Talk:Donald Trump/Archive 178

Archive 175

Archive 176

Archive 177

Archive 178

Archive 179

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 24 November 2024

Change First Post-presidency section title to post-presidency. Trump still has over 4 years (assuming he serves the entire term) to make it to a second post-presidency so it's a bit WP:TOOSOON to label it first post-presidency. Noah, BSBA^Talk 03:36, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit extended-protected}} template. ―Mandruss ☎ 03:58, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

This was literally just done in the last few edits Noah, BSBA^Talk 04:06, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

Subject to BRD challenge. Anyway, edit request is for things that require no discussion, such as typo corrections, etc. In the future, please just start a normal discussion thread. ―Mandruss ☎ 04:08, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

Too many words together, in blue

Forgive me folks. But "His inauguration as the 47th president", looks terrible. It's a long blue sentence, basically. I attempted to fix this with "His inauguration as the 47th president". But was reverted. GoodDay (talk) 00:04, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

@GoodDay: in my opinion it's necessary. JacktheBrown (talk) 00:30, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

Your edit created an MOS:EGG problem. The article has many links of that length or longer, and the length of the linktext is not our first priority. You might as well change hush money payment to Stormy Daniels to hush money payment to Stormy Daniels because there's "too much blue", and I think most editors would oppose that as well. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:45, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

I'm not gonna push this too much, as the lead will change 500+ more times, between now & January 20, 2025. On inauguration day, the whole sentence will be extinct by then. GoodDay (talk) 00:48, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

@GoodDay: the Donald Trump discussion page is already too long, in my opinion this thread is unnecessary (in my opinion). JacktheBrown (talk) 21:41, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

Concluded discussions tend to get archived, after twenty-four hours. GoodDay (talk) 21:43, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

@GoodDay: damn, excuse me. JacktheBrown (talk) 21:47, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

@GoodDay: Only after closure, per consensus 13. Are you withdrawing this? If so, I'll close. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:12, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

Off-topic, borderline bullying. Be better. Zaathras (talk) 01:04, 10 November 2024 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Awesome. Please don't start discussions about things that you are not going to push very much. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:50, 10 November 2024 (UTC) Please don't tell me what to do. GoodDay (talk) 00:52, 10 November 2024 (UTC) Please don't tell me what to do. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:55, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

There is no evidence Trump is misogynist

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.

---

Sure, he called certain women horseface, low life on the campaign trail, but not women in general. There is no evidence Trump is misogynist, which would require him calling all women in general certain derogatory phrases.

216.165.197.66 (talk) 19:49, 23 November 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.

It makes no sense to separate military service from government service

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.

---

There are civilian contractors who are distinct from the military. Civilian contractors are not part of the government, whereas the military is part of the government's department of defense. In fact, the chief commander of the military is the president. Indeed, the department of defense is the largest department of the government in terms of number of employees. Therefore, the sentence 'Trump won the 2016 presidential election and became the first U.S. president without prior military or government service.' makes no sense and should be reworded to 'Trump won the 2016 presidential election and became the first U.S. president without prior government service.'

Just my 2 cents. 206.176.149.191 (talk) 12:51, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

But a teacher is not in the military, and an artillery man is not a teacher. Slatersteven (talk) 13:03, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

I would say teacher has government service at the city level.

216.165.197.66 (talk) 13:07, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Err, yes, that is my point, they are however not soldiers. Slatersteven (talk) 13:15, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

This has been brought up over and over, see talk page archives. We have an existing consensus, current consensus item 8. Unless you have significant new arguments, we will not revisit that consensus.

Anyway, there is a proposal to remove this factoid from the lead, using the "significant new argument" that it no longer earns its keep in our substantially-reduced lead. It's looking like the proposal will pass, which would moot this discussion. ―Mandruss ☎ 01:30, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

Have always found it weird that when these templates are implemented..... the primary data people are interested in place of birth age etc are now moved to the bottom of the template. Moxy🍁 01:42, 23 November 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 Truth

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.

---

If anyone wants to know the truth read these [[1]], [[2]], [[3]]. I have found so many truths on this page [[4]] which is much more accurate and reliable than this [[5]]. Do not be fooled. This is left-wing communist propaganda [[6]], and this is the accurate and reliable source [[7]]. 2600:1700:36D0:9B0:B878:7B7B:BAC0:B79A (talk) 05:08, 25 November 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.

Replacing the caption of Trump's 1964 yearbook picture

I changed the caption from "Trump at the New York Military Academy, 1964" to read "Trump 1964 yearbook picture with medals borrowed from a classmate", with cite, and was reverted with the editsum "Unnecessary and conveys less information". (I've since corrected the caption; New York Military Academy is a name like Whittier High School.) My proposed caption needs to be corrected, too: "Trump's 1964 yearbook picture with medals borrowed from a classmate". It conveys more information than the current one which doesn't say that it's a yearbook picture; the name of the school is unnecessary since you can read it in Early life. Borrowed medals: if Trump had been a member of the military, that would have been called "stolen valor".

Buettner/Craig text

If Donald resented taking orders from a contemporary like Witek, he still craved the tokens of status conferred by the system. Like most cadets, he had earned a few medals for good conduct and being neat and orderly. But his friend, Michael Scadron, had a full dozen by their senior year. On the day yearbook portraits were being taken, Donald showed up in Scadron’s barracks room and asked to borrow his dress jacket with the medals attached, Scandron told us. Donald wore those medals for the portrait, perplexing some of his fellow cadets. “He’s wearing my medals on his uniform,” Scadron later recalled. “I didn’t care one way or the other.”

Vanity Fair published a longer excerpt. It's the earliest example we have for Trump lying about his accomplishments/successes, illusion rather than reality. IMO that's less trivial than the yearbook picture itself. Opinions? Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 17:29, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Either remove the picture or make it clear these are not his medals. Slatersteven (talk) 17:34, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

The detail about the medals (as reprehensible as it is) is not something that belongs in the caption. The whole affair should be covered in the article text.--User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 22:35, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Agreed. Better covered in prose, subject to DUE as always. I'm not convinced it clears the bar, but that's really a separate issue that could be handled separately for the sake of organization. I'm confident you don't need to be informed that as reprehensible as it is is irrelevant for our purposes; moral judgments are never a factor. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:29, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Yep, I was just trying to make it plain that I am not trying to hide unflattering facts.--User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 00:49, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

We should never need to explain ourselves like that, in my book. It's essentially apologizing for being a good editor. If someone suspects you of trying to hide unflattering facts, that's on them. ―Mandruss ☎ 01:05, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

How about the caption "Trump's 1964 yearbook picture"? I don't think the name of the boarding school is more important than the fact that it's a yearbook picture. And for the uninitiated it sounds as though Trump was a cadet at an actual military academy. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 14:13, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

I don't think the name of the boarding school is more important than the fact that it's a yearbook picture. Omit the almost-obvious. Sure, he could've had the portrait made just so he could carry it in his wallet and gaze upon it from time to time, but that's not going to be a reader's first guess. And for the uninitiated it sounds as though Trump was a cadet at an actual military academy. The adjacent prose says NYMA is "a private boarding school". We're not catering to readers who just look at the pretty pictures and read their captions. And the only "1964" currently in the prose is about entering Fordham. So your proposal would be confusing, requiring readers to know that Fordham students don't wear uniforms. ―Mandruss ☎ 04:58, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Violation of WP:NPOV, and not relevant to what is being discussed. Eg224 (talk) 19:30, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

Wording of sentence on Trump attending New York Military Academy

@Zaathras you appear to have violated the contentious topics procedure by reverting the restoration of longstanding content. Please self-revert immediately.

I note that the New York Military Academy uses a definite article when referring to itself. Riposte97 (talk) 21:58, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

It seems you have invented a designation that appears nowhere in WP:CTOP, and even if it did, it would not apply to simple grammatical tweaks. Zaathras (talk) 22:05, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

It's a 1RR violation. The content is clearly disputed, so it should be dealt with on the talk page. Again, please self revert while we discuss it here. Riposte97 (talk) 23:08, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

One revert is not a 1RR violation. Please do not bandy about terms which you appear to be unfamiliar with. Zaathras (talk) 22:51, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Take it to AN. DN (talk) 22:51, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

I've now reverted the text to the longstanding version which wasn't the one I edited yesterday — another editor edited part of the sentence on October 16, so IMO 1RR wouldn't apply. The wording of the sentence is a separate issue from the caption. As for the school using the definite article when referring to itself, they do and they don't. (And does it matter? See Trump University.) Here are three examples for the school referring to itself and another private school the correct way: "At NYMA, we’re dedicated to preparing you for the future"; "At NYMA, our partnership with Canterbury Brook Academy (CBA) significantly enriches students’ holistic development"; "The mission of New York Military Academy is to develop the cadets in mind, body, and character". And an example of the incorrect way: "The mission of the New York Military Academy is to develop the cadets in mind, body, and character". (Not a typo, same sentence, once with "the" and once without.) Names of colleges, universities, and other schools. Use "the" if the school’s title includes "of" or "for" (University of Maryland, Perkins School for the Blind). Don't use "the" if the school is named for a person or place (Baylor University, Harvard University).

• Longstanding content: At age 13, he entered the New York Military Academy, a private boarding school.
• Proposed wording: At age 13, his father sent him to New York Military Academy, a private boarding school.

Reason: Trump didn't enter of his own volition, his parents entered him at NYMA. Kranish/Fisher: "Near the end of seventh grade, Fred discovered Donald’s knives and was infuriated to learn about his trips into the city. He decided his son’s behavior warranted a radical change. In the months before eighth grade, Fred Trump enrolled Donald at the New York Military Academy, a boarding school 70 miles from Jamaica Estates." Gwenda Blair: "In 1959, when he was thirteen, Donald Trump went off to New York Military Academy (NYMA) ... an institution that in the fall of 1959 resembled a child's toy soldier set". Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 12:53, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Re the "the", can we agree that site-wide consistency as to the NYMA case is a worthy goal? If so, we need a single venue to discuss and decide the issue, which can then be easily found and referenced by editors of other articles containing references to NYMA. I would suggest the NYMA article, which currently omits the "the". In other words, any discussion of guidelines and other factors should occur there, not here. The discussion here should be: "The NYMA article omits the 'the'. End."

This is one of the very few situations where a different article should influence this one. Can I articulate the difference? Probably not. But it would be hard to assert "other stuff exists" about this; the "the" should be universally present or universally omitted for NYMA. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:32, 30 October 2024 (UTC) Edited 23:28, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Although this is a minor point, the school itself uses 'the' when referring to itself using its full name, but omits the 'the' when using the acronym NYMA. Sources > Wikipedia imo. See: https://www.nyma.org Riposte97 (talk) 23:16, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

any discussion of guidelines and other factors should occur there, not here. Anyway, this article does not currently use the NYMA acronym. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:40, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Not true. The school also doesn't use "the" when referring to itself by the full name, e.g., NYMA website, "Leadership training" section: "The mission of New York Military Academy is to develop our cadets in mind, body, and character"; NYMA website/about: "New York Military Academy (NYMA) was founded by Colonel Charles Jefferson Wright", "The mission of New York Military Academy is to develop the cadets in mind, body, and character". Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 12:42, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Would anyone really expect a 13-year-old to have entered any school of their own volition? My opinion was neither sought nor desired when it came time for me to begin high school. I just can't see anyone interpreting the longstanding version the way you are worried about. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 16:52, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

The classmate he borrowed the medals from did, according to Buettner/Craig. I did, too, come to think of it (at 15, and not military school, though:). Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 17:52, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Are you extrapolating overall reader behavior from a sample size of 2? ―Mandruss ☎ 07:15, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Yes! I'm considering a career change — Rasmussen pollster. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 13:11, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Where is the DUE case for "his father sent him to"? How much RS has discussed this issue? Key word: discussed, which does not mean merely saying that his father sent him. To the author of the source, that could be an arbitrary alternative to "he entered", a matter of writing style. Beware of WP:OR and avoid reading between the lines in sources.

I don't think two or three good sources would do it for me. Even ignoring the article bloat. Maybe four good sources. ―Mandruss ☎ 07:55, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

How about removing kindergarten and just mentioning that he attended school X through grade 7 and school Y from grade 8 to 12? Current version:

He grew up with older siblings Maryanne, Fred Jr., and Elizabeth and younger brother Robert in the Jamaica Estates neighborhood of Queens, and attended the private Kew-Forest School from kindergarten through seventh grade. At age 13, he entered the New York Military Academy, a private boarding school.

Proposed version:

He grew up with older siblings Maryanne, Fred Jr., and Elizabeth and younger brother Robert in the Jamaica Estates neighborhood of Queens. He attended the private Kew-Forest School through seventh grade and New York Military Academy, a private boarding school, from eighth through twelfth grade.

This may be my bias talking, but "entered the New York Military Academy" has just a whiff of achievement, such as being admitted to West Point. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 13:07, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

I can't detect any such sense of achievement. Entering a school seems to me to be completely equvalent to "began attending". I also don't see it as distinguishing the manner of entry (personal choice, parental choice, or simply iving in the district).--User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 16:39, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, but your interpretation is irrelevant here, bias talking or otherwise. You are going beyond "editorial judgment" in my opinion. Show me the requested DUE case if you want my support. At this moment, I'd be happy with merely removing the "the" per above. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:44, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

For at least seven years, the sentence read (bolding added by me): At age 13, he was enrolled at the New York Military Academy, a private boarding school,[6] and in 1964, he enrolled at Fordham University. This edit on March 15, 2024, changed it with the editsum "ce". IMO, it changed the meaning. I didn’t notice it among all the other edits at the time. I only noticed it now because I’m reading Buettner/Craig’s "Lucky Loser". OR? Sure, if reading RS and forming an opinion is the definition of OR. It’s a tad annoying when every source I found says "he was sent" or similar wording, and there doesn’t seem to be a single source for "he entered" (annoying enough for me to take my mind off next Tuesday and spend half an hour tracking the sentence on the Wayback Machine).

• Kranish/Fisher: "When Donald was 13, his father abruptly sent him to a military boarding school, where instructors struck him if he misbehaved and the requirements included daily inspections and strict ­curfews. 'He was essentially banished from the family home,' said his biographer, Michael D’Antonio."
• Buettner/Craig, pg. 63: "But Fred had reached his limit with Donald. He sent him to a boarding school, a military academy north of the city."
• PBD: "His family eventually sent him to military school in upstate New York".
• NYT: "Mr. Trump said his experience at the New York Military Academy, an expensive prep school where his parents had sent him to correct poor behavior, gave him 'more training militarily than a lot of the guys that go into the military'."
• WaPo: "Trump spent five years at the military academy, starting in the fall of 1959, after his father — having concluded that his son, then in the seventh grade, needed a more discipline-focused setting — removed him from his Queens private school and sent him Upstate to NYMA." Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 19:42, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

OR? Sure, if reading RS and forming an opinion is the definition of OR. 'Twas OR before you presented this DUE case. Now it isn't. I must be from Missouri. Ok, you have my support for "his father sent him to". And remove that damned "the" in the prose, per above, pending a change at New York Military Academy. Please and thank you. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:25, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Making sure this isn't archived — someone started another discussion (Inclusion of release of grades). Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 20:02, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

Sources

Parents, children, and spouses links in the infobox

Re: [8]

This keeps getting added and removed with no resolution in sight. As I understand it, the rationale for omission has been that the parents are covered by the "Trump family" link. On the other hand, so are the children and they remain linked in the infobox. I'm thinking it's parents and children, or neither. In any case, let's settle this once and, hopefully, for all. ―Mandruss ☎ 05:30, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Looking at other U.S. politician's pages, specifically Barack Obama and George W. Bush, they both have their parents listed, and then a separate section for "relatives" with Obama Family and Bush Family respectively being linked. The same applies to John F. Kennedy and Kamala Harris to name some other examples, so I would think we should follow suit on the Trump article Artem...^Talk 05:31, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

I was about to make almost the same post, except that "Spouses" is also thoroughly covered by the link, so I would say it's either include parents or remove children and spouses.

The current infobox is somewhat long already, but information like Children/Spouses/Parents is extremely common in biographies on Wikipedia, and usually considered "pertinent information", so I can see reasoning in either direction.

I don't really care which direction is chosen, but for consistency with other articles, I'd lean more toward adding the parents. Farkle Griffen (talk) 05:33, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

MOS:INFOBOX identifies the purpose of inboxes as allowing the reader to "identify key facts at a glance". Given this, the link to Family of Donald Trump should be removed. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 05:45, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Not necessarily disagreeing, but it appears to be an argument against the |relatives= parameter of {{Infobox officeholder}}. ―Mandruss ☎ 05:57, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Perhaps, I'm not sure how it is applied/intended. If it is intended to list notable individual relatives, then it's not an argument against. Probably best to assume that's the intent as it is the assumption that aligns with the guidelines. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 06:00, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Ok, so all of the cited precedents are just wrong, and I could live with that. "The existence of bad stuff does not justify or excuse the addition or retention of other bad stuff of the same kind. Not all consistency is good consistency." On my user page since January 2018. ―Mandruss ☎ 06:12, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

If we were to agree to remove these fields and lump it all into Trump Family would we then have to go to the other politician pages to also change this? I'm not opposed to this, it just seems like a lot of work for a change that seems like a matter of semantics Artem...^Talk 06:08, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Remove the fields of both parents/children? I don't think anyone's making the case for that. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 06:10, 12 November 2024 (UTC) Apologies Mandruss, I don't seem to be carefully reading at the moment, I will take a break. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 06:21, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

We could, but we wouldn't have to. That kind of thing always turns little issues into gigantic issues, and other articles are not affected by decisions made at this one. ―Mandruss ☎ 06:17, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Wouldn't this same reasoning apply to the Awards section? Farkle Griffen (talk) 06:11, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Avoid topic expansion. ―Mandruss ☎ 06:14, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

I don't understand Mandruss' comment above, but yes I would say so. Could be worth asking for clarity on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Infoboxes. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 06:18, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

I'm thinking ahead to a consensus item about Parents, children, and spouses links in the infobox, which would link to this discussion, which would contain stuff about other issues. Not good organization. Address separate topics separately. Start linking issues like that, and things quickly grow too large to deal with effectively. Usually not helpful to try to solve all the related problems at once. ―Mandruss ☎ 06:23, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

The point being, if the same logic applies, then I don't think the reasoning is valid. There is no way the intended use of the Awards section is to list the "most important" awards, because choosing which are the "most important" would be very controversial on every article where the subject has more than a few awards (let alone this article).

Of course, this is all speculation, and I could be wrong. Farkle Griffen (talk) 06:36, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

If you're not proposing we do something to the |awards= parameter in this discussion, disregard my comments with my apologies. ―Mandruss ☎ 06:40, 12 November 2024 (UTC) Edited after reply 06:48, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Don't apologize; it was a very reasonable assumption Farkle Griffen (talk) 06:46, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Ok, I apologize for apologizing. Stricken. :) ―Mandruss ☎ 06:48, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

I've posted a question here at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Infoboxes. Hopefully they can clarify the intent, as there seems to be some disagreement on the talk page. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 08:31, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Has Trump been convicted of a felony?

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

---

The jury had merely returned a verdict. Only a judge can convict someone - a judge can still throw the jury's verdict away. While extremely rare, it can happen.

Wikipedia's definition agrees: "A convict is "a person found guilty of a crime and sentenced by a court" or "a person serving a sentence in prison". Source: Convict - Wikipedia

Notice it says "found guilty of a crime" AND "sentenced by a court." Only a judge can do the latter.

According to the American Bar: "The decision of the jury doesn t take effect until the judge enters a judgment on the decision - that is, an order that it be filed in public records." Source: How Courts Work - Americanbar.org "Judgement"

So no, Trump has not been convicted of any felony. All that has happened is a jury has returned a verdict. Please change the lede to reflect Wikipedia's own definition of convict as well as basic knowledge of how courts work. Thank you! McDonaldsGuy (talk) 08:32, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

This has already been explained to you elsewhere on this page, but here goes with another attempt.

As I told you, Wikipedia may not be used as a source for itself. So why did you link to that Wikipedia article again?

As someone else told you, "convicted" (verb or adjective) and "convict" (noun) are not equivalent. One can be convicted without being a convict. Is English your first language?

See Wikipedia:No original research. Excerpted from its very first paragraph:

To demonstrate that you are not adding original research, you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article and directly support the material being presented.

You have yet to present a single reliable source that mentions Trump and says he has not been convicted. Therefore the "directly" requirement has not been met.

I will close this as resolved if no one else has commented within 24 hours. ―Mandruss ☎ 12:18, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

Did you not see the American Bar website I posted? Lol

Convict is a noun: "CONVICT is a person convicted of and under sentence for a crime. How to use convict in a sentence."

You do know the judge can throw away the verdict right? The fact is, he's not convicted of a felony. Prove he is if you can. Show me. It's not up to me to prove a negative - it's up to you to prove a positive. McDonaldsGuy (talk) 12:33, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

Since you apparently have a hearing problem, I'm not wasting any more of my time trying to speak to you. ―Mandruss ☎ 12:39, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

If Trump is a convicted felon, he will not be able to travel to the UK and Canada.

Will he be able to travel to the UK and Canada? Yes or no?

Why Donald Trump Isn't A Convicted Felon (Yet)

[9]https://www.foxnews.com/politics/yale-law-professor-outlines-potential-trump-legal-strategy-following-guilty-verdict-nation-needs?msockid=1248a7002eb9682a14dcb4682f186918 "You are not convicted until the judge enters that judgment of guilt." McDonaldsGuy (talk) 12:48, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

FINALLY, you produce sources that at least meet the minimum policy requirements. Now it's a question of WP:WEIGHT, since many other reliable sources say he's been convicted. I'll leave that to others. ―Mandruss ☎ 13:09, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

Here I will add some references, I can see you have kinda had an unpleasant time with this topic, I will try and be more prim and proper with my efforts. The most relevant section here is "Despite media reports, Rubenfeld insisted that it’s “not true” that Trump is already a “convicted felon,” arguing that one is “not a convicted felon because of a jury verdict.”

“You are not convicted until the judge enters that judgment of guilt. Now, in New York, it’s very likely that Judge Merchan will enter that judgment of guilt against Trump on the same day that he issues sentencing. That’d be July 11th.” https://nypost.com/2024/06/08/us-news/yale-law-professor-says-trump-isnt-a-convicted-felon-despite-guilty-verdict-heres-why/ Liger404 (talk) 13:21, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

See WP:NYPOST... DN (talk) 07:13, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

I see you deleted my question, fair enough it is here. I saw it explained by a US lawyer that one cannot be a felon until sentencing, especially as that can involve discharge without conviction. And its not just a technicality, the restrictions of felony status don't kick in until that time. I asked the AI and it says the same. And the previous commentator has a few references saying the exact same. It seems the most correct phrase is that he "has been found guilty". Liger404 (talk) 13:15, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

This is somewhat accurate, to provide a bit more clarity: conviction does not occur until after sentencing, with there still being time for additional legal proceedings such as appeals beforehand - so yes he has technically been found guilty by a jury, however he is not a convicted felon Artem...^Talk 21:50, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

He has been convicted, he has just not been sentenced, which is independent of a guilty verdict. Slatersteven (talk) 13:32, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

I have to agree with @McDonaldsGuy here

From my understanding Trump has been found guilty by a jury in certain cases, but he has not yet been formally convicted because the judge has not entered a conviction by imposing a sentence. Conviction only occurs after sentencing, and in some cases, there may be additional legal proceedings (like appeals) before that happens. Artem...^Talk 21:37, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

I think the point being missed is that our understanding has nothing to do with it. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:53, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

Well this is not really an understanding but more-so just the way that the legal system works... I have not yet had a look at the sources to see what WP:RS is supporting that he is a convicted felon, but if it is just news outlets then I would not think we should rely on them for something such as this for the sake of accuracy. Wikipedia does not have any concrete rules but more-so guidelines so if we are reporting on what RS has said about this, then I think we should do so with the indisputable legal facts in mind and use sources that know what they are talking about rather than just regurgitating what a reporter is claiming

If there is something I have missed or overlooked then please disregard my comment Artem...^Talk 22:03, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

No, you may have a point. I vaguely recall doing something like that once or twice in the distant past. This thread got off to a bad start because the OP has no editing knowledge, and the first five comments are basically useless distractions. I think an experienced editor should start a new thread and we could close this one. It's likely to end up a long one. ―Mandruss ☎ 04:39, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

I understood the entire time you wanted me to link to a news source or something like that. But I shouldn't have had to because Trump not being a convicted felon is truism. It doesn't need a source. It'd be like asking for a source that Trump isn't Santa Claus or a German citizen. It's just a fact he isn't. You essentially put the burden of proof on the defendant. McDonaldsGuy (talk) 12:26, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Yeah it is just news outlets. But I added and the other guys added news outlets quoting a legal professor showing it isn't true. And then we have the Bar association, where we can see the professor is right. I will attach the sequence of trial. Here is the key bit. "The decision of the jury doesn t take effect until the judge enters a judgment on the decision - that is, an order that it be filed in public records.". And that hasn't happened yet. https://www.americanbar.org/groups/public_education/resources/law_related_education_network/how_courts_work/judgment/ Liger404 (talk) 23:10, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

Liger404 Thankyou for your work here. Unfortunately, what you're describing above is considered original research: have a read of the "Smith and Jones" example in that page. None of the secondary sources you or other editors have found at this time are considered reliable, I've had a quick look and couldn't find anything either. The best place to go from here would be to ask the reference desk or Wikiproject Law if reliable sources verify this. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 10:01, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

It's not OR to check that the words we use accurately reflect their definitions. News media are not expert sources for law, they are merely sources for what happened. If they use terms incorrectly, then we should fix it.

Technically, a jury returns a guilty verdict and a judge enters a conviction. The judge may however ignore the jury's verdict of guilt and not record a conviction or enter a conviction following a verdict of not guilty. Also, the conviction is not considered final until all appeals have run out. TFD (talk) 11:15, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

The Four Deuces I am possibly stretching the Smith and Jones example too far. I don't like relying on news sources, so I don't want to take too firm a stand. I hope voorts doesn't mind if I ping him in here. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 11:41, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

He was found guilty by a jury. In New York, a judgment of conviction is issued after sentencing. However, the distinction between being found guilty by a jury and a court issuing a judgment is so in the weeds that I don't think it matters which one we use. voorts (talk/contributions) 14:16, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Thankyou voorts. This addresses my main concern that we as non-subject matter experts were unaware of relevant facts. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 16:55, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

I'd say it matters whether this article's lead says Trump is the first U.S. president convicted of a felony. A lot. ―Mandruss ☎ 18:10, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

voorts is a lawyer from New York, and is speaking from such a perspective as to whether the distinction is important. I imagine the alternative would be "found guilty by a jury of felony crimes" etc, do you see a significant loss from such a switch? Alternatively "convicted felon" would be used and the reference to primary sources would be footnoted. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 18:18, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

If reliable secondary sources say convicted, we should say the same. See WP:VNT. voorts (talk/contributions) 20:25, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

How do you think this applies the fifth example given in the #How can we tell section of WP:WSAW, also an essay? Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 20:56, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

I don't think it's "obviously inaccurate" to say that Trump was "convicted" because colloquially, a jury finding someone guilty is referred to as a conviction. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:03, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Makes sense, thankyou for your input here. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 23:22, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

I'm unconvinced it's wise to use a colloquialism for something that important. It's an encyclopedia. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:46, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

I do not think the standard we are seeking here is being excusably inaccurate. If he was going to be sentenced and become a felon in the next few weeks, I would agree. But this is a detail that matters, Trump being the first Felon President would be historic. However because he will not be a felon until sentenced, and because sentencing has not been postponed until after he is president it is not clear that Trump will ever become a felon. Therefore it is actually a substantial error that we are saying this, as it is not true and is quite possibly never going to become true. Liger404 (talk) 08:05, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

Sorry that is supposed to show that sentencing HAS being postponed. So the feloney status will not be applied for at least 4 years, if ever. Liger404 (talk) 08:29, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

It matter substantially because the sentencing is now delayed until at least after the Presidency and possibly indefinitely. This fundamentally changes an essential fact. Trump at this stage does not seem likely to ever actually become a felon, or at least not for 4 years. The distinction matters for this reason, because it fundamentally changes the feloney outcome. Liger404 (talk) 08:07, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

I disagree, because even Wikipedia states only a judge can convict: https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Verdict#Criminal_law

"A verdict of guilty in a criminal case generally requires evidence to be tested and true beyond reasonable doubt and is normally followed by a judgment of conviction rendered by judge, which in turn be followed by sentencing."

It should be consistent. McDonaldsGuy (talk) 12:23, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

The news source I attached is the Washington post. Surely that's reliable? But perhaps more importantly it's quoting a US law professor. I have the guys YouTube video on the matter if that helps? Surely expert legal opinion is the highest level of source? 115.189.93.186 (talk) 00:48, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

Surely the New York post and a Yale law Professor are reputable sources? A mainstream newspaper and an Ivy league subject matter expert. https://nypost.com/2024/06/08/us-news/yale-law-professor-says-trump-isnt-a-convicted-felon-despite-guilty-verdict-heres-why/ or if you want the actual Podcast, so the direct words of a Yale Constitutional law Professor, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u23t__ysVjU&ab_channel=ProfessorJedRubenfeld Liger404 (talk) 08:14, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

The NY Post is not a reliable source - see WP:NYPOST for the reasons why and the multiple discussions surrounding that. One law professor is certainly a reliable source for their own opinion - but that does not mean that their opinion is to be treated as fact and reported in "wikivoice" (i.e. saying "Trump was convicted" or not). That source would be reliable to report that in the opinion of that professor, Trump is not a convicted felon at this time. But the plurality (if not majority) of reliable sources are reporting he has been convicted. It matters not what the "technical" definition of the word is - it matters how it's used in common English. In common English, the word "convicted" can either mean "final judgment has been passed" or "a jury has returned a verdict of guilty and there is no sign that it is going to be overturned".

That said, I think there's a simple solution here. Why do we not just change "convicted of a felony" to "found guilty of a felony (by a jury)" with the parenthetical not being necessary in my opinion but... -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 08:24, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

Yes my same proposal was a change in language to "Has been found guilty", although perhaps is is worth saying "Has been found guilty in the ongoing case xyz" . Felon is common parlance means someone who lives with the legal restrictions of a felony. Travel,voting guns rights, jobs ect. Because Trump does not yet have felony status, and now with the sentencing indefinitely delayed until at least after the presidency, Trump will not have felony status, and may never. So he isn't a "felon" in the way you would use the word when say, selling him a gun, filling out a travel visa or a job application. I do also have a Hindustan Times report that sames the same, referencing the same professor basically. I see they are considered semi accurate on that list. https://www.hindustantimes.com/world-news/us-news/trump-not-a-convicted-felon-yet-yale-law-professor-trashes-hush-money-trial-verdict-crime-is-so-unclear-101717926723371.html Liger404 (talk) 08:39, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

The word "felon" is not currently anywhere in the article and is not currently an issue. If someone tried to add it, I would oppose simply because it's unnecessarily "labelly". ―Mandruss ☎ 09:06, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

Well ok, but it says "convicted of a felony" which is incorrect. And its incorrect in a way that matters, because it's no longer clear that this will ever happen, and if it will happen seems certain to be years away. And I would say a reasonable person reading that line would interpret it as Trump now being a convicted felon. Thus the language is misleading in an important way about a historically significant event. Liger404 (talk) 09:13, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

Agree with you, Liger. Shouldn't we err on the side of caution, rather than potentially libelling someone (even on a technicality)? Riposte97 (talk) 12:37, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

Agree as well. I think a new thread should be started to propose change X to Y. This thread has derailed quite a bit Artem...^Talk 21:47, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

I nominate you for that. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:27, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

Okay, I will see if I can put something sufficient together Artem...^Talk 22:29, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

Here's a sampling of RS on Trump's felony conviction: Atlantic, NBC NY, AP, BBC, NPR, NYT,, Austin-American Statesman, Brennan Center for Justice, PBS News, ABC News, PolitiFact. Judge Merchan gave Trump’s lawyers until COB December 2 to file their arguments for dismissal and the prosecution a week to respond. Citing Trump's favorite answer: We'll see what happens. The Yale law professor's opinion is just that, one man's opinion cited by two unreliable sources, Fox News and NY Post. Our article doesn't call Trump a felon, and the conviction hasn't hurt him at the polls or kept him from profiting through persecution-themed merchandise. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 19:02, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

Again, Trump has been found guilty by a jury in certain cases, but he has not yet been formally convicted because the judge has not entered a conviction by imposing a sentence. Conviction only occurs after sentencing, and in some cases, there may be additional legal proceedings (like appeals) before that happens. This, is not an opinion but a matter of legal fact that conviction has not occured, and cannot occur until the prerequisites are satisfied. Artem...^Talk 21:43, 24 November 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.