Talk:Donald Trump/Archive 167

Archive 160

←

Archive 165

Archive 166

Archive 167

Archive 168

Archive 169

Archive 170

De facto leader of Republican Party?

Trump is a candidate in the 2024 Republican presidential primaries. 

[remove the part about Trump being the defacto leader of the republican party. There is no RS voted for this statement. The leader of the Republican Party is not a position other than the RNC chair (which is not Trump).

Helpingtoclarify (talk) 06:10, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

Well we have this (see below) but I agree its not enough for the lede.

[1] Slatersteven (talk) 11:43, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

 Not done The lead summarizes the most important points of the body, in this case part of Donald_Trump#Post-presidency_(2021–present) where you can also find the RS supporting the statement:

Unlike other former presidents, Trump continued to dominate his party; he has been compared to a modern-day party boss. He continued fundraising, raising more than twice as much as the Republican Party itself, hinted at a third candidacy, and profited from fundraisers many Republican candidates held at Mar-a-Lago. Much of his focus was on the people in charge of elections and how elections are run. In the 2022 midterm elections he endorsed over 200 candidates for various offices, most of whom supported his false claim that the 2020 presidential election was stolen from him. A majority of candidates endorsed by him won in Republican primary elections.

Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 13:00, 11 February 2024 (UTC

Then lets change it to "continued to dominate". Slatersteven (talk) 13:02, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

Go for it. I'm not particularly invested in the wording. Brand-new in WSJ, Feb 11, 2024: A flurry of drama over the past week on and off Capitol Hill has made it clear that Republicans currently have just one dominant leader: Donald Trump. Julia Azari, professor of political science at Marquette University, in December: it now seems that Trump is not so much a party leader, but a movement figure. This might seem like the kind of distinction that only academics care about. But it’s key to understanding the current state of American politics, and the dilemmas now facing GOP leaders as the MAGA movement threatens to completely overtake the Republican Party itself. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 13:33, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

Sources

Series of business failures claim

In the first paragraph the article states:

After a series of business failures in the late twentieth century, he successfully launched side ventures that required little capital, mostly by licensing the Trump name

My take away of his overall business success before he switched to primarily licensing his name was more mixed. I'd go so far to say that taking everything as a whole it was more failure then success. However saying only "a serious of business failures" implies to me all failures with no successes which seems a bit unfair. Either this line needs proper citation, if one can prove it's justified, or it needs cleaned up to better describe a more complex tract record then just failures. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.51.12.161 (talk) 19:49, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

The paragraph that includes "series of business failures" isn't cited because it's the lead, and per MOS:LEADCITE, lead citations are not necessary as everything in the lead is covered in the body, with citations. Donald Trump#Business career does go into them, the bankruptcies and etcetera. You may be right that it's too simplistic to frame it that way. Is there a better way to frame the lead sentence than "series of business failures"? – Muboshgu (talk) 20:07, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Doesn’t this need to be balanced based on his long business history. Is the entire history “a series of failures”? The initial comment here is from an anonymous user and starts “my take”. This doesn’t seem to follow guidelines for WP:BLP. Helpingtoclarify (talk) 21:29, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

I don't see the problem. The "series of business failures" doesn't say that all his ventures had been failures, only that there was a series of them at this time. It would be just as true if he had had several thousand successful businesses followed by three failures followed by the change in strategy. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 21:52, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

"After a series of business failures in the late twentieth century, he successfully launched side ventures that required little capital, mostly by licensing the Trump name."

Removing "series of business failures" would actually be closer to a BLP violation, since it already mentions "he successfully launched side ventures". DN (talk) 22:15, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Six bankruptcies and additionally having to sell off an airline, a megayacht, and a number of businesses to reduce a personal debt of $900 million (citations are in Donald Trump#Real estate, Donald Trump#Manhattan developments, and Donald Trump#Atlantic City casinos) — "series of business failures" seems appropriate. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 19:15, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Top is almost completely unreferenced

In the entire top section, there's a note for the election but no reference for it. There are two references and they're both only for his ranking in regards to his presidency. Compare that to most other pages on this site and there's usually at least one reference per sentence.

This section just drones on about him without citing any sources outside of a single note and two sources for just one sentence. That's insane. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.125.140.70 (talk • contribs)

It's commonplace to avoid citations in the lead of an article where possible – see WP:LEADCITE. However, anything included in the lead should also be in the body of the article with adequate citations. In short, it is all sourced, just later on. — Czello ^(music) 08:43, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

The "insane" part is that ANY citations are in the lead at all.--User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 15:13, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

What's wrong with the citations that are in the lead currently? Cessaune [talk] 15:41, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

It's an abstract. The only "citation" it should need is the attached article. User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 17:30, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

But what's wrong with it? Cessaune [talk] 17:39, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

The fact that they are there despite the fact that anyone with a brain functional enough to use the internet unsupervised should understand that the lead summarizes the article and that support for the statements will be in the article. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 19:01, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

While redundancy isn't necessarily always desired, what is the issue with the fact that it is redundant? Cessaune [talk] 21:27, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

please read wp:lede. Slatersteven (talk) 15:46, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Unclear sentence in lead section

I think the sentence "After he tried to pressure Ukraine in 2019 to investigate Biden," in the lead section is unclear and should be edited for clarity and/or context. Options I've come up with are:

• A: "After he tried to pressure Ukraine in 2019 to investigate Hunter and Joe Biden,"
• B: "After he tried to pressure Ukraine in 2019 to investigate then vice president Joe Biden and his son Hunter Biden,"

JackTheSecond (talk) 06:49, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

The name Joe Biden in mentioned in the preceding paragraph, and the lede makes no further mention of any other Biden to distinguish from. SecretName101 (talk) 07:39, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

I would argue that that gives even further credence to my point about context because of how, in the text, the 2019 events come after Joe Biden won the presidency, chronologically. JackTheSecond (talk) 08:04, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

Draft:Never Surrender High-Tops

I just created a draft for Trump’s new sneakers: Never Surrender High-Tops. Any help would be appreciated! Thriley (talk) 01:59, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

I really fail to see the need for this. A short section in Public image of Donald Trump would suffice. Zaathras (talk) 22:06, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

@Thriley: This is another one in the long list of products licensed by Trump to carry his name and/or logo. They're all listed here: The_Trump_Organization#Related_ventures_and_investments; I just added another bullet point for the sneakers (and the fragrance with a stopper in the shape of Trump's head sold by the same licensee) with a couple of sources. You could add that to the page but I also doubt that we need a whole article. A few articles (Trump Vodka, Trump Steaks, Trump Ice, Trump magazines) were created in 2016 and 2017 when RS were looking into Trump's business past, so there was more coverage than the coverage for his recent endeavors (NFTs, mugshot merchandise, etc.). IMO, the title fails WP:COMMONNAME. The products are generally referred to as "Trump sneakers". Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 15:16, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

Incredibly biased summary

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

---

First paragraphs are filled with assertions that have no evidence to back it up. For example “ he successfully launched side ventures that required little capital” and “ Many of his comments and actions have been characterized as racially charged or racist and many as misogynistic”. Another example is “He met with North Korean leader Kim Jong Un three times but made no progress on denuclearization”. This is straight conjecture, how can so many assertions be made with no evidence to back it up when there is an election coming? This page is full of assertions, and on Super Tuesday when this candidate will most likely win the nomination, this page is making Wikipedia look like a democrat run website. Caendral (talk) 07:35, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

See MOS:CITELEAD. Citations and references are usually omitted from the summary paragraphs at the top. I wouldn't worry about the article affecting this candidate's election chances. From what I understand, he could stand in the middle of 5th Avenue and shoot somebody, and he wouldn't lose any of his voters... DN (talk) 08:50, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

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

Presumptive nomination

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

---

Donald Trump’s Wikipedia article states that he was declared the Republican presumptive nominee on May 4, 2016. In actuality, it was on May 3, 2016.

Look up “trump may 3 2016” and you’ll see portraits of Trump at an event in Manhattan with his family members celebrating his win.

See this article: 2016 Indiana Republican presidential primary Ijohnbaptiste (talk) 22:28, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

I posted regarding the wrong article. What do I do? Ijohnbaptiste (talk) 22:45, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

You already noticed that you posted on the wrong talk page (this article doesn't mention the day, just the month). 2016 Indiana Republican presidential primary isn't protected, so you can make any corrections there yourself. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 12:21, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

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

Bias

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

---

Clearly more on democrat side rather than Republican. Doesn’t mention the good things he did in office. 2600:8807:800:6E00:9C35:21FB:FEEF:DA03 (talk) 21:42, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

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

Presidential Greatness Project

Donald Trump Places Last in New 'Presidential Greatness' Rankings Respondents were asked to rate each U.S. president on a scale of zero to 100 for their "overall greatness," with zero being failure, 50 being average and 100 being great.

Lincoln placed first with a 95.03 average.

Trump received the lowest rating with a 10.92, closer to being a failure than any other president.

The survey also ranked Trump as the "most polarizing" U.S. President.

https://www.newsweek.com/donald-trump-places-last-new-presidential-greatness-rankings-1871043

https://www.nwprogressive.org/weblog/2024/02/presidential-greatness-projects-2024-survey-finds-lincoln-is-the-best-trump-is-the-worst.html 2600:8801:219C:7900:11EA:65A3:FEA3:573F (talk) 01:38, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

So? Slatersteven (talk) 15:52, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

It's a survey] conducted by two college professors. They invited 525 "current and recent members of the Presidents & Executive Politics Section of the American Political Science Association, which is the foremost organization of social science experts in presidential politics, as well as scholars who had recently published peer-reviewed academic research in key related scholarly journals or academic presses", to participate and received "154 usable responses". NPR, the NY Times, Axios, and the Hill reported the survey, the LA Times published the authors' release announcement as an opinion. They rated Trump last, with self-identified Republicans among the respondents ranking him at #41. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 16:27, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

And i am still unsure if this is due. I mean our other return rate was (what) a this, so (at best this represents a minority of people they contacted. Slatersteven (talk) 16:36, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

Siena College doesn't say what their return rate was, just that they had 141 participants, and C-SPAN lists their 142 respondents by name. I'm undecided whether to include, waiting for more input. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 17:13, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

Also concerned over dueness and would like to see any critical responses that might appear in RS. O3000, Ret. (talk) 17:21, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

References

Please go to...

Draft:Five: The Parody Musical. If possible, please expand this draft (but please leave it in the draft namespace) with whatever is known about this musical; we know it is about Donald Trump. Georgia guy (talk) 15:34, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

What has this to do with Trump? Slatersteven (talk) 15:52, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

Slatersteven, it's a musical related to Trump. Please do research on it. Georgia guy (talk) 15:55, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

Doesn't seem to be getting rave reviews. https://www.theatermania.com/news/review-five-the-parody-musical-is-significantly-less-than-six_1730772/ The pictures don't even look as good as some of my local area drag shows, let alone major stage productions. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 21:01, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

“Poised to make America laugh again, FIVE is an irreverent musical comedy revue starring some of the women in the life of America’s past (and hopefully not future) President. Ivana, Marla, and Melania are joined by crowd favorite Storm and daddy’s girl Ivanka as they each take the spotlight and sing their hearts out for your vote”

— Trump musical about ex-wives, Stormy Daniels debuts in New York

sounds interesting. ValarianB (talk) 18:32, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 15 February 2024

Change: Trump's comments on the 2017 Unite the Right rally, condemning "this egregious display of hatred, bigotry and violence on many sides" and stating that there were "very fine people on both sides", were widely criticized as implying a moral equivalence between the white supremacist demonstrators and the counter-protesters.

To: Trump's comments on the 2017 Unite the Right rally, condemning "this egregious display of hatred, bigotry and violence on many sides" and stating that there were "very fine people on both sides", were widely criticized as implying a moral equivalence between the white supremacist demonstrators and the counter-protesters -- even though in the same speech, President Trump stated: "And you had people -- and I’m not talking about the neo-Nazis and the white nationalists -- because they should be condemned totally. But you had many people in that group other than neo-Nazis and white nationalists. Okay? And the press has treated them absolutely unfairly." 2601:147:4700:73C0:1DCF:F59A:A770:D341 (talk) 08:06, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit extended-protected}} template. — Czello ^(music) 09:01, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

If you are upset about being lumped in with neo-Nazis and white nationalists, you should not associate with them. People who associate with such groups are NOT "very fine people". --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 13:30, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Demonstrate the importance of this addition using RSs. Is this statement as important as the other statements we already include in the article? Cessaune [talk] 18:28, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Support - The 'very fine people' comment is widely quoted (as attested to in the sources). The second comment is important context. @Khajidha - please don't treat this as a forum. Riposte97 (talk) 04:34, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

Lol, no. Trump's incendiary statements followed by a weak moral equivalence (e.g. "peacefully and patriotically at J6) doesn't let him off the hook. Zaathras (talk) 05:07, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

This is not about 'letting him off the hook'. We are not here to make moral or political judgements. This is about following WP:BLP. Riposte97 (talk) 06:23, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

Point taken, however I think the wording suggested is a bit clunky and imprecise. Any other suggestions on how to improve it? DN (talk) 07:43, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

How about:

'After the 2017 Unite the Right rally saw violence between attendees and protesters, Trump commented that there were "very fine people on both sides", comments that were widely criticised for apparently drawing a moral equivalence between white supremacists and leftist demonstrators. Trump said in the same speech that "neo-Nazis and white nationalists...should be condemned totally".' Riposte97 (talk) 10:45, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

This is an opinion not supported by the cited sources, and you’re quoting out of context from an interview several days after his initial remarks:

And you had people -- and I’m not talking about the neo-Nazis and the white nationalists -- because they should be condemned totally. But you had many people in that group other than neo-Nazis and white nationalists. Okay? And the press has treated them absolutely unfairly.

(The PolitiFact source has the transcript.) He kept doubling down on the "very fine people on both sides". Our summary-level text reflects the sources accurately. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 12:55, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

I don't understand. Both quotes came from the same interview. Riposte97 (talk) 13:21, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

You are cherry-picking to support your own narrative, is the problem. Zaathras (talk) 13:46, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

After the self-styled white supremacist had killed one of the counter-demonstrators on August 12, 2017, Trump said at a prescheduled televised event on healthcare for veterans two hours later: We condemn in the strongest possible terms this egregious display of hatred, bigotry and violence on many sides, on many sides. On August 15, reporters questioned him about that remark at another prescheduled televised event (on infrastructure). That's when he said he wasn't "talking about the neo-Nazis and the white nationalists" and doubled down on the "very fine people on both sides" at the rally. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 14:22, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

Ah I see, that makes a bit more sense now. I nevertheless believe that the second quote is important context. The "very fine people on both sides" quote is in the article, and it's widely quoted in sources. A person reading this as is might get the impression that Trump explicitly endorsed white supremacy. I'm open to including the fact that he'd earlier condemned "hatred, bigotry, and violence on many sides". Riposte97 (talk) 11:26, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

• "Trump's comments on the 2017 Unite the Right rally, condemning "this egregious display of hatred, bigotry and violence on many sides"... were widely criticized as implying a moral equivalence"

I think Space4Time3Continuum2x's explanation is fairly compelling. The focus is on his original statement. It's likely undue for us to to add even more detail and by only adding emphasis to the "condemnation aspect", we are likely to again run into NPOV issues. The article accurately and clearly reflects "Trump condemned "this egregious display of hatred, bigotry and violence" from the original statement, which is likely where the focus should remain. DN (talk) 21:59, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

Look I can live with that, but we should in that case remove the second quote. It should read:

'Trumps comments on the 2017 Unite the Right rally, condemning "this egregious display of hatred on many sides", were widely criticised…'

I would also remove the definite articles from before the groups mentioned - '…implying a moral equivalence between white supremacist demonstrators and counter-protestors.' Riposte97 (talk) 00:16, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

@Space4Time3Continuum2x slightly sharp of you to revert me citing this talk page discussion, then not contribute to the discussion. Do you have a substantive reason why my change shouldn't be made? Riposte97 (talk) 23:14, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

I didn’t contribute? Quoting myself: Our summary-level text reflects the sources accurately. Nobody replied to your last proposal, so a day later you went bold, removed content you called "an unqualified clause", citing this talk page discussion, and were reverted: WP:DISCUSSCONSENSUS, WP:SILENCE. I don’t know what you meant by "unqualified clause". You want Trump’s comment that there were "very fine people, on both sides" removed because A person reading this as is might get the impression that Trump explicitly endorsed white supremacy. WP:NPOV — well, that's the impression RS got and reported, and that's why reporters kept asking him to explain himself. In 2019, Trump defended his 2017 statement that there were "very fine people" on both sides of the deadly white supremacist protests. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 11:44, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

The sources don't really say that, and you are conflating the two incidents. In the first instance, Trump referred to 'many sides'. It was this statement that many journalists sought to clarify. In the second instance, he said 'very fine people on both sides' and qualified that statement by condemning neo-Nazis and white nationalists. The second incident was widely picked up, but it would be a violation of WP:BLP to merely quote that statement without noting that Trump explicitly condemned neo-Nazis and white nationalists. The current wording is worse even than that, as it heavily implies that Trump was somehow defending white supremacy. I get that people might feel strongly about this, but we have to apply the policy. Riposte97 (talk) 11:24, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

It’s obvious that I won’t change your mind and you won’t change mine, so it’s pointless for us to continue this back and forth. You need to establish a consensus on this talk page before changing the longstanding content in the section. IMO, removing the definite articles is a generalization not supported by the sources. Trump wasn’t talking about white supremacists and counter-protestors in general, he was talking about the people at the Unite the Right rally: blamed the violence in Charlottesville, Virginia, over the weekend on both sides of the conflict – equating the white supremacists on one side with the “alt-left” on the other side – after his top White House aides spent days trying to clean up after Trump’s initial vague response to the violence (CNN), clashes between the white nationalists, some of whom looked like soldiers because they were so heavily armed, and the counterprotesters who showed up to challenge them (WaPo). Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 15:23, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

Sources

Verb tense

"He was the first U.S. president with no prior military or government experience." He is the "first U.S. president with no prior military or government experience." Please update. 172.56.29.192 (talk) 04:49, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

He's no longer the president. Was is correct. Zaathras (talk) 05:20, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

This reversal

Not sure why my edit has been completely reverted. The current "residence" parameter in infobox definitely violates MOS:GEOLINK. As for the "awards" parameter, I intended to make it consistent with other BLPs. MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE says, "Wherever possible, present information in short form, and exclude any unnecessary content." Thedarkknightli (talk) 14:27, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

Geolink: the infoboxes of three living former presidents for some reason I'm not aware of list the names of their residences (Prairie Chapel Ranch/G.W. Bush, Mar-a-Lago/Trump) or the city district the residence is located in (Kalorama/Obama) in addition to the town/city and state, while the infoboxes of two presidents (Carter and Clinton) don't list a residence at all. If we followed WP:GEOLINK for Trump, IMO the infobox should simply say Palm Beach, Florida because Palm Beach is a disambiguation page. INFOBOXPURPOSE: "Full list" works, so we might as well use the short form. That's the problem when you make several changes in one edit — sometimes improvements get caught in the reversal of content editors disagree with. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 15:45, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

GSA paying rent for Trump's Mar-a-Lago office

E.g., $406,000 in 2023, not including utilities. I'd be inclined to mention. Thoughts?

References

Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 17:34, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Not a lot of coverage on it from what I can tell. It's likely UNDUE/TRIVIA at this point. Please correct me if I'm missing something. Cheers. DN (talk) 22:11, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Adding links in lead

Space4T reverted this edit, and I was wondering: does consensus #60 preclude addition of any links that haven't been discussed? In my imagination this is a consensus #43 thing, but I don't know. Cessaune [talk] 17:53, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

MOS:MORELINK revert

Tagging User:Space4Time3Continuum2x

Hi, you recently reverted this edit of mine on what I think are incorrect grounds. A reader would expect the link in "As provided for by the Former Presidents Act" to link only to the Former Presidents Act article, not to a section of the article detailing the Act's applications in this specific context. Per MOS:MORELINK, piping the whole clause clarifies that the link will take the reader to the information detailing this specific context, not just to the article as a whole.

Thank you. Loytra (talk) 15:02, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

I don't think MORELINK applies in this case since the link takes the reader exactly where it says it does. If the link takes readers to the subsection entitled "Staff and office", they miss out on the information that former presidents are entitled to certain benefits, two of them being an office and staff paid by the government. (Also, I don't like links that are longer than absolutely necessary. ) Thoughts? Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 17:02, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

I agree with Loytra. Clicking on Former Presidents Act should take you directly to the page, not to a subsection, because that's not what the reader is going to expect. Change the wording if "As provided for by the Former Presidents Act" is a little too long, or link to Former Presidents Act. Cessaune [talk] 20:36, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

??? Yep, exactly what I said. Our current link [[Former Presidents Act]] links to the Former Presidents Act page, [[Former Presidents Act#Staff and office|Former Presidents Act]] links to the subsection "Staff and office" on that page, i.e., it's an Easter egg. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 21:33, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Ah, I guess I misunderstood what you meant. Cessaune [talk] 22:18, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Forgive me if I'm misunderstanding, but the current link present is the easter egg-ed link. I tried to remove the egg by piping the full clause. Loytra (talk) 14:45, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

If the linktext "Former Presidents Act" links to anything other than the top of that article, it's eggy by definition. The status quo does link to something other than the top of that article, and Loytra was attempting to correct that by improving the linktext. Maybe it's not the best solution, but the status quo is clearly wrong.

I don't see how I could be misunderstanding something so simple. Since Cessaune has, according to them, misunderstood and subsequently understood, perhaps they can explain this to me in language I can understand. ―Mandruss ☎ 15:54, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

I don't know what I understand anymore. The link as it currently is in the article—Former Presidents Act—is eggy. Cessaune [talk] 16:20, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

My understanding is that almost everyone in this discussion thinks the link should link to the main article not a subsection, I agree and made that change. Levivich (talk) 16:38, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

That fixes the egg, but I don't necessarily think that's the best solution; i.e. it might be better to leave the section link and improve the linktext, as Loytra tried to do. At some point, someone thought the section was a better target for the context, and I assume they had a reason. ―Mandruss ☎ 17:22, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

Personally I don't think the section is a better target, as it gives not very much and not very relevant information, and also most people probably don't know what the "Former Presidents Act" is, and I'd guess the average reader will be better served by a link that tells them what the Act is, rather than a link that tells them about the staff and office funding provided for under the act. I'd feel differently if the main article was some familiar topic, like "New York City," then I'd say yes, link to a subsection because everyone knows what New York City is. But not for Former Presidents Act. Levivich (talk) 17:31, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

It was an accidental section link. The sentence originally said that Trump opened the "Office of the Former President" in Palm Beach County. (At the time, nobody knew that the office was the bride's dressing room above the Trump ballroom at Mar-a-Lago.) Then someone created a page (or possibly a second page?) with that title which someone else redirected to the subsection. And then I replaced the link to the redirect page with the link to the redirect's target without noticing the egg. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 18:34, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

Mea culpa, my apologies to everyone. I don't know what I was looking at — obviously not at the original link in its entirety, or I would have noticed that it didn't link to the top of the article. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 16:46, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

If it links to the specific section that the passage is referring to, ie Staff and office, that would seem in line with MOS:SL "At the end of his term, Trump went to live at his Mar-a-Lago club. As provided for by the Former Presidents Act, he established an office there to handle his post-presidential activities." As for the length, I believe S4T's edit accomplishes that request. DN (talk) 22:02, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

The current version is best. There's no big problem, linking to a section of a page. Also, looks better then linking an entire sentence. GoodDay (talk) 16:26, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

Again: only American president to have been impeached twice

I have before argued it makes no sense to only mention that he is the only PRESIDENT to be twice federally impeached, when he is in fact more broadly the only official. It perhaps will even give some the false implication that there perhaps are other officials that have been, and that is why we cut-off this distinction at the “president” descriptor.

it really makes no sense. this would be like only saying that New York City is the most populous city in New York State, and leaving it there. Making no mention that it is, more broadly, the most populous in all of the United States. Deciding that’s unimportant to mention. That’d be bizarre, would it not? Then why is anyone insistent that we essentially do the same thing?

we wouldn’t say “George Washington was the first male president in US history”, would we? Because he holds a broader distinction. So why are some editors insistent here that we only mention the narrower distinction and that we must exclude the fuller distinction?

I have provided a reliable source already.

SecretName101 (talk) 03:33, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

Dec 2022

April 2023

Do you have a new argument to present over the last 2 times you have brought this up, or is your position just "everyone but me is wrong" ? Zaathras (talk) 03:43, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

You are allowed to revisit matters. Dec 2022 received nearly no feedback, and April 2023 was inconclusive because it largely got side-tracked by other discussion related to language. Even so, in April 2023 there were numerous others agreeing with me. If anything, there was perhaps greater agreement on non-sidetracked discussion than disagreement with I proposed:

• User:Objective3000 commented: If a non-president had been impeached twice, we would need to say only president. Since no other federal official has been impeached twice, we can say federal official as that indicates just how unusual this is. Having said that, this isn’t a hill worth dying on and president sounds better. (Which is to say, I wouldn't bother to !vote.) As for bipartisan, never liked the term as it has been used when one person from a party votes with the other party. It begs the question, how bi-partisan and why. The word is too fuzzy.
• User:ONUnicorn said: I don't mind "only federal official" to be twice impeached by the house. I also wouldn't mind "only person"

User:GoodDay was supportive of the crux of what I said. And once I pointed to a a reliable source, User:Bob K31416 also appeared to have no objection.

Why are you so opposed to revisiting @Zaathras:??

I think it's foolish that a reader cannot find an answer to "is trump the only twice-impeached official" inside Trump's own biography. It'd be effortless to provide the reader with more informative language. We're supposed to be as informative as is reasonably achievable here when it comes to notable information. A reader should not have to do deep digging to find that out. SecretName101 (talk) 06:40, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

The April 2023 discussion was the one with nearly no feedback, involving you, me, and one other editor: three people, three preferences (officeholder, person, president — two more, and we could have had "camera, TV"). The December 2022 discussion was the one that got side-tracked by other discussion related to language (when we’re discussing whether to use one word or another, we’re discussing language, no?), and IMO there were more participants clearly in favor of "president" than those who supported another term or didn’t care enough to have a clear preference. There’s a long list of RS on the only president — leader of the world’s only remaining superpower, one of the world’s most influential and powerful people — to have been impeached twice. There are very few RS mentioning federal officials who were impeached in the United States. That’s a pretty clear indication of a lack of interest in the officials who weren't presidents. A judge in the Eastern District of Louisiana or the Southern District of Texas, a secretary of war in 1876 — who cares? (Double "who cares" after Republicans in the House just downgraded impeachment to "did his job implementing his president's policy because we disagree with that policy".) Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 12:11, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

Given the state of the House, if we change it to president, we'll likely have to change it back as impeachment is all the House does now. O3000, Ret. (talk) 12:13, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

If impeachments turn into the main business of the House, we can delete all mention of them as WP:BLUESKY . The initial wording was "federal officeholder" (too clunky, according to editor Loki in the April 2023 discussion). It wasn't based on the cited source in the body, so I changed it to president in the body and then in the lead in August 2022 after this Talk page discussion. It's been "president" ever since, except for the brief attempt (attempts?) to change it to s.th. different. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 13:10, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

As of September 2022, 14 bills of impeachment had been introduced by the House against Biden and members of his administration. They have now impeached Mayorkas even though they have yet to list charges and know it will go nowhere in the Senate. They have said they will continue attempts to impeach Biden even though their case just fell apart. The word impeachment is losing much of its gravitas. But the current wording is still factual and meaningful. O3000, Ret. (talk) 13:52, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

Space4, and as noted there is an alternate reliable source readily available to replace the one in the body if we change the wording to reflect the more broad distinction. SecretName101 (talk) 19:31, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

Stick with the status quo. It's too minor a point, to keep coming back to. GoodDay (talk) 16:02, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

The reason for adding impeachment trivia to the article is not that it is important in itself but because it is frequently noted in reliable sources. For the article to mention trivia ignored in reliable sources is a violation of due weight. It portrays Trump in a worse light than mainstream media. TFD (talk) 17:38, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

No. Our role is not to reflect what the media sensationalizes, nor is it to go out of our way to paint anyone in any particular light. Our job is to be informative of factual and notable information.

being the only officeholder twice impeached highlights that it is a particularly notable occurrence. That’s not skewing: that’s illustrating the context in which the impeachments occurred. Federal impeachment is uncommon in American history, being the only one to face it twice is not “trivia”, it is a highly notable distinction. SecretName101 (talk) 19:33, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

Support President. It makes the important point. Jack Upland (talk) 03:03, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

Consensus 37

To save you some scrolling, 37 is:

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)

That made sense in June 2019 when we were in the middle of Trump's presidency. It doesn't make sense now, years later, because now we have sources about his presidency (and sources about his life that include his presidency). As such, whether something about his presidency is included or not should be based on traditional WP:DUE and WP:ASPECT analysis -- in proportion to its coverage in RS -- and not based on editors' assessments of whether it is likely to have a lasting impact on his life and/or long-term presidential legacy. A WP:LASTING-type analysis makes sense for current events, when we don't have the benefit of retrospective RS for a DUE/ASPECT analysis. But now that years have passed and there are RS about the whole presidency, we should just look at RS to tell us what's "lasting", i.e. what's a significant aspect or perspective due for inclusion in the article.

I suggest changing #37 to be about current events rather than about his presidency:

Content related to current events about Trump should be limited to summary-level about things that are likely to have a lasting impact on his life and/or long-term legacy. If something is borderline or debatable, the resolution does not apply.

Levivich (talk) 00:24, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

No particular opinion, except that I'd support removal of the last sentence. As I've said previously, it bears no strong connection to the underlying discussion. I made the comment in the discussion and there was no objection to it, so I included it in #37 because "it seemed reasonable at the time". There was no real consensus for it, exactly. And it has created more problem than it was worth, as we've seen in the Abraham Accords saga. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:37, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

The last sentence doesn't make sense.--Jack Upland (talk) 02:33, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

I disagree. We will always have to evaluate the sources for lasting impact and/or long-term presidential legacy. His bio is what it is, long and complex. While Trump is running for another term does not seem like the time to change that consensus. Most current events fall under WP:NOTNEWS, anyway, something we’ve been adhering to very strictly on this page, out of sheer necessity. With exceptions, such as the deluge of lawsuits - unique and likely to remain unique. I support removal of the second sentence for the reasons stated by Mandruss. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 11:35, 31 January 2024 (UTC) BTW, the scholarship you mentioned in your !vote was published in 2021 or 2020, and one paper in 2022. "Israel’s normalisation process has strengthened her acceptance in the region and reaches beyond security issues" seems a tad dated after October 7, 2023. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 13:11, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

PhotogenicScientist: you said in your crystalball edit that "we are not to decide for ourselves" etc. Editors decide what to put in any given article, hopefully based on the best available and accessible reliable sources and leaving their biases at the door. Which we all have, acknowledged or not (and accuse each other of having - see Survey (continued), above). Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 12:13, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

After re-reading the discussion that spawned this consensus item, I agree 100% with your proposed change, Levivich. Most editors in that discussion seemed concerned primarily with WP:RECENTISM, and there doesn't seem to be a reason anymore to limit it to the presidency, especially now that we're 4 years on from that.

I also strongly disagree with the removal of the last sentence. When this consensus item was born, many editors expressed reservations how this could end up being applied. Onetwothreeip summed it up pretty well early on: "I think we can exercise judgement here and let editors remove what they see fit to remove along these lines, and restore it if there is disagreement." If we're writing this practice into stone as a "consensus item", I think we need to leave the door open for these concerns. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 14:29, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

writing this practice into stone See superseded #4, #7, #11, #15, #16, #17, #18, #21, #23, #24, #35, #36, and #45. Twenty percent of consensus items to date have been superseded. If that's stone, it's very low on the Mohs scale. I have previously made this point directly to you,[2] and I really hate having to repeat myself to the same editor. Your persistent hyperbole is counterproductive and I'd ask that you temper it. (Hyperbolic speech is a sign of hyperbolic thinking, which is irrational by definition.) ―Mandruss ☎ 23:40, 31 January 2024 (UTC) (Belated strike after UTP contact) 23:07, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

Calling another editor "irrational" probably isn't going to get you very far with them...

And if you make unconvincing arguments the first time, you may find yourself repeating yourself quite a bit. Any written consensus item becomes part of Da Rulez at this article - it can be superseded, yes, but only with a new Talk page thread generating a new consensus, likely at great difficulty. It's a bit like an Indefinite ban - sure, it's not an infinite ban, but it's a ban that lasts until someone bothers to change something. And it's a ban that can absolutely be enforced like a stone tablet over your head in the meantime. So, while you've decided to try and pry at my stone metaphor, you've yet to convince me that writing a consensus item that disregards the concerns of quite a few editors, including the past discussion and this one - that it can be enforced in a heavy-handed way unless qualified - is the thing to do. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 14:16, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

I agree with the change, although I also question whether the final sentenc should be retained. In many cases, it's hard to know if something will have lasting signficance. I would say that unless something has obvious lasting significance, for example if Trump drops out of the race, that it should be left out until its lasting significance is established. TFD (talk) 15:42, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

I'm confused. So we would be required to wait to establish lasting significance? How long? Cessaune [talk] 18:10, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

Let the (ongoing) RFC run its course. Then worry about this issue. GoodDay (talk) 16:38, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

Second the motion. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 18:26, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

I third the motion. Buffs (talk) 20:57, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

Process issue

Number 37

I agree that it's appropriate for the consensus list to be under continuous review and improvement. But I do not think it's wise to consider amendments during an ongoing discussion of specific content to which such changes would apply. Even when the specific content issue has given rise to the review and need for clarification. What's going to become of this tortured RfC in the event of a revision? I suggest ditching the RfC, burying it and proceeding with the discussion of 37. SPECIFICO talk 16:14, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

Let's finish the RfC before we implement any changes. Cessaune [talk] 18:05, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

In that case, do you propose we revise the outcome based on whatever is done with the prime directive? SPECIFICO talk 18:08, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

No. We finish the RfC and then we deal with this. Cessaune [talk] 18:10, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

Abraham Accords RFC by my count: 21 !Support, 12 !Oppose. Loser would love to cancel the game. DonFB (talk) 18:05, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

Let's not taunt... Buffs (talk) 20:01, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

I have no concern about which way this poll is closed but, as I have previously stated, any inclusion in this page will need context and historical significance as conveyed by contemporaneous and subesquent RS narrative and analysis. That's the reason for 37 in the first place. We recognized that NPOV can't be done Rodney Dangerfield style with a series of one-liners. SPECIFICO talk 21:27, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

I would consider upgrading Dangerfield to Henny Youngman, whose page links to better examples. SPECIFICO talk 21:34, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

• Agree with a pause on discussion of Consensus item 37 until after the RfC is closed. Iamreallygoodatcheckers ^talk 07:08, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

Revised 37

Current Consensus #37:

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)

Proposed:

Content related to current events about Trump should be limited to summary-level about things that are likely to have a lasting impact on his life and/or long-term legacy.

Changes "Trump's presidency" to "current events about Trump" and strikes the last sentence. I think this covers the issues raised in the above discussion? Levivich (talk) 16:52, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

Why leave out the last sentence? PhotogenicScientist (talk) 19:05, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

For no reason other than (unless I'm misreading) it was like 3-1 in favor of removing that sentence in the discussion above. Which of course doesn't mean it's consensus or anything, I just thought that without-the-last-sentence was the version that had the most support in the prior discussion. For my part I'd support the change with or without the last sentence. I do think the last sentence is unhelpfully-vague as written (what constitutes "borderline" and "debatable" are, um, debatable) and I'd prefer something more objective or otherwise easier to apply (if we have a "last sentence"). But again, I'd support with or without the last sentence, because the first sentence is more important IMO. Levivich (talk) 19:19, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, support; #37 was meant to counter the desire to include every recent controversy. That's no longer applicable to his presidency (which is over), so it's proper to update #37 to be about current events. DFlhb (talk) 13:04, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

I'd agree if he was safely out to pasture chewing the cud, building his presidential library, or whatever. Instead, he's campaigning for a second term, and he and his supporters are reinterpreting his presidency. That and 91 felony counts and assorted civil lawsuits that may cost him some money are the only events currently having an impact on his life. IMO, it's too early to change #37. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 13:57, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

Too early to change #37, as he's still seeking (and likely will win) the 2024 Republican presidential nomination. GoodDay (talk) 16:33, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

That would still be covered under proposed 37 as a current event. Whereas they would not be covered under current 37 because his 2024 campaign isn't about his presidency (which ended in 2021). Levivich (talk) 07:05, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

Support change.His presidency has passed.Needs updating. Last sentence doesn’t make sense. Jack Upland (talk) 02:54, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

I support this change, although I wouldn't oppose keeping the last sentence. That being said, consensus 37 is a WP:LOCALCONSENSUS anyway and shouldn't be able to override established content policies like WP:DUE and WP:ASPECT. Malerisch (talk) 03:30, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

Legal affairs

There is a "See also" under "Post-presidency" that links to Legal affairs of Donald Trump which is now a redirect. Should this be changed? Jack Upland (talk) 23:25, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

Yes. I changed it to Personal and business legal affairs of Donald Trump. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 03:13, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Which excludes the other article about Trump's legal affairs which might be more important.--Jack Upland (talk) 03:27, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

I picked that one because the section discusses personal and business legal affairs, not ones related to his presidency. Did I miss something? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 03:31, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Your bias is showing.

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

---

Your job is to share information. Not persuade your readers into feeling a certain way. Do better. 24.106.235.2 (talk) 21:15, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

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

correct order

Hi, I was wondering if the following could be placed in the correct order. The current entry says "Donald John Trump (born June 14, 1946) is an American politician, media personality, and businessman who served as the 45th president of the United States from 2017 to 2021.". In reality it should say "Donald John Trump (born June 14, 1946) is an American businessman, media personality, and politician who served as the 45th president of the United States from 2017 to 2021." as that is the chronological order of his life. 86.29.220.49 (talk) 23:35, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

The consensus is the current word order — see Current consensus #50 at the top of this talk page. For the bio of a former U.S. president and reality-TV "star", the listing in the order of importance should be politician before media personality before businessman. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 13:37, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

US Supreme Court ruling

The US Supreme Court has over-ruled Colorado's barring of Trump from the Republican primary & November ballot. GoodDay (talk) 16:28, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

I removed the paragraph. "The ruling applies to other states with similar challenges to Trump’s candidacy". Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 19:02, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

The paragraph probably shouldn't be removed. Only the part about it being in litigation given it's now resolved. It's still a Supreme Court Case that was specifically dealing with the Trunp 2024 presidential campaign. LosPajaros (talk) 22:26, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

I've summarized it, if the consensus is still to keep it. DN (talk) 22:48, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

It belongs in Donald Trump 2024 presidential campaign, not in the top bio. The justification for reverting my edit was that it's still a landmark election case before the Supreme Court to have happened specifically relating to his presidential campaign. It should still be noted upon *because* he won it. The case was about Trump remaining on the ballot for the Republican primary in Colorado. The court didn't examine the question whether Trump incited an insurrection; it said that Colorado cannot disqualify him under the 14th Amendment's ban for insurrection. Can you cite any RS calling it a landmark decision? Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 11:32, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

The case was explicitly related to the Trump 2024 campaign as around 3 states had ruled that he was to be kicked off their primary ballots. Given that it was directly related to his presidential campaign and that the Supreme Court ruled specifically on whether a state could kick his candidacy off the ballot in a state I think it should probably have some mention in the '2024 Presidential Campaign' subheading. The court not ruling on whether he committed an insurrection I agree isn't relevant at all to this '2024 Presidential Campaign' subheading, but the Supreme Court arguments and the decision itself focused almost solely on the legal justification for a state being able to kick his candidacy off a States Republican primary ballot. That itself is heavily relevant to the '2024 Presidential Campaign' subheading as the Republican 2024 Presidential Primary *is* Donald Trump's 2024 Presidential Campaign until he wins the nomination and continues on into the general election. LosPajaros (talk) 18:37, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

The majority of legal scholars who voiced their opinions before the decision said that the SC should and would rule against disqualification, and that’s what happened. The SC ruled unanimously that "a single state doesn’t have the authority to use Section 3 to disqualify a candidate for federal office" as a matter of constitutional law, allowing Trump to stay on the ballot in Colorado, Illinois, and Maine, states that would otherwise have removed him. That's relevant for an article on U.S. presidential election law, if there is one, and for the 2024 presidential primaries but here it isn't any more important than Haley having defeated Trump in the Republican primaries in Vermont and D.C., i.e., too much detail. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 12:51, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

I agree with your point that the Supreme Court ruled on the virtue of his candidacies disqualification but that itself should be of mention within the subheading of his '2024 Presidential Campaign' as it was directly relevant to his 2024 candidacy at large. The Supreme Court ruled on the merits of whether or not a state could kick his candidacy off the ballot as multiple states had. He won the case but that doesn't change the fact that the case was directly related to his presidential candidacy. Of course Trump losing D.C. or Vermont wouldn't be relevant for mention because those individual contests have no relevance to his campaign or candidacy *as* a campaign or a candidacy. Those were individual nominating contests. This case was directly related to whether his Presidential candidacy could be invalidated in multiple states on the basis that his candidacy at large was deemed unconstitutional by those states. If the case was already deemed relevant enough to be present under this subheading prior to it being ruled in his favor I don't see how it being ruled in his favor somehow changes that relevance to the Campaign. What's currently being argued for is the removal of an addition that already had consensus and relevance for mention under this subheading. LosPajaros (talk) 23:32, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

deemed relevant enough: the difference to now is that Colorado and Maine had actually removed Trump's name from the ballots. They put it back when he filed his appeals. Nobody even bothered to add Illinois to this article because the court order to take him off the ballot was immediately stayed, pending the SC's decision. It's all moot now — states can't remove Trump from their ballots based on section 3 of the 14th amendment. Most legal scholars who published opinions on the efforts said this was going to happen. What you're saying is that he "won", and we should say that, correct? We've removed tons of other relevant material because it's a long article, and other material was deemed more important. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 14:04, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Of course it's moot now but it was still an unprecedented legal question that was directly related to his presidential campaign. It was already well assumed prior to the hearing that he would "win" the case and yet there was still enough consensus that the case is relevant enough to be mentioned. Him "winning" or "losing" the case is only relevant for the outcome of that case but regardless of that outcome it doesn't change the fact that this is a highly relevant case directly related to his presidential campaign and is probably the most notable event associated with it so far. It's not like this subheading is super crowded with other material or anything either. There's literally only two sentences of other material aside from it which are just "Trump announcing his Campaign" and "Trump using a PAC to pay for legal bills"; the later of which I don't know how you can say is somehow more relevant to this subheading than a Supreme Court case in which a candidate is arguing whether multiple States had the authority to kick his candidacy wholesale off their states ballot. The caveats that in Trump v. Anderson that the Court was going to rule in favor of him regardless were already very well-understood prior to the decision being released yet there was still consensus to keep mention of it. It doesn't change that this case was already deemed relevant enough to be present and mentioned. LosPajaros (talk) 17:27, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Agree that it's notable. It's been all over the media for months. Riposte97 (talk) 02:04, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Wealth

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

---

Shouldn't the Wealth section under Personal Life be updated. A lot has changed since 2021. Millions spent on lawyers, fines, campaign expenses, bank loan repayments, golf course purchases, taxes, etc. Buster Seven Talk (UTC) 15:00, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

According to the NYT, Trump raised $254 million in donations from his supporters since the 2020 election. He spent $107 million of the donations on his legal fees and presumably the rest on campaign expenses, since the money seems to have been spent. That doesn't belong in his personal wealth section. Fines: pending appeals. AFAIK, he hasn't bought any golf courses since Balmedie/Scotland in 2006; the Trump-branded courses in Dubai are merely managed by the Trump Organization, they belong to DAMAC Properties/Dubai billionaire Hussain Sajwani. Bank loan payments, taxes: waiting for new reporting by reliable sources. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 16:41, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

Thank you but that really doesn't explain the information gap that exists in the article. Since his beginning as a celebrity, he has sold himself as one of the wealthiest Americans. It is one of the most important parts of his Brand. A lot has changed since 2021. What is Forbes most recent evaluation? What do his lawyers have to say about his financial health? In order to accurately inform our reader, the section deserves to be improved with current up-to-date information. Buster Seven Talk (UTC) 17:56, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

The Trump Org is a private organization. No one really knows the details. It's unlikely his lawyers have any idea. We use the annual Forbes estimate. O3000, Ret. (talk) 18:07, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

I now see the discussion above about Forbes April report. We can wait till it comes out. Buster Seven Talk (UTC) 18:04, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

@Buster7: In that case, do you want to close this as withdrawn? It seems somewhat redundant with other active threads (including the one you mentioned), and would tend to scatter the discussion if left open. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:39, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

Absolutely fine to close. Like any good editor, I see things and they make me wonder. I saw the missing info gap about current Wealth and it made me wonder why. I should have waited and read more of the talk page. BTW, my congratulations to whomever had the foresight to create the Current Consensus thread above. What a wonderful tool for a late comer like me. I didn't plan to stay but the article awakens early memories of collaborative experiences a decade ago. Consider the discussion  Done Buster Seven Talk (UTC) 03:30, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

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

The Supreme Court is set to hear oral arguments on April 25

Can we please add this part?

In February 2024, former President Trump asserted absolute immunity against investigations into any crimes committed during his tenure. The Supreme Court is set to hear oral arguments on this matter on April 25.

Sources

Goodtiming8871 (talk) 12:53, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

Why, if the courts say he is wrong what he thinks is irrelevant. Slatersteven (talk) 15:43, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

However, since the court may decide that he is correct, wouldn't it be fair to record the date on which the relevant court will decide? Goodtiming8871 (talk) 12:09, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

These future trial dates are constantly changing. An encyclopedia focuses on the past. O3000, Ret. (talk) 14:55, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

GA charges

As you may know, Trump was indicted in New York on 34 counts, in Florida on 40 counts, in DC on four counts, and in Georgia on 13 counts, with a grand total of 91 felony counts. I want to focus on the Georgia counts since three of them were dismissed recently, bringing the total count down to 10 (grand total 88 across four indictments). Even though the lead section is extremely lengthy, and does cover the criminal charges, I want to know why this does not take the dismissal of those three charges into account, and because he was initially indicted on 13 charges, we could add a note saying three of the charges were dismissed. Unknown0124 (talk) 14:21, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

THis is why we need to wait on all of this until he is either convicted or found to not be guilty. Slatersteven (talk) 14:45, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea to me. I don't know when the GA trial will start, now that the Willis-Wade stuff has been settled, but in further thought I agree that adding the fact that three of the charges were dismissed can wait until there is a verdict. Unknown0124 (talk) 16:59, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

As I understand it, the judge who dismissed those three charges stated they could be refiled. Regards,   Aloha27  talk  18:27, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

For the purposes of the lead, how many charges he has been indicted on and where is not so relevant. That he is under indictment is. And three charges being dismissed, that can be refiled, is too in te weeds. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:36, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 2 April 2024

Change "to now" to "not to" in the following sentence, if it is an error, as I suspect:

Donald Trump claimed to now know who David Duke was in 2016, Feldonian (talk) 10:14, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

 Not done - That sentence (and more) was removed from article 8 hours before your post here,[3] so I don't know where you saw it. Maybe you needed to refresh your page? Maybe you were looking at an old revision of the article? Maybe you looked at the edit I linked and don't know what a removal looks like? ―Mandruss ☎ 10:34, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Business career - Golf courses

Hello Nikkimaria, your recent revert of reliably sourced context doesn't help with expanding a woefully thin "sub-section", which is barely 2 sentences long. I don't see why his tenure as president and his golf hobbies are necessarily mutually exclusive. So, why is this an issue and are there other ways we can expand this section? Cheers. DN (talk) 22:45, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

The better solution in this case would be reorganizing the section to avoid tiny subsections - I've now implemented that. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:32, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, I think it's an improvement as well. DN (talk) 00:18, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

I disagree, but unfortunately I'm currently prevented from reverting by 24-hr BRD which you violated with this revert after I had challenged your original "trim" of longstanding material. Tiny subsections? Four subsections for distinct business ventures, two long ones ("Manhattan developments" and "Atlantic City casinos") and two short ones ("Mar-a-Lago" and "Golf courses"), all of them boiled down to summary-level. The real estate section now is a big wall of text jumping from Manhattan to Atlantic City to Manhattan to Atlantic City to Manhattan, with Mar-a-Lago buried somewhere in Manhattan and the golf courses in Riverside South. Not an improvement. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 10:30, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

The 24 hours are up, so I partially reverted. I moved Trump's visits to his businesses during his presidency to the presidency/conflicts of interest section and combined the Mar-a-Lago and golf sections to one clubs section. That should take care of the objections to the two "tiny sections" and to the visits to his golf clubs being about the presidency rather than his business career. The visits were about both — the president was taking business to and advertising the private business he owned and hadn't put in a blind trust. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 12:31, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

No, padding out still-small sections is moving in the wrong direction - the combined section is not overlong (and could be condensed) and a chronological structure is more logical than the sort-of-thematic one. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:17, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

I like S4T's work. Yes, things should be listed chronologically, but that doesn't mean sections can't be organized by "theme". It's easier for readers to find what they are looking for, rather than searching through broad subjects by year. DN (talk) 00:32, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

DN, regarding this revert: being sourced is a necessary but not sufficient condition for inclusion, and thus far consensus has not been established for that addition. Please undo. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:57, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

If you could point out the consensus to exclude, I would appreciate it. DN (talk) 04:59, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

DN, as per WP:ONUS, "The responsibility for achieving consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content". Nikkimaria (talk) 05:03, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

So there is no consensus to exclude? I think S4TC has explained their reasoning logically. Unless you have a more logical explanation as to why it should be removed other than "not an improvement", in the meantime you are free to use a banner to see of other editors feel like weighing in. DN (talk) 05:09, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

DN, there is no consensus to include, and that is what is required. There is also no reasoning that has been presented as to why this factoid merits inclusion - if you have any to present by all means, but in the interim it should stay out. Nikkimaria (talk) 05:18, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

Are you telling me I'm not allowed to participate here? DN (talk) 05:20, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

DN, nope, I'm telling you you're not allowed to do this and need to undo it unless/until your or others' participation here results in a positive consensus in favour of that change. Nikkimaria (talk) 05:23, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

Hmmm. I will ask and see if I am violating any rules here. As far as I can tell, the consensus right now is for inclusion 2 to 1. That may change, but I do not see the urgency here unless there is some violation. Give me a moment. DN (talk) 05:28, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for your patience, I have reached out for guidance. DN (talk) 05:50, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

I'm still waiting to see if this article is under WP:CRP, but I don't see it posted here. DN (talk) 07:40, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

User:Nikkimaria, I made a bold edit, you challenged it, removing longstanding material along with it, and then DN challenged your edit. You would be right if I had reverted your edit but in this case I think the onus per WP:EDITCONSENSUS currently is on you to obtain consensus. My reason for adding: it's remarkable for a former president to be working at a club, with duties — according to the justification Trump's attorney submitted to the town of Palm Beach — including "overseeing the property, evaluating the performance of employees, suggesting improvements to the club's operations, reviewing the club's financials, attending events, greeting guests and recommending candidates for membership". Not quite on the same level as 91 felony counts but far from the norm. This Palm Beach Daily News article may be a better source than the current Forbes cite: (Palm Beach may have been looking for a way to avoid another 80-foot flagpole lawsuit). Background: Trump was broke in 1993, selling off property to stave off personal bankruptcy. He signed an agreement with Palm Beach that allowed him to turn Mar-a-Lago, which was zoned as a private residence, into a private club and sell memberships. Part of the agreement was that members of the club, including proprietors, were not allowed to live there for more than 21 days per year and more than 7 days at a time. He’d been violating the agreement all along but nobody paid attention until he starting showing up with the presidential motorcade and a throng of reporters in tow. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 11:46, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

There's nothing in EDITCONSENSUS suggesting that an additional revert changes the burden.

Your explanation doesn't support that this factoid is significant to a high-level understanding of the subject's real estate career. Details like this are best addressed at a narrower article. Here it is sufficient to say that it's a residence without getting into the when why and how. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:17, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

When someone reverts a change it suggests that the edit in question should probably be brought to the talk page. As such, DN should've probably brought the edit to the talkpage instead of reverting back to Space4T's bold version. I tend to agree that reverting a good-faith revert is problematic (especially in WP:CTOP space), and I do think that DN should revert his edit, but no policy or guideline is being broken here as far as I'm aware.

While the burden, in theory, hasn't changed, you still need to demonstrate why you think that the content should be excluded using concrete policies/guidelines or reliable sources, which I don't think you've done. Previously it was a sourceless, reasoning-less squabble, but now that Space4T has provided a myriad of sources you need to do the same, or at the very least scrutinize the sources and reasoning present. Otherwise it'll just become a cycle of people trying to prove to you that an edit belongs in the article, as opposed to productive discussion. Cessaune [talk] 01:50, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

The reports about the legal requirements for him to make it his residence seem unique and subsequently prolific in quite a few sources other than Forbes. It doesn't seem any more or less of a factoid than golfing being his "primary form of exercise." DN (talk) 02:05, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Given the excessive length of this article I have no doubt that there are other details that warrant consideration for removal or moving elsewhere (see WP:OTHERCONTENT). But the assumption that sourcing equals inclusion is problematic, and not consistent with policy. We also need to consider the appropriate weight for particular topics within the context of their sections, and what level of detail is appropriate - both of these considerations support leaving the claim (and the niche discussion of legal requirements given above, without which the significance of the claim is unclear) to a more specific article rather than this one. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:40, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

From what I understand, at least part of measuring WEIGHT is prevalence among reliable sources, but rather than get into a policy debate, why not just take it to NPOVN? DN (talk) 21:08, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

First, because NPOVN requires discussion on the talk page first; second, because its scope could only partly address the issues with this addition. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:23, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Your original argument was based on WP:CRP, which is not in effect, hence, you lost that argument. DN (talk) 05:59, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

You were the only one to raise CRP in relation to this discussion, as far as I can see. Do you have a response to the points I have raised? Nikkimaria (talk) 23:56, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Forgive me if I misunderstood when you said this... "there is no consensus to include, and that is what is required."...and this "I'm telling you you're not allowed to do this and need to undo it unless/until your or others' participation here results in a positive consensus in favour of that change.... I've been clear that I prefer the format and reasoning provided by S4T. Until someone has a better solution I'm going to drop the STICK. Cheers. DN (talk) 01:09, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

There's also nothing suggesting that the first revert can't be reverted by another editor. An edit has presumed consensus until it is disputed or reverted. Should another editor revise that edit then the new edit will have presumed consensus until it meets with disagreement. Your edit (i.e., reverting my bold edit) also met with disagreement, and the third new edit now has presumed consensus. If—then, no end to the loop, unless it turns into edit-warring. Change through editing, per the last paragraph — in this way, the encyclopedia gradually improves over time. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 16:49, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

The edit being restored doesn't change the fact that it was and is disputed. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:23, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

It was disputed on the basis of CRP, which was a mistake. DN (talk) 07:54, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

References

Tagging

in this edit:

1. Boxing matches - importance tag. See this edit. I replaced one of the cited sources (NYT - it only mentioned that Trump had won the bidding for the Tyson-Spinks match in 1988) with a source we were already using elsewhere, rephrased the sentence, and removed the tag.
2. Trump Shuttle - importance tag. I removed the sentence, we have the link to Trump Shuttle where interested readers can find the details of yet another business failure.
3. Trump University - excessive detail tag. $35,000 for a seminar that offers no degree or transferable credits - that’s close to the U.S. average for one year of college (including books, supplies, and daily living expenses) in 2023–2024 (in-state tuition and fees at ranked public colleges is $10,662, out-of-state $23,630). IMO, such a price tag for what was adjudged to be a worthless seminar is a relevant detail in a section that ends with Trump paying $25 million in restitution to the former customers.

Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 17:51, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

It was judged to be a worthless seminar that offers no degree or transferable credits - what difference does it make to that whether it cost 1k or 100k? It's not a detail that is necessary to understand the events at a high level. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:18, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

The difference is 99k. The difference is wearing your winter coat for another year and eating Velveeta instead of real cheese or losing your house or retirement fund. The numbers are s.th. readers can relate to. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 10:43, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

My question was more what difference does it make to an understanding of the article, but if the bar is what readers can relate to, then we should remove the case values instead. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:09, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

Rambling and Bias

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

---

I get Trump is in a lot of court cases. I do. But, half of the article is about the cases. A lot less of the article showcases what he did in office. If we were to highlight some of these things he did in office and how he impacted the country. This also tags along to bias. Nothing here screams positive in this guy which is completely incorrect. No matter what he did he is still a caring person for his family. If this is the only thing that younger generations can learn about Trump he will be remembered as a terrible man. This is where it raises alarm. Generations can be influenced by lies which can lead to bad decisions. 2600:8807:800:6E00:4C79:ED18:CC8B:A601 (talk) 06:58, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

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

Melania in the infobox

According to her bio article, she was born Melanija Knavs (with a "j") and changed her name to Melania Knauss when she became a model (~19 years before Trump acquired her). Our infobox shows "Melania Knavs"; this is an odd and unexplained hybrid of the two names and is inconsistent with the "Melania Knauss" that we use in the body. Suggest changing the infobox to "Melania Knauss", as this was her name at the time of acquisition. ―Mandruss ☎ 16:20, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

Acquired... Cessaune [talk] 16:53, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

¿Qué? ―Mandruss ☎ 16:58, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

It's just an interesting term. "Melania Knauss" makes the most sense, assuming everything you've said is correct (it is). Cessaune [talk] 17:31, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

Trump appears to have married someone legally named Melanija Knavs, according to her WH bio (the Germanized version was supposed to further her modeling career, if I remember correctly). Our cited source uses "Melania Knauss", and per WP:PSEUDONYM that's probably what we should use. Speaking about acquisitions: Ivana Zelníčková's legal name was actually Ivana Winkelmayr, née Zelníčková, on account of her having acquired the last name and Austrian citizenship through the unconsummated marriage to Austrian citizen Alfred Winkelmayr for the purpose of obtaining said citizenship. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 19:07, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

 Done barring objection.[4] ―Mandruss ☎ 19:45, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

Trump Foundation

• User:Nikkimaria "reframed" the longstanding content here. The reframing included the removal of Trump's private foundation having accepted money from other donors. Original version:

In the foundation's final years, its funds mostly came from donors other than Trump, who did not donate any personal funds to the charity from 2009 until 2014. The foundation gave to health-care- and sports-related charities, as well as conservative groups.

Reframed version:

The foundation gave to health- and sports-related charities and conservative groups. Trump did not donate any personal funds to the charity from 2009 to 2014.

• I rephrased and added details on the other donors, based on a more current source here.

From 1987 to 2006, Trump gave his foundation $5.4 million which had been spent by the end of 2006. After donating a total of $65,000 in 2007–2008, he stopped donating any personal funds to the charity, which received millions from other donors, including $5 million from Vince McMahon. The foundation gave to health- and sports-related charities, conservative groups, and charities that held events at Trump properties.

• Nikkimaria then removed all of it, both the longstanding content and the details & source I added.
• I reverted their edit, then self-reverted to the longstanding content because I'm not sure whose second edit counts as a revert or simple editing. As I said in my edit summary, Trump's PRIVATE foundation not having been registered to solicit/accept money from other donors while accepting millions from other donors over many years is relevant information for his personal bio and as the lead-in to the second paragraph. The original content cites Fahrenthold's April 2016 article correctly which said that Trump did not donate to his foundation from 2009–2014; Fahrenthold's September 2016 article makes it clear that Trump did not contribute at all from 2009 onward.

Sources

Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 16:50, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

I would prefer not to become the token tie breaker here. Nikkimaria, is it possible to start trying to find some consensus with S4T in regard to your edits, in order to avoid this back-and-forth between you two? This is a collaborative project, after all. DN (talk) 23:20, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

S4T, Nikkimaria did not really "remove" as much as copy-edited. How essential is "Trump's PRIVATE foundation not having been registered to solicit/accept money from other donors while accepting millions from other donors over many years" to his personal Bio according to policy? DN (talk) 00:00, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

Not. That's why I moved some detail to the foundation article where it is more appropriately placed.

I would be very open to seeing any ideas S4T may have on other ways to decant detail and streamline the article. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:09, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

Trump's PRIVATE foundation not having been registered to solicit/accept money from other donors while accepting millions from other donors over many years Unless I'm mistaken that information is not covered in any of the versions presented here. Readers are not given a reason to understand why the external donations, or Trump's lack of donations, are significant.

edit: I'm wrong, it's implicitly explained later, but we should concisely explain the rationale behind why the NYAG "determined the foundation to be in violation of state law for soliciting donations"; that's the central piece of info of the section. The paragraph we're discussing is mere context/background for that, and the original version (not Nikkimaria or yours) is enough to those ends. DFlhb (talk) 15:51, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

It's not copy-editing if someone removes material from this page, even if it's moved to another page. At summary-level, we should provide enough information for readers to decide whether they want to look up the details in the main article. The Trump Foundation was a tax-exempt family foundation that was supposed to be "governed and funded by family members and must meet all the same IRS guidelines for private foundations". Instead, they solicited donations from others, as well as guided others to make payments for services rendered under the guise of donations, such as the McMahons' $5 million "donation" to the tax-exempt foundation for Trump's appearances in 2007's Wrestlemania 23 and the June 2009 RAW storyline of Trump allegedly buying WWE and selling it back to McMahon the next week. Trump used foundation funds as a personal piggy bank, e.g., for paying the fine in the 80-foot flagpole lawsuit we discussed in "Business career - Golf courses", above.

Flagpole settlement

Trump had racked up a fine of $120,000 and counting when he sued the town of Palm Beach in 2006 for "abridgment to his constitutional right to free speech" for not allowing him to violate the town's restrictions on the size of private flagpoles and flags. The lawsuit ended with the town allowing him a 70-foot pole instead of the 42 feet allowed under the ordinance and waiving the fine, with Trump agreeing to make a $100,000 donation to a veterans' charity. He didn't use his own money, though, he directed the foundation to pay.

The foundation, created in 1988, received more money from outside donors since 2001, i.e., during more than half of its existence, not just in its final years. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 18:13, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

Point taken. DN (talk) 19:07, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

Yeah the "final years" wording isn't good; I also missed the lack of mention of charities that held events at Trump properties in the original version, which is worth mentioning. I now see the point of your version & support it. I've also tried fixing the issue I brought up; feel free to bold-refine or kick it back to the talk page if needed. DFlhb (talk) 22:10, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

Update Trump Net Worth to$6B, Add DJT Stock to Business Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 26 March 2024

Update the Business section to include DJT stock that had its 1st trading day today, 3/26/2024. Per this article, Trump’s Net Worth needs to be increased to $6.4 Billion: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2024-03-25/donald-trump-6-4-billion-net-worth-makes-him-one-of-world-s-richest-people 136.175.96.252 (talk) 21:24, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Not done, as per WP:NOTNEWS. Jeppiz (talk) 21:28, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Current consensus #5: "Use Donald Trump's net worth evaluation and matching rankings, from the Forbes annual list of billionaires." Besides, that stock value will likely be highly volatile. We're not going to constantly update. O3000, Ret. (talk) 00:00, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

True dat (dose). Although #5 says it's currently as of 2020, so it may bear an update from Forbes. Anybody care to take that on? ―Mandruss ☎ 00:29, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

Looks like the article was updated in 2021 without updating #5. Shame on us, but we probably still need another update. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:44, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

Spun off at Net worth update, below. ―Mandruss ☎ 07:22, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

Rape issue and the lead

Shouldn't the fact that Trump was found to have raped E. Jean Carroll in a civil trial be in the lead? It is a highly relevant biographical detail about someone, that he was found to have raped a woman in a judicial proceeding.

And yes: it was rape. It wasn't rape under the anachronistic definition of NY Criminal Law (because it was with his hands), and hence the finding of the court that it was "sexual abuse," not rape, for purposes of NYC law. But the jury did find that Trump had raped Carroll, since the conduct he was found to have to engaged in [forced penetration with his hands] fits within the common meaning of rape. A filing by Judge Lewis A. Kaplan, rejecting Trump's motion for a second trial in the Carroll case, clarified this. See: https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2023/07/19/trump-carroll-judge-rape/

To quote the judge:

The finding that Ms. Carroll failed to prove that she was ‘raped’ within the meaning of the New York Penal Law does not mean that she failed to prove that Mr. Trump ‘raped’ her as many people commonly understand the word ‘rape.' Indeed, as the evidence at trial recounted below makes clear, the jury found that Mr. Trump in fact did exactly that. HistorianEzzat (talk) 02:55, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

The lead says that In 2023, a civil trial jury found that Trump sexually abused E. Jean Carroll. We had discussions about sexual abuse vs. rape "within the meaning of the New York Penal Law", archived here and here, and went with what the jury's decision said. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 12:10, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

I'd take issue with common meaning of rape. Digital penetration is not what I think of when I hear the word. The entry in my dictionary-of-choice says "usually sexual intercourse", so, if there's a "common meaning", it would be that. Interpretations may differ in other parts of the world, but this is an American article. "Sexual abuse" is even more vague, but we're giving Trump the benefit of the ambiguity for purposes of the lead. It's a common problem with leads: there is not enough room to be as accurate and nuanced as we'd like.

But all this is fairly irrelevant per policy. I haven't reviewed the previous discussions, but I assume they concluded that the word "rape" was not used in the preponderance of reliable sources. If you want to say "rape" without explanation (a necessity in the lead), you'll need to show otherwise. You have cited only one secondary source.

This does not necessarily preclude further elaboration in the body section, bearing in mind that it links to an article dedicated to the subject. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:26, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Your quibble about "common meaning" is with the judge, not with editors. I'm old enough to remember when "no" often literally meant "yes" (being coy and shy was mandated seductive behavior, so a soft "no" wasn't intended to be understood as a hard "no"), but now any "no" means "no", and rape includes any unwanted oral, rectal, or vaginal penetration without advance permission, and not necessarily with a penis. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 20:56, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

As I said: fairly irrelevant per policy. Forgive the off-topic. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:10, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

I would say not, as it is not a settled issue. When the SC decides we can say what they say (assuming they say its a valid argument). Slatersteven (talk) 13:00, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

Also, as I understand it, neither the rape of Carol, or the civil trial occurred while he was president. Slatersteven (talk) 13:02, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

What does that have to do with anything ? Or are the editors as usual diverting the issue via Rhetoric ? If it was you...you would be in jail and yet you will defend a sexual predator which makes you an accomplice Anonymous8206 (talk) 16:17, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

It does not, but there has been an edit between my post and yours that moved something I replied to. Slatersteven (talk) 16:33, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

More rhetoric..what does that mean in English ? Anonymous8206 (talk) 16:49, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

What it says, is that between my post and your post, the comments I was referring to had been moved, I am unsure how this is rhetoric. Slatersteven (talk) 16:52, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

My fault. Another editor mistakenly inserted the "The Supreme Court is set to hear oral arguments on April 25" thread in the middle of this section. Slatersteven replied to that. I noticed the misplaced thread and moved it without moving Slatersteven's comments. Confusion ensued. Sorry for the rhetoric. ―Mandruss ☎ 16:55, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

i don't think we can use the r-word unless many reliable sources start referring to it as such, if they begin to call out the antiquated definition used by the State of New York. ValarianB (talk) 17:04, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

It's all rhetoric...the editors are incapable of saying anything here in plain English just like lawyers in a courtroom..that's how a small number of people are able control the narrative..anyone who doesn`t know what a rape is has never experienced it...needs to be in the lead Anonymous8206 (talk) 18:10, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

MAybe, but we are governed by law (and policies) and policy is clear, we can't say a person committed a crime unless they have been proven guilty of having committed that crime (see wp:blp). Trump was only found guilty of sexual assault, we could say "However the judge said that he committed rape within the common use of the term" or somesuch. Slatersteven (talk) 18:45, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

We are governed by force Anonymous8206 (talk) 19:20, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

That sounds like such a dumb, ChatGPT-generated bumper sticker, I'm not even sure how to respond. If that's all you have left to offer, then it seems like this thread is done. Zaathras (talk) 22:19, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

No we are governed by wp:policy. Slatersteven (talk) 12:34, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

You know as well as I do he is a sexual predator..it is relevant regardless of who gets the last word here Anonymous8206 (talk) 23:54, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

It was rape; both the judge and sources support it. I added this sentence to the lead, with "sexually abused" to avoid bikeshedding. The Trump claim that "it wasn't rape" relies on a technicality in New York law. The federal judge said it unequivocally: Mr. Trump in fact did 'rape' Ms. Carroll as that term commonly is used and understood in contexts outside of the New York Penal Law. It's been litigated, it's a settled issue; I don't understand on what basis people say otherwise. DFlhb (talk) 00:57, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

Under the law, Trump is innocent of the crime of rape, and also innocent of any crime at all, because he has not (yet) been convicted of any crime in a court of law. People in civil trials are not entitled to any presumption of innocence, and they also cannot be found guilty of any crime. Whatever we write about Trump, we should be clear about this distinction, and clear that Trump is currently presumed innocent of any crime. Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:07, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

In the real world..not a courtroom...if you think he is innocent you are deluded..he is a known sexual predator..I will never win this fight..I don`t intend to..you are protecting a pedophile and you know it..all for the sake of maintaining capitalism in a world full of starving children..you don`t have a conscious..but you will win this meaningless war of words..that peice of garbage belongs in prison and so do his accomplices Anonymous8206 (talk) 04:14, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

Is sex trafficking bad? Is murder bad? Is rape bad, even "digital" rape?

Yes, yes, and yes.

What about fornication? What about abortion? What about pork consumption?

There is no objective good or bad. As such, it's not about what we think at all: it's about what RSs think. We base our characterizations on reliable sources, not our own opinions. And, if you think the people on this page are trying to "protect" Trump, you haven't been paying attention to many of the recent discussions.

It's fine to have opinions, but save them for... I don't know, Reddit, or Twitter. Comments like this don't help to improve the encyclopedia. Cessaune [talk] 18:01, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

The problem here is the apparently unshakable view that Wikipedia policy is an impediment to Truth (or a failure to comprehend the policy). Applicable shortcuts are WP:CIR and WP:NOTHERE, and would include WP:DE if the comments were more frequent. For now, it's a mere annoyance easily enough ignored, which I try to do whenever possible. No competent editor is including the comments in consensus assessments. ―Mandruss ☎ 18:43, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

Read wp:npa and wp:agf we are governed by policies such as wp:blp which means we cannot say someone committed a crime they have not been prosecuted for, even if we think they are guilty. We are not here to right great wrongs, we are here to present what RS say. Slatersteven (talk) 18:52, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

Off topic. Approaching chronic disruption worthy of WP:AE complaint. Please do not respond to this editor user per DFTT. ―Mandruss ☎ 04:40, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

The issue is Wikipedia is edited by a select few..meaningless articles regarding say celebrities or sports are generally ignored by most people..an article like this will be viewed by millions..everyone that edits these articles has an agenda of some kind which is why I refuse to edit articles..I am honest..in the end whoever is the slickest rhetorical bullshit artist will get their way here it has nothing to do with the truth..I will not..I am not a lawyer or a wannabe lawyer ie politician...Donald Trump is a known sexual predator who has preyed on underage girls..it is common knowledge Anonymous8206 (talk) 14:13, 27 March 2024 (UTC) As a final statement, if Wikipedia is edited by a "select few", yet you "refuse to edit articles", how are you helping to combat this "agenda" you speak of? Cessaune [talk] 14:17, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

Lowered bond amount

Greetings, all. Re: New York State's civil fraud case

As the news came that the New York Appellate Court, First Division, lowered the bond amount Trump had to post and granted an extension of payment, I added to that section the following: "On March 25, New York's Appellate Division ruled that Trump can post a lower bond, "in the amount of $175 million," and granted a delay of payment by 10 days," followed by a source to that effect.

User:Space4Time3Continuum2x reverted my edit giving the following reason: "The lower bond doesn't affect the trial court's decision which stands unless overruled on appeal." I found the reason frankly absurd since the information about a lower bond quite evidently did not affect the ruling for the payment itself and reverted the edit. After being reminded of the WP:CTOP procedure, I deleted my edit and I'm now bringing this here for discussion. I still cannot fathom why anyone would delete the information about the lower-amount decision and leave the article without any mention of it just because the information was not, per their opinion, complete. Even if they were correct in this, the obviously proper move forward would be to add the ostensibly missing information rather the delete the entire text. So, I'd appreciate some light in this Alice tunnel, please. -The Gnome (talk) 15:12, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

• We are not a newspaper, so in truth, none of this should be in the article until the trials are over. But what does this tell us about the trial? Slatersteven (talk) 15:15, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

You must have failed to notice that the Donald Trump article is one of the biggest in the Wikipedia. (And rightly so since the world's media, and most prominently U.S. media, or, in other words, a plethora of sources, are full of Trump-related news every day without fail.) Wikipedia "not being a newspaper" means mainly that Wikipedia does not report on everything going on in the world today, does not disseminate the opinion of those who write it, and does not "expose the truth" through some editor's investigative work. It's a good essay but, obviously, there are news, even breaking news, that are posted up in Wikipedia and must be posted up. Case in point, this development. If the amount had not been lowered, Trump faced a seizing of assets. I assume if that were to happen, it would be accepted as notable and important to include here. But we do not want to have the information about the threat that was hanging (still is, actually) over Trump's finances -- because it looks like ...newspaper work. Right. -The Gnome (talk) 08:51, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

• Glad to hear that the Lord granted your wish. just because the information was not, per their opinion, complete — huh? My edit summary may have been a tad obtuse, definition 2b, but that's your opinion, not mine. Unless Trump files an appeal, the trial is over, and the decision stands. The appeals court's Lex Trump makes it likelier that Trump will be able to post bond and file an appeal but, until he does, WP:NOTNEWS applies. If he does appeal, our second sentence should simply replace "said he would appeal" with "appealed". Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 16:53, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Moving in mysterious ways is indeed an attribute of deity; poor insolent me had you down as merely a human editor. You write, "Unless Trump files an appeal, the trial is over, and the decision stands." And where, pray, was any mention or even an insinuation that this is not a simple, solid fact? Nowhere, and certainly not in any source - not even in the most fanatically pro-Trump sources. So, if you want to replace replace "said he would appeal" with "appealed" if and when he files it, fine, but that was not ever a problem involving my edit. To return to the issue that was inexplicably (see above) raised, the matter of the size of the bond was and still is very much "news of the day" for many a day, as can be trivially shown. Which is why your revert is inexcusable: It leaves out of the article a very important aspect of the legal process. I truly cannot understand such a reasoning. Perhaps the subject itself of the biography distorts our approach, like a black hole. -The Gnome (talk) 09:44, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

You said it yourself, it's very much "news of the day", and WP is not a newspaper. This article isn't about the legal process; those details belong in New York civil investigation of The Trump Organization. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 12:41, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

The expression "news of the day" that I used, coupled with "for many a day," which you conveniently omit, denotes an important event that made "front page" in the United States, and in not a small number of countries around the world. This is not some one-off pyrotechnic but a game changer for Trump's finances. In the context of Tramp's legal travails, it was an important development, since without the significant decrease in the bond amount, Trump, as widely reported, faced a potential seizing of assets (check your sources) or bankruptcy (ditto). This is clearly not Wikipedia-as-newspaper but reporting a significant event. Omitting it, especially in this article, about the specific legal case, is a serious encyclopaedic misstep. -The Gnome (talk) 08:44, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

P.S. You write, " This article isn't about the legal process." The article is the biography of Trump. It's a very thorough, extended biography. It includes practically all his legal entanglements. This is about the N.York state civil case. We're dealing here with that section in the article! So, it is precisely "here," i.e. in the section about the case, that the information about lowering the bond amount belongs, no matter how we choose to dance around this. -The Gnome (talk) 08:44, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

Net worth update

Resolved

 – ―Mandruss ☎ 23:09, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

Spinoff from the above edit request.

• Consensus #5 says: "...from the Forbes annual list of billionaires (currently the 2020 edition, $2.1B/1001st/275th)...". Apparently, and my limited memory concurs, the "275th" came from the Forbes 400 Richest People in America. So that must have been in the article in 2020, but has since been removed (as unimportant?) without regard for #5. Now we mention only the global ranking. Should the discrepancy be resolved by adding the U.S. ranking back into the article, or by removing it from #5?
• At the top of Forbes's global ranking, it says #1217; I'm guessing that's the annual ranking. Scrolling down, it says "$2.6B", "as of 3/27/24", and "#1285 in the world today". I don't see how we can get a matching annual net worth and ranking from that. I vaguely recall that it was similarly confusing in 2020, I don't know how this was resolved then, and I'm too lazy to read the discussions to try to find out. Forbes's 2020 page is no longer available to provide a clue. Did we take the annual ranking and the real-time net worth and call it a day? If we did, we lost verifiability for the net worth very quickly. ―Mandruss ☎ 06:21, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

But wait, it gets worse. The article currently says: "In their 2021 billionaires ranking, Trump's net worth was estimated to be $2.4 billion (1,299th in the world)." It follows with a citation with the title, "#1001 Donald Trump", accessed April 2020. And following the link takes you to the page I linked above, which verifies neither the $2.4B nor the 1,299th. What's the point of a citation that doesn't (and can't) provide verifiability? Just to give the appearance that we're complying with policy, with the hope nobody will notice that we're doing anything but? What a hot mess. If we can't do better than this in the long term, we should revisit #5 and find a better methodology. ―Mandruss ☎ 06:56, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

I just updated consensus #5 and the "Wealth" section with the 2023 annual ranking on the Forbes billionaires list. I removed the Forbes 400 listing (nth in the U.S.). It isn't mentioned in #5, and he's not on the 2023 list, even though a search for his name says he's #343. This is your edit on April 13, 2020; someone updated to the 2021 numbers without updating the access date. The numbers appear to be correct, according to the 2021 list on the Wayback Machine. If the billionaires' assets aren't publicly traded, it's mostly guesstimates, AFAIK, and, as Trump told some court or other, his wealth fluctuates based on how rich he happens to feel on any given day. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 12:17, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

I'll take a pill to help me stomach the deviation from established process. We haven't often modified a consensus item (removal of U.S. ranking) because it was ignored, without revisiting it and reaching a consensus to amend it. Otherwise, that looks like an improvement, at least. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:27, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

If including the U.S. ranking wasn't part of the consensus in the supporting discussions, disregard the above. Still lazy, maybe permanently. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:24, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

Pavlovian conditioning? I saw "currently" and went into update mode. I self-reverted. I suggest removing the parenthesis with the 2020 numbers, "Forbes annual list of billionaires" is self-explanatory. As for the url we use in the article, the archived discussion doesn’t mention the Forbes 400 list at all (and Trump didn’t make it in 2023). The "static list" AlexEng mentioned in the discussion is this one, which isn't static at all. It’s updated daily, and when you scroll down, you get to Trump's stats for the previous year, including the Forbes billionaires list, or the last year Trump made the list, i.e., currently the 2022 Forbes 400 list. The other option, which I used in the article, is the World’s Billionaires List where you can enter Trump’s name in the "search" text field to show Trump's ranking for the previous year. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 11:08, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

the archived discussion doesn’t mention the Forbes 400 list at all -- As I tried to indicate, if the consensus didn't include inclusion of the U.S. ranking, removal of that from #5 was the correct action. Consensus items should always be made to accurately reflect the underlying discussions, even when discrepancies are discovered years later.

I could live with removing the parenthesis from #5, which moots the preceding.

My only gripe with your article edit is that its citation links to the home page of the Forbes billionaires list, instead of its page for Trump. If that's necessary for verifiability, I'm missing it. I generally dislike citations that make readers search for something, when that can be avoided. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:25, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

The problem with Trump's page is that it only lists the current ranking (today it's #413) and "worth" (down $335 million from yesterday's). It mentions the previous annual net worth but not the ranking. To see that you also need to do something, i.e., scroll down to the "Forbes lists" section. We'll probably wind up with daily "corrections" of worth and ranking in the article. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 21:47, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

I thought the #1217 at the top is the previous annual ranking, matching the $2.5B. No? Then what is it? ―Mandruss ☎ 22:04, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

- in my defense, it's dwarfed by "Donald Trump" further down. I changed the url and the title. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 22:20, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

No defense necessary, only capitulation. ;) I'll "remove the parenthesis" and we can put this to bed, again. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:22, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

By what right, Space4Time3Continuum2x, did you "update," i.e. changed, a consensus in Wikipedia without first engaging in a wide, talk-page consultation first? As I recall, that policy is quite clear about changing consensus and I do not recall anything about "updating." Moreover, a helpful fellow editor recently reminded me of the need, in specific circumstances, to engage in dialogue before edits. And, by the way, to prevent chaff, WP:BOLD cannot be invoked. -The Gnome (talk) 09:03, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

If it changes it needs updating, we are an encyclopedia. Slatersteven (talk) 10:31, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

See my response to Mandruss. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 11:14, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

Post Presidency (2021-present)

• Moved from my talk page... Buster Seven Talk (UTC) 12:26, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Friendly reminder to read the notices and warnings above the editing window: The Contentious_topics procedure applies to Donald Trump. "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." You failed to adhere to the procedure with this edit and the source you added here. Please, self-revert.Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 12:50, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up. Will do this evening. Buster Seven Talk (UTC) 12:57, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

@Space4Time3Continuum2x: Friendly Reply. All I did was add a comment clarifying what I felt was incorrect evaluation of Trump's seeming number of successful endorsements. The article stated; A majority of candidates endorsed by him won in Republican primary elections. It was inaccurately presented to the reader as if it was some great and unique accomplishment. The source given, (#670), was a New York Times article and required a subscription to be viewed so it could not be easily verified by the reader. In order to provide a more balanced view, I rightfully added: Many of these candidates were either unopposed or incumbents who already held their seats using [5] as a valid reference. You reverted with the summary...Misunderstanding? The content is about the Republican primaries, not the general election. So...the kerfuffle was your misunderstanding. Not mine. The BBC article was about the Republican primaries not the general election. Therefore, I do not find it necessary to self revert. Buster Seven Talk (UTC) 05:54, 29 March 2024 (UTC).

I will revert if other editors agree w/ Space. Buster Seven Talk (UTC) 12:26, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

I see here, [6], that my effort to bring clarity has been reverted. Buster Seven Talk (UTC) 13:54, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

As to content, I don't care. As to process, I'm inclined to take Space4T's word for it unless you can show the error of his thinking. Process at this article is pretty much inviolable, having been established by higher powers than us, and nobody understands it better, or is more committed to it, than Space4T. In my experience, Space4T does not selectively apply process rules when they serve his purpose. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:31, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

I think we should delete the sentence A majority of candidates endorsed by him won in Republican primary elections instead of adding more material about the performance of Republican candidates in the 2022 United States elections. Your proposed and the BBC source may be better placed at 2022_United_States_elections#Democracy. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 22:50, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Deletion would be satisfactory. Buster Seven Talk (UTC) 04:15, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

In the future I will think carefully before contributing anything to improve this article. Buster Seven Talk (UTC) 04:38, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

I recommend that for any article. Good to see you again, by the way; it's been years. ―Mandruss ☎ 04:48, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

Yes! Likewise. Glad to see you are still doing important work. I was passing by and noticed Citizen Trump getting false credit. I should have known it was a trap! Big mistake! But good to see you. Buster Seven Talk (UTC) 05:05, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

Buster7: Trap? Nah, we don't do traps, just the occasional not-thinking-it-all-the-way-through. Thanks for pointing out the credit where credit wasn't due. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 11:27, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

Outbreak

Regarding this edit: this isn't an article about the outbreak, it's an article about Trump, so what happened to Trump is what is essential to be included in this article. Additionally "struggling with the disease" is unclear phrasing. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:28, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

An outbreak is more than person getting sick, even if that person is the president, and his WH turning into a hot spot (WaPo cite) for the virus seems fitting for the way he handled the pandemic. "Struggling with the disease" is from the caption of one of the photographs in the NY Times cite. "Unwell" seems a bit weak. On the official video of his return, he yanked off the mask and gasped for air on the balcony. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 22:37, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

I don't disagree that an outbreak is more than one person getting sick, but this article is about that one person. And we can't copy phrasing directly from a source like that. We could use "seriously unwell" if strengthening is needed. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:59, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

I changed "still struggling with the disease" to "still infectious and unwell". Several of the cited sources cite Dr. Conley, his WH physician, "describing the president's condition as improving, though he said Trump was 'not out of the woods yet'". Conley also said that Trump could remain contagious "for several more days at least". Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 11:37, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

I rephrased the section to clarify that his case was part of an outbreak, leaving the details to the relevant article. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:23, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

Bias

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

---

This page/article is clearly heavily skewed and biased towards Donald Trump. This article is filled with loaded language, and the numerous links to "scandals" and "fraud" relating to Donald Trump need to be either removed and edited to retain neutral language, or altogether removed and replaced with a non-bias article. I understand that Wikipedia must note all events relating to a certain figure, but this article is clearly against Donald Trump. Please fix this.

Thanks, Pilotnance (talk) 17:44, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

Can you list some specific examples that you feel aren't neutral? Keeping in mind the #FAQ at the top of this page which addresses this common complaint. — Czello ^(music) 17:45, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

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

Neutrality Claims

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

---

"These policies require that information in Wikipedia articles be supported by citations from reliable independent sources" - Wikipedia

• Looks inside CNN page

"CNN has been involved in various controversies, criticisms, and allegations since its inception in 1980. The channel is known for its dramatic live coverage of breaking news, some of which has drawn criticism as overly sensationalistic."

• Uses CNN 71 times 💀 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.125.140.70 (talk) 23:14, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

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

Trade war

@Space4Time3Continuum2x: Please don't remove cleanup tags without addressing them; {{repetition}} is a redirect to {{copy edit}}. We've now got the same trade war discussed in multiple subsections, which is confusing for readers. Please pick one and consolidate. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:03, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

I challenged your edit, and instead of taking your proposed change to the Talk page you added a tag: your edit, my revert, your tagging, my removal. (I don’t get {{repetition}} is a redirect to {{copy edit}}.)

I don't see how we can present Trade without China or China without the trade war. "Trade" focuses on U.S. trade relations, including with China, and on Trump's misunderstanding/misrepresentation, to this day, of how tariffs work:

and launched a trade war with China by sharply increasing tariffs on 818 categories (worth $50 billion) of Chinese goods imported into the U.S.[343] While Trump said that import tariffs are paid by China into the U.S. Treasury, they are paid by American companies that import goods from China.[344]

"China" mentions the trade war among a number of other things:

As president, Trump launched a trade war against China that was widely characterized as a failure

Both have inline links to China–United States trade war — different emphasis, and we don't know that readers will read both subsections. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 14:52, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

I probably don't have the whole story here. But, please do not unilaterally place maintenance tags on this article. Please discuss here on the talk page first. And personally, I want to add, please also obtain consensus for placing a maintenance tag on this article. Also, my personal opinion is - since there are many editors involved on this page, a maintenance tag will never (ever) be needed. And adding a tag to this page might be construed as disruptive. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 15:09, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

That's not how maintenance tags work. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:15, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

We don't write subsections to stand alone. I've taken a stab at reorganizing the section in a different way to avoid the repetition. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:15, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

(Redacted)---Steve Quinn (talk) 15:26, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

Taken a stab? While there's a discussion on the Talk page? Kindly self-revert. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 15:55, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

All right, I've done that for the moment. Now do you have a substantive response to that revision? It retains the misunderstanding/misrepresentation component that you felt was important to include, while also addressing some of the oversectioning of the page. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:03, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

Nikkimaria. I looked at your proposed version of the Foreign policy section. I liked the way you had the more general aspects in the lead paragraphs and had the country specific aspects in each country's subsection. Before the change, the subsection Trade did not seem to fit the subsection organization. Bob K31416 (talk) 17:07, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

Starship paint already told you the purpose of the current structure of the article - what you see as "repetitive." So, now we are the discussion phase and I recommend discussing before editing again. Also, you are on a contentious topic page. That means editing here requires extra care. Please see the WARNING: ACTIVE ARBITRATION REMEDIES template at the top of this page. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 15:33, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

Well, they are both good. What are we looking for here? Reintegrate the section on "Trade" into the other two sections? What seems to work best? ---Steve Quinn (talk) 20:41, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

The current text starts with a section on Trump’s general foreign policy/opinions on relations with other countries: America first, admiration for authoritarian regimes, antagonism towards allies and NATO, lack of consistency and reliability. That’s followed by a subsection devoted to trade, including his incomprehension of how tariffs work, as exemplified by his remarks on the tariffs he imposed on China. The China subsection also has one short clause on the trade war which was the stated cause for the proposed reorganization, ie., to avoid the repetition. IMO, it’s a necessary repetition because China is the U.S.’s largest supplier of goods and its third largest customer.

The proposed text hides Trump’s lack of understanding of tariffs in the subsection on China. It moves the remaining content of the "Trade" subsection in between Trump’s self-description as nationalist and having an America First foreign policy and his actual foreign policy. For some reason that I haven’t figured out yet, it’s also slightly longer than the current text, so streamlining is apparently not an issue. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 13:37, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Space Time, thanks very much for the explanation and the work you put into this. I don't think a change is necessary. I think the "repetition" issue is a non-issue. The original version, as it stands, is the most accurate, even if only by a few sentences. However, if consensus chooses the changed version that you propose, then so be it. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 13:58, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

I'm not the editor proposing reorganization, I, too, want to keep the current version. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 14:49, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

The remarks on tariffs could be generalized and moved up. However, the rest of your comment is confusing: if trade is not part of his "actual foreign policy", why is it in the Foreign Policy section at all? It's certainly inextricably tied to the America First piece. As Bob notes, the current organization, in addition to being oversectioning, doesn't fit well. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:50, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Space Time never wrote that Trade is not part of Trump's foreign policy, actual or otherwise. The reason for the subsection on Trade is because Trump's view on trade and implementation of that view was very important. In other words, it certainly is part of his foreign policy legacy. Trade is one of the issues that stand out during his presidency.

Especially, I think because of Trump's pugilistic attitude toward China regarding trade, which had a memorable economic impact. I think it is important to emphasize tariffs in a Trade subsection. It fits perfectly well, but more than that - it serves a purpose. I think Nikkimaria's argument is more about ornamentation than function or serving a purpose. Hence repeating a clause is a non-issue. Lastly, Space Time pointed out we don't know which section people will read, so this very miniscule repetition again serves a purpose. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 10:06, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

You are presenting an excellent rationale for promoting the trade content into the general foreign policy area, given its central importance. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:51, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

Current text and proposed reorganization

Current text

Foreign policy Main article: Foreign policy of the Donald Trump administration See also: List of international presidential trips made by Donald Trump Trump with the other G7 leaders at the 45th summit in France, 2019 Trump described himself as a "nationalist" and his foreign policy as "America First". His foreign policy was marked by praise and support of populist, neo-nationalist, and authoritarian governments. Hallmarks of foreign relations during Trump's tenure included unpredictability and uncertainty, a lack of consistent policy, and strained and sometimes antagonistic relationships with European allies. He criticized NATO allies and privately suggested on multiple occasions that the U.S. should withdraw from NATO. Trade See also: Trump tariffs Trump withdrew the U.S. from the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) negotiations, imposed tariffs on steel and aluminum imports, and launched a trade war with China by sharply increasing tariffs on 818 categories (worth $50 billion) of Chinese goods imported into the U.S. While Trump said that import tariffs are paid by China into the U.S. Treasury, they are paid by American companies that import goods from China. Although he pledged during the campaign to significantly reduce the U.S.'s large trade deficits, the trade deficit in July 2020, during the COVID-19 pandemic, "was the largest monthly deficit since July 2008". Following a 2017–2018 renegotiation, the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA) became effective in July 2020 as the successor to NAFTA. Russia ... China Before and during his presidency, Trump repeatedly accused China of taking unfair advantage of the U.S. As president, Trump launched a trade war against China that was widely characterized as a failure, sanctioned Huawei for alleged ties to Iran, significantly increased visa restrictions on Chinese students and scholars, and classified China as a currency manipulator. Trump also juxtaposed verbal attacks on China with praise of Chinese Communist Party leader Xi Jinping, which was attributed to trade war negotiations. After initially praising China for its handling of COVID-19, he began a campaign of criticism starting in March 2020. Trump said he resisted punishing China for its human rights abuses against ethnic minorities in the Xinjiang region for fear of jeopardizing trade negotiations. In July 2020, the Trump administration imposed sanctions and visa restrictions against senior Chinese officials, in response to expanded mass detention camps holding more than a million of the country's Uyghur minority.</nowiki>

Proposed text

Foreign policy Main article: Foreign policy of the Donald Trump administration See also: List of international presidential trips made by Donald Trump and Trump tariffs Trump with the other G7 leaders at the 45th summit in France, 2019 Trump described himself as a "nationalist" and his foreign policy as "America First". He imposed tariffs on steel and aluminum, among other imports; however, the trade deficit in July 2020 "was the largest monthly deficit since July 2008". He also withdrew the U.S. from the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) negotiations, and renegotiated the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA, effective July 2020) as the successor to NAFTA. Hallmarks of foreign relations during Trump's tenure included unpredictability and uncertainty, a lack of consistent policy, and strained and sometimes antagonistic relationships with European allies. His foreign policy was marked by praise and support of populist, neo-nationalist, and authoritarian governments. He criticized NATO allies and privately suggested on multiple occasions that the U.S. should withdraw from NATO. Russia ... China Before and during his presidency, Trump repeatedly accused China of taking unfair advantage of the U.S. As president, Trump launched a trade war against China that was widely characterized as a failure, sharply increasing tariffs on Chinese goods imported into the U.S. While Trump said that import tariffs are paid by China into the U.S. Treasury, they are paid by American companies that import goods from China. Trump also juxtaposed verbal attacks on China with praise of Chinese Communist Party leader Xi Jinping, which was attributed to trade war negotiations. Trump sanctioned Huawei for alleged ties to Iran, significantly increased visa restrictions on Chinese students and scholars, and classified China as a currency manipulator. After initially praising China for its handling of COVID-19, he began a campaign of criticism starting in March 2020. Trump said he resisted punishing China for its human rights abuses against ethnic minorities in the Xinjiang region for fear of jeopardizing trade negotiations. In July 2020, the Trump administration imposed sanctions and visa restrictions against senior Chinese officials, in response to expanded mass detention camps holding more than a million of the country's Uyghur minority.

I haven't had the time to compare them. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 20:22, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

Sources

Discussion at Village Pump

started by the same editor as the Talk:Donald_Trump#Discussion_pointer January discussion, also without notifying editors on this page: Wikipedia:Village_pump_(technical)#WP:PEIS, resulting in a couple of edits on the main page that added 6,000 bytes (Reduce WP:PEIS and WP:PEIS improvements from WP:VPT courtesy of User:Ahecht). I haven't a clue what the alleged improvement is supposed to be or do. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 17:00, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

The PEIS reduction continues. Where do I find the WP guideline on adding #invoke:cite ...| (<ref>{{'''#invoke:cite news|'''|last= |first= |url= |title= |work=[[ ]]|date= |access-date= }}</ref>) to citations? Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 18:04, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

I doubt such a guideline exists, specific to cites. Someone might know of something about #invoke in general. The point is that it does reduce PEIS (which has a technical limit that has been a problem at this article) at the cost of an increase in file size (which doesn't). I and Nikkimaria reverted the bold edits because we feel they are premature. ―Mandruss ☎ 06:29, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

Mystery re #invokes and PEIS

Apparently I'm too dumb to figure this out.

PEIS limit is 2,097,152

Immediately before #invokes were added: 1,596,217

Immediately after #invokes were added (in three edits): 1,085,380

So the #invokes reduced PEIS by 510,837

[Ten intervening unrelated edits]

Immediately before my revert: 1,082,220

My revert should have resulted in 1,593,057 (1,082,220 + 510,837), or so I thought

After my revert: Busted PEIS limit (it doesn't tell you by how much)

So I self-reverted.

Immediately after Nikkimaria's edit: 1,836,402

We should be much closer to the original 1,596,217, after allowing for those ten intervening edits

Ping Ahecht and Locke Cole and Nikkimaria. ―Mandruss ☎ 02:15, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

Your revert introduced a bunch of extra pipe characters, not sure why. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:19, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

No, they were introduced by Ahecht and Locke Cole. I'm guessing there is a technical reason.

Anyway, I now see that the first of the "three edits" didn't add #invokes to cites; I ass-umed it did because of the editsum. So I would have to back up and recalculate everything with that in mind. ―Mandruss ☎ 02:25, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

Invoking the citation modules requires a double pipe, using the templates directly requires a single pipe. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 13:54, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

Trump's Bible

Should we mention it? See [7]. Jack Upland (talk) 01:31, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

Why, its just another product. Slatersteven (talk) 09:09, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

We're mentioning it, at Business_career_of_Donald_Trump#Branding_and_licensing and The_Trump_Organization#Related_ventures_and_investments. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 12:09, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

While it is a relevant piece of information, there is simply no room to mention it here. Like Space4 said, it is mentioned in several other articles, so it isn't like we are just ignoring it. QuicoleJR (talk) 12:51, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 16 April 2024

I would like to remove and refine un-cited examples of "public opinion or perception." One example is the following: "During the campaign, his political positions were described as populist, protectionist, isolationist, and nationalist." This has no citations and/or references, and seems to be a example of opinion. Pilotnance (talk) 17:54, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

it is not opinion, citations will be in the body, generally not the lead. ValarianB (talk) 18:18, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 17 April 2024

Yuyugfu (talk) 21:32, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

I will try my best to make it good as possible

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:34, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

Operation Warp Speed

I think Operation Warp Speed should be mentioned in the lede, while discussing his response to COVID-19. It is really significant! Tejas Subramaniam (talk) 20:05, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

Extensively covered by article Operation Warp Speed at much more depth than this article could cover. Buster Seven Talk (UTC) 20:59, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

Trump's push to speed up vaccine development was first criticized as going against the experts, but then the vaccine came out faster than the experts thought it would.

April 29, 2020, Trump Seeks Push to Speed Vaccine, Despite Safety Concerns, NY Times

November 17, 2020, Trump scores a long-awaited coronavirus win with vaccines on the way, CNN

December 21, 2020, Biden receives Covid-19 vaccine, praises Trump's 'Operation Warp Speed', NBC

There was a previous discussion here. Thank you for your suggestion, but I don't think there is any chance that it will be included. Bob K31416 (talk) 14:43, 5 April 2024 (UTC)