasel word rather than synth, but fair enough! removing now.--Jerome Frank Disciple 18:10, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

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