Misplaced Pages

Talk:Donald Trump: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 00:57, 3 September 2016 editVolunteer Marek (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers94,164 edits →RfC: Donald Trump's false campaign statements← Previous edit Latest revision as of 05:20, 17 January 2025 edit undoMandruss (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users64,518 edits →New Trump portrait copyright resolved: close, duplicate 
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Talk header|hide_find_sources=yes}}
{{pp-blp|expiry=00:00, 11 November 2016|small=yes}}
{{Skip to talk}} {{Controversial}}
{{Talk header}} {{Calm}}
{{2016 US Election AE}} {{Warning RS and OR}}
{{American politics AE|Consensus required=no|BRD=yes|1RR=no}}
{{WikiProjectBannerShell|blp=yes|activepol=yes|1=
{{tmbox
{{WikiProject Biography|living=Yes|class=B|a&e-work-group=Yes|a&e-priority=Mid|politician-work-group=Yes|politician-priority=Top|listas=Trump, Donald}}
|image = ]
{{WikiProject Business|class=B|importance=Mid}}
|text = '''Want to add new information about Donald Trump?'''<br/>Please consider choosing the most appropriate article, for example:
{{WikiProject Donald Trump|class=B|importance=Top}}
{{div col}}
{{WikiProject Television|class=B|importance=Mid}}
* ]
{{WikiProject New York City|class=B|importance=High}}
* ]
{{WikiProject Florida|class=B|importance=Low}}
* ]
{{WikiProject Politics|class=B|importance=Top|American=Yes|American-importance=Top}}
* ]
{{WikiProject Professional wrestling|class=B|importance=Low}}
{{div col end}}
{{WikiProject Conservatism |class=B|importance=Mid}}
... or dozens of other places, as listed in {{t|Donald Trump series}}. Thanks!
{{WikiProject United States|class=B|importance=High|USPE=Yes|USPE-importance=Top|USTV=Yes|USTV-importance=Mid}}
{{WikiProject University of Pennsylvania|class=B|importance=Low}}
{{WP1.0 |class=B |importance=High |v0.7=pass |category=socsci
| b1 <!--Referencing & citations--> = yes
| b2 <!--Coverage & accuracy --> = yes
| b3 <!--Structure --> = yes
| b4 <!--Grammar & style --> = yes
| b5 <!--Supporting materials --> = yes
| b6 <!--Accessibility --> = yes}}
|collapsed=yes
}} }}
{{FAQ|collapsed=no}}
{{American English}}
{{WikiProject banner shell |class=B |blp=activepol |collapsed=yes |vital=yes |listas=Trump, Donald |1=
{{Article history|action1=GAN
{{WikiProject Biography |a&e-work-group=Yes |a&e-priority=Mid |politician-work-group=Yes |politician-priority=Top}}
|action1date=15:43, 2 June 2006
{{WikiProject Business |importance=Mid}}
{{WikiProject Climate change|importance=High}}
{{WikiProject Conservatism |importance=High}}
{{WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography |importance=Top}}
{{WikiProject New York City |importance=High}}
{{WikiProject Politics |importance=High |American=Yes |American-importance=Top |political-parties=yes |political-parties-importance=High}}
{{WikiProject Television |importance=Mid |american=yes}}
{{WikiProject United States |importance=Top |USTV=Yes |USTV-importance=Mid |USGov=Yes |USGov-importance=High |USPE=Yes |USPE-importance=Top}}
{{WikiProject United States Presidents |importance=Top |trump=yes |trump-importance=top}}
{{WikiProject University of Pennsylvania |importance=Low}}
{{WikiProject 2010s |importance=Top}}
}}
<!-- end wikiproject banner bundle -->
{{Banner holder |text= Page history |collapsed=y |1=
{{Article history
|action1=GAN
|action1date=15:43, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
|action1link=Talk:Donald Trump/Archive 1#GA Failing
|action1result=failed |action1result=failed
|action1oldid=56507759 |action1oldid=56507759

|action2=GAN |action2=GAN
|action2date=17:59, 12 February 2007 |action2date=17:59, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
|action2link=Talk:Donald Trump/Archive 1#GA failed |action2link=Talk:Donald Trump/Archive 1#GA failed
|action2result=failed |action2result=failed
|action2oldid=107442121 |action2oldid=107442121
|currentstatus=FGAN}}
{{press | collapsed=yes|author=Cuozzo, Steve|date=November 16, 2013|url=http://nypost.com/2013/11/16/dont-trust-anything-on-wikipedia/ |title=Don't Trust Anything on Misplaced Pages|org='']''
|url2=http://www.theverge.com/2015/7/22/9014525/someone-just-deleted-donald-trumps-entire-wikipedia-page |org2='']'' |date2=July 22, 2015 |author2=Popper, Ben |title2=Someone just deleted Donald Trump's entire Misplaced Pages page|author3=Merrill, Jeremy|date3=February 1, 2016|url3=http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/02/us/politics/wikipedia-donald-trump-2016-election.html |title3=On Misplaced Pages, Donald Trump Reigns and Facts Are Open to Debate|org3='']'' |url4=http://www.cracked.com/blog/5-truly-bizarre-sections-otherwise-normal-websites_p2/ |title4=5 Secretly Bizarre Sections Of Websites You Use Every Day |author4=Germ, Erik |org4='']'' |date4=May 28, 2016}}
{{Top25 | place = | week = ]}}
{{User:MiszaBot/config
|archiveheader = {{aan}}
|maxarchivesize = 100K
|minthreadsleft = 2
|counter = 22
|algo = old(7d)
|archive = Talk:Donald Trump/Archive %(counter)d
}}
{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn
|target=/Archive index |mask=/Archive <#> |leading_zeros=0 |indexhere=yes
}}
{{Auto archiving notice|bot=lowercase sigmabot III |age= |units= 7 days|small=yes}}
{| class=wikitable style="background-color:rgba(0,0,255,0.1); margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"
! Page views for this article over the last 30 days
|-
| {{Graph:PageViews}} <BR>
|}


|action3=GAN
== Lead changes 23 August 2016 ==
|action3link=Talk:Donald Trump/GA1
|action3date= 17 September 2016
|action3result=failed
|action3oldid=739866707
|action4=GAN
|action4date=03:07, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
|action4link=Talk:Donald Trump/GA2
|action4result=failed
|action4oldid=782109977


|action5=GAN
{{u|CFredkin}}, wasn't a constructive revert. You reverted 7 of my changes all in one fell swoop, simply saying that the additions weren't sufficiently notable. Several of my changes weren't additions of content so notability has nothing to do with it. I broke my edit up into pieces and included an edit summary for each one specifically so that other editors could consider each part separately. Please self-revert the portions you don't have a problem with. As for notability, Trump's falsehoods and his birtherism have both received extremely heavy coverage in the news. Birtherism coverage was discussed above in the section titled "POV lead." --] (]) 21:27, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
|action5date=08:44, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
::Looks to me like CFredkin carefully preserved all of your edits except those to the lead. True, your first edit to the lead did not introduce new material, but your second did, so maybe CFredkin could be faulted for reverting the first lead edit; personally, I don't think the reorganization in the first lead edit was needed.] (]) 21:52, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
|action5link=Talk:Donald Trump/GA3
::: After looking more closely at the first edit to the lede, I agree that it was beneficial. I've restored that portion. Thanks.] (]) 22:09, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
|action5result=failed
::::Was Trump a real birther or was he trying to get Obama to release his full birth certificate? I'm not 100% certain, but I thought I read somewhere awhile back that he questioned why the long form certificate had not been released, but acknowledged the Hawaii birth certificate. ] (]) 22:16, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
|action5oldid=870721866
:::::SW3, it would probably be best if you would look at the sources cited in this Misplaced Pages article on the matter, and also look at other reliable sources you can find, to get an answer to your question. Me giving you my own view would not be as useful as consulting sources that are more reliable than a mere Misplaced Pages editor (infallible though I am!).] (]) 22:59, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
:{{u|CFredkin}}, what about ? --] (]) 23:27, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
|action6=GAN
:::I have no problem with those three edits. It would have probably been simpler to make those edits before inserting the controversial stuff rather than after, but I don't see why those three edits cannot be restored. I do object to removal from the body of the article that the birther controversy was already "longstanding" when Trump got into it. The thing had been going on from 2008 to 2011, and instead we make it sound like Trump started the whole thing. Actually, he was pivotal in ending it; the whole controversy subsided greatly once the certificate was released. I believe that a firm consensus is needed to remove the longstanding description of the controversy as "longstanding". Regarding his statement about the grandmother, I likewise think that useful content was removed; we make it sound like he made up a story out of thin air but that's not so.] (]) 00:38, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
|action6date=18:23, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
::: I've restored these edits as well. Thanks.] (]) 01:09, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
|action6link=Talk:Donald Trump/GA4
|action6result=failed
|action6oldid=906418948


|action7 = FAC
I did agree with CFredkin's removal of "false" (in Misplaced Pages's voice) from the lede, but I assumed Trump's frequent falsehoods were mentioned somewhere in the article - as they are at ]. To my surprise I don't find anything about that here. There needs to be at least a sentence about this somewhere in this article, since it is well documented. Likewise, I think there needs to be a sentence about the birtherism stuff - an issue which he revived long after it had died out, and which (according to some polls) more than half of Republicans now believe, thanks to him. --] (]) 23:20, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
|action7date = 2019-08-31
:Is your concern about the importance of the falsehoods, or is it the use of "false" in Misplaced Pages's voice? Also, are you proposing that the birtherism remain in the lead section or just that it be included in the article? Because it does have a couple of sentences in "Involvement in politics, 1988–2015". --] (]) 23:31, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
|action7link = Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Donald Trump/archive1
::If birtherism is in the article (I missed it) then that's enough. Yes, my concern was with having "false" in the lead and in Misplaced Pages's voice. I believe there should be a sourced sentence or two about this in the body of the text somewhere. --] (]) 00:41, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
|action7result = failed
::P.S. I agree that the birtherism paragraph needs not just the word "longstanding", it needs rewriting. This version makes it sound like something Trump was the first to come up with, when actually he just revived and re-publicized an old meme. --] (]) 00:45, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
|action7oldid = 913215099
::To assert that the birther issue is "not notable" is ridiculous, particularly since it's closely related to Trump deciding to run for president .] (]) 02:21, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
::: Right... particularly since he provided no indication that he was interested in running for President prior to 2011.] (]) 03:03, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
:I'm splitting this out since we're getting all crossed up. This section is about the lead section. If we're going to talk about birtherism outside of the lead section, please start a new thread.


|action8 = PR
=== False ===
|action8date = 2020-04-29
Melanie, I'm sorry but I don't understand your concern about adding "false" to the lead section. Trump's many falsehoods have received enormous coverage by impeccable sources such as the ones I cited from Factcheck.org and PolitiFact. There are of course many more. "False" is not a subjective or loaded term; it's purely factual. --] (]) 03:34, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
|action8link = Misplaced Pages:Peer review/Donald Trump/archive1
:It's factual and sourced, but it cannot be said in Misplaced Pages's voice. It should be said in the body of the article, with sources (Politifact would be the best one). --] (]) 04:10, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
|action8result= reviewed
::{{u|MelanieN|Melanie}}, what policy or guideline are you relying on? Neutrality? I'm not aware of any sources saying Trump ''hasn't'' made many false statements during so campaign, so are you objecting to the language? Or undue emphasis? The fact that verifiable facts paint the subject of an article in a bad light doesn't make their inclusion non-neutral. Are you saying Trump's falsehoods haven't been one of the most noteworthy aspects of his campaign? --] (]) 17:17, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
|action8oldid = 953988039


|currentstatus=FGAN
: Here's another editor's concern, ]. Merely claiming the sources are "''impeccable''" doesn't make them so.
|topic=Politics and government
::: "Begging the question -- that is, assuming as true the very claim that's disputed -- is a form of circular argument, divorced from reality." — Lunsford.
}}
: The reality: Factcheck.org and PolitiFact are flawed sources, not "''impeccable sources''". Also they're narrow-circulation sources, not mainstream (broad-circulation) sources. For more about RS publications see the ] essay.
{{Afd-merged-from|Health of Donald Trump|Health of Donald Trump|13 June 2019}}
: Don't use either source to support contentious material anywhere in a BLP. --] (]) 04:20, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
{{Press | collapsed=yes
|org='']'' |date=November 16, 2013 |author=Cuozzo, Steve |title=Don't Trust Anything on Misplaced Pages
|url=http://nypost.com/2013/11/16/dont-trust-anything-on-wikipedia/
|org2='']'' |date2=July 22, 2015 |author2=Popper, Ben |title2=Someone just deleted Donald Trump's entire Misplaced Pages page
|url2=http://www.theverge.com/2015/7/22/9014525/someone-just-deleted-donald-trumps-entire-wikipedia-page
|org3='']'' |date3=February 1, 2016 |author3=Merrill, Jeremy |title3=On Misplaced Pages, Donald Trump Reigns and Facts Are Open to Debate
|url3=http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/02/us/politics/wikipedia-donald-trump-2016-election.html
|org4='']'' |date4=May 28, 2016 |author4=Germ, Erik |title4=5 Secretly Bizarre Sections Of Websites You Use Every Day
|url4=https://web.archive.org/web/20170210205851/http://www.cracked.com/blog/5-truly-bizarre-sections-otherwise-normal-websites_p2/
|org5='']'' |date5=October 25, 2016 |author5=Guo, Jeff |title5=Misplaced Pages is fixing one of the Internet's biggest flaws
|url5=https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/10/25/somethings-terribly-wrong-with-the-internet-and-wikipedia-might-be-able-to-fix-it/
|org6='']'' |date6=October 27, 2016|author6=Alcantara, Chris |title6=The most challenging job of the 2016 race: Editing the candidates' Misplaced Pages pages
|url6=https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/politics/2016-election/presidential-wikipedias/
|org7='']'' |date7=December 21, 2016 |author7=Staff Writer |title7=Most-edited Misplaced Pages pages of 2016 revealed
|url7=http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-38394685
|org8='']'' |date8=January 20, 2017 |author8=Gartenberg, Chaim |title8=Misplaced Pages editors can't decide if Trump is the president yet
|url8=http://www.theverge.com/tldr/2017/1/20/14336626/wikipedia-editors-edit-war-president-obama-trump
|org9='']'' |date9=June 5, 2017 |author9=Wyrich, Andrew |title9=Someone is trying to get Trump's official portrait deleted from Misplaced Pages
|url9=https://www.dailydot.com/layer8/donald-trump-official-portrait-wikipedia-copyright/
|org10='']'' |date10=22 November 2018 |author10=Warren, Tom|title10=Siri thinks Donald Trump is a penis|url10=https://www.theverge.com/tldr/2018/11/22/18108195/apple-siri-iphone-donald-trump-penis-wikipedia-fail-vandalism-editing
|org11='']'' |date11=22 November 2018 |author11=Blumenthal, Eli|title11=Misplaced Pages vandalizing causes Siri to show a lewd image when asked about Donald Trump |url11=https://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/talkingtech/2018/11/22/siri-glitch-shows-male-genitalia-when-asking-questions-trump/2088884002/
|org12='']'' |date12=23 November 2018 |author12=Griffin, Andrew|title12=Asking Siri for information about Donald Trump shows explicit image after Misplaced Pages edit|url12=https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-tech/news/donald-trump-siri-explicit-image-apple-wikipedia-edit-explained-a8648556.html
|org13='']'' |date13=23 November 2018 |author13=Gander, Kashmira|title13=Someone hacked Donald Trump's Misplaced Pages page, replaced photo with image of penis|url13=https://www.newsweek.com/someone-hacked-donald-trumps-wikipedia-page-replaced-photo-image-penis-1228571
|org14='']'' |date14=26 November 2018 |author14=Martin, Alan|title14=The Trump penis Misplaced Pages war has kicked off again|url14=https://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/news/3066986/the-trump-penis-wikipedia-war-has-kicked-off-again
|org15='']'' |date15=December 3, 2018 |author15=Brandom, Russell|title15=Misplaced Pages engages the 'nuclear option' after Trump penis hack|url15=https://www.theverge.com/2018/12/4/18125359/wikipedia-trump-admin-account-security-hack
|org16='']'' |date16=May 28, 2019 |author16=Mak, Aaron|title16=Donald Trump's Misplaced Pages Entry Is a War Zone|url16=https://slate.com/technology/2019/05/donald-trump-wikipedia-page.htm
|org17='']'' |date17=March 7, 2020 |author17=Pasternack, Alex |title17=How Misplaced Pages's volunteers became the web's best weapon against misinformation |url17=https://www.fastcompany.com/90471667/how-wikipedia-volunteers-became-the-webs-best-weapon-against-misinformation
|org18='']'' |date18=May 21, 2020 |author18=Flood, Brian |title18=Misplaced Pages co-founder Larry Sanger says online encyclopedia scrapped neutrality, favors lefty politics |url18=https://www.foxnews.com/media/wikipedia-co-founder-larry-sanger-says-online-dictionary-scrapped-neutrality-favors-lefty-politics
|org19='']'' |date19=November 19, 2020 |author19=Evon, Dan |title19=Does Loser.com Redirect to Trump’s Misplaced Pages Page? |url19=https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/loser-com-trump-wikipedia-page/
|org20='']'' |date20=October 23, 2023 |author20=Williams, Zoe |title20=Why is Elon Musk attacking Misplaced Pages? Because its very existence offends him |url20=https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/oct/23/why-is-elon-musk-attacking-wikipedia-because-its-very-existence-offends-him
|org21='']'' |date21=May 31, 2024 |author21=Hays, Gabriel |title21=CNN host suggests Trump conviction not mentioned prominently enough on former president's Misplaced Pages page |url21=https://www.foxnews.com/media/cnn-host-suggests-trump-conviction-mentioned-prominently-enough-former-presidents-wikipedia-page
|org22='']'' |date22=June 4, 2024 |author22=Harrison, Stephen |title22=The Most Heated Debate on Trump’s Felony Conviction Is Happening on ... Misplaced Pages? |url22=https://slate.com/technology/2024/06/donald-trump-felony-wikipedia-debate.html
|org23='']'' |date23=October 17, 2024 |author23=Sam Wineburg and Nadav Ziv |title23=Go ahead and use Misplaced Pages for research |url23=https://www.bostonglobe.com/2024/10/17/opinion/use-wikipedia-reliable-source/
}}
{{All time pageviews|233}}
{{Annual report|], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], and ]}}
{{Top 25 report|Jun 14 2015|Jun 28 2015|Jul 19 2015|until|Sep 27 2015|Dec 6 2015|Dec 13 2015|Jan 3 2016|until|Jan 17 2016|until|Jun 12 2016|Jul 3 2016|until|Jul 31 2016|Aug 21 2016|until|Dec 18 2016|Jan 1 2017|until|Apr 2 2017|Apr 23 2017|May 14 2017|until|May 28 2017|Jun 11 2017|Jun 25 2017|Oct 8 2017|Oct 22 2017|Nov 26 2017|Jan 14 2018|Jun 10 2018|Sep 30 2018|Oct 28 2018|until|Nov 25 2018|Dec 9 2018|Sep 22 2019|Dec 15 2019|Jan 5 2020|Feb 23 2020|Mar 1 2020|Apr 12 2020|May 31 2020|until|Jun 28 2020|Aug 9 2020|until|Aug 23 2020|Sep 27 2020|until|Dec 13 2020|Jan 3 2021|until|Jan 31 2021|Jul 10 2022|Jun 11 2023|May 26 2024|Jun 23 2024|Jul 14 2024|Jul 21 2024|Oct 20 2024|until|Nov 24 2024}}
{{Annual readership|scale=log}}
<!-- end page history banner bundle --> }}
{{Skip to talk}}
{{Skip to bottom}}
{{Banner holder |collapsed=yes |1=
{{Section sizes}}
}}


{{User:MiszaBot/config
: Do PolitiFact and FactCheck.org fact-check every statement by the presidential candidates? If not, how do they decide what statements to fact-check? Is there some objective criteria? As far as I'm aware, these organizations don't take any systematic approach to selecting the statements to analyze. Given that, I think we have to be careful about extrapolating out any broader characterizations about the candidates based on an aggregation of their work.] (]) 04:58, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
|algo = old(7d)
::Are you guys kidding me? Do we need to go to RSN to confirm that PolitiFact and FactCheck.org widely considered two of the most reliable outlets that exist? Yes, they are impeccable and if either of you disagree then I'd love to hear what you think is more reliable. Name a reliable news outlet and there's a good chance they've reported on Trump's many falsehoods. --] (]) 05:19, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
|archive = Talk:Donald Trump/Archive %(counter)d
::: My statement above made no assertions regarding the reliability of those 2 sources.] (]) 05:30, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
|counter = 187
::::Not explicitly, but the sources say that Trump made many, many false statements and you are questioning the reliability of those assertions. --] (]) 06:06, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
|maxarchivesize = 150K
::: "''Are you guys kidding me?''" Answer: No, ], we're not. Neither of those outlets has enough paid circulation or advertising to hire high-quality journalists. See ] ("A bigger operation means more resources for fact-checking, a bigger reputation to uphold, and greater likelihood of employing top-tier people"). Their readership is just too small. --] (]) 06:41, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
|archiveheader = {{aan}}
::::Well if we reach a standstill on this issue then I will take it to RSN, where I'd put money on the result. In any case, you didn't answer my question: can you give me an example of a news outlet you'd consider more reliable? --] (]) 16:49, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
|minthreadstoarchive = 1
::::: Whoa, wait a minute, ]. Our definition of Reliable Sources has nothing to do with paid circulation or advertising. Nothing! Some of the most UNreliable sources in the country have huge circulations and advertising. Our definition of a Reliable Source, per ], is "reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." (Note: WP:RS is an official guideline; RSVETTING is an essay. Read the notice at the top of that page about essays.) That certainly applies to PolitiFact and FactCheck.org. They take comments or assertions - that is, testable statements asserting facts - and compare them to the actual facts, and they use that to rate the truthfulness of the assertion. Their research is transparent, the facts they use for comparison are given, and their ratings are pretty much the standard for the truthfulness of political commentary. Politifact found Donald Trump to make so many false assertions that they couldn't even single one out for their "lie of the year" award for 2015; they awarded it to "The campaign misstatements of Donald Trump." This is what we are talking about when we say his untruthfulness is well documented. I still maintain it should not go unsourced into the lede; but it definitely needs to be in the body of the article, and I will try to come up with a suggested wording. --] (]) 16:56, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
|minthreadsleft = 3
::::::Well said. However all along has been that it go ''sourced'' into the lede, not ''unsourced''. --] (]) 17:04, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
}}
:::::::I agree with this proposal because it doesn't affect the flow of the sentence as much. I agree with you on the sources, politifact and factcheck.org are both suitable. ~ ]&nbsp;] 00:46, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
{{od}}
<u>Writers at</u> ''Time'' and the ''Wall Street Journal'' have characterized PolitiFact as "'''spreading false impressions'''"<ref name="poniewozik">{{cite news |last=Poniewozik |first=James |date=August 8, 2012 |title=PolitiFact, Harry Reid's Pants, and the Limits of Fact-Checking |url=http://entertainment.time.com/2012/08/08/politifact-harry-reids-pants-and-the-limits-of-fact-checking/ |magazine=Time |quote=If their rating system is sending false messages ... they’re doing exactly what they were founded to stop: using language to spread false impressions. }}</ref> and as "'''fundamentally dishonest'''" for calling its opinion pieces 'fact checks'<ref name="taranto">{{cite news |last=Taranto |first=James |date=December 13, 2013 |title=PolitiFact's Forked Tongue: The Site Once Vouched for Its 'Lie of the Year' |url=http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052702303932504579256300070093302 |newspaper=Wall Street Journal |quote=PolitiFact.com ... is out with its ‘Lie of the Year’... In the past ... PolitiFact vouched for Lie... Exposing it conclusively as such would have required a degree of expertise few journalists have... Its past evaluations of the statement were ... merely opinion pieces... Selling opinion pieces by labeling them ‘fact checks’ is fundamentally dishonest... <u>PolitiFact might have stopped shilling for ObamaCare ... but the same can’t be said for those who openly write opinion pieces.</u>}}</ref><ref name="zurcher13">{{cite news |last=Zurcher |first=Anthony |title=Obama's Healthcare 'Lie of the Year' |work=BBC News |date=December 16, 2013 |url=http://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-echochambers-25407106 |quote=James Taranto of the ''Wall Street Journal'' writes that the problem with PolitiFact ... is that they use editorial judgment, and bias, in determining what is and isn't the truth. }}</ref><ref name="wsj10dec">{{cite news |date=December 23, 2010 |title=PolitiFiction: True 'Lies' about Obamacare |url=http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052748703886904576031630593433102 |dead-url=no |newspaper=Wall Street Journal |archive-url=http://web.archive.org/web/20150201174133/http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052748703886904576031630593433102 |archive-date=2015-02-01 |quote=PolitiFact ... has marketed itself to <u>other</u> news organizations on the pretense of impartiality... PolitiFact's curators ... have political views and values that influence their judgments about ... who is right in any debate. }}</ref>.
{{reflist}} ] policy says to be cautious about basing large passages on opinion pieces. --] (]) 06:53, 25 August 2016 (UTC) 10:37, 29 August 2016 (UTC) 06:41, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
:You're citing unreliable opinion sources about other sources by PolitiFact to say that PolitiFact isn't reliable in general, and saying that the cited PolitiFact and FactCheck.org sources are opinion sources. That won't get you very far. --] (]) 17:00, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
We're not getting anywhere here. I'm going to start an RFC. --] (]) 17:20, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
:: ]: I'm citing the opinion sources to support a passage in a talk-page reply, not an article. --] (]) 10:10, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
:::It doesn't matter. Every major news outlet has been criticized by someone who didn't like something they wrote. --] (]) 17:04, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
:::: But see ]:
:::: ''Wall Street Journal'', 2.4 million; ''New York Times'', 1.9 million; ''USA Today'', 1.7 million.
:::: And see ]:
:::: "...the world's largest broadcast news organisation..."
:::: --] (]) 08:10, 27 August 2016 (UTC)


__TOC__
=== Birtherism and 2000 Reform Party ===
I added the birther sentence to the lead section in part because I thought it was considerably more important than the sentence about Trump's 2000 flirtation with the Reform Party nomination. Thus, when I added the birther sentence it was a of the Reform Party sentence. Do people think the the birtherism was ''less'' biographically significant than the Reform Party stuff? If not can we please remove the Reform Party sentence? --] (]) 03:41, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
::::For sure, the 2000 presidential run was taking too much space in the lead so I boldly shortened it.] (]) 04:27, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
:I do not think the source says "In 2011 repeatedly and publicly questioned Barack Obama's citizenship and eligibility to be President." At least that is not what he did. He questioned why Obama did not release his long form birth certificate, which Obama eventually did. ] (]) 03:46, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
::.] (]) 03:54, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
::I'm fine with changing the language if it doesn't quite reflect the reliable sources. But, as both the body of this article and ] say, Trump did more than question why Obama didn't release the long form birth certificate. --] (]) 04:00, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
:::Agreed. He didn't then let it go after the "long form" birth certificate was released in 2011. Even though Trump took credit for the long form birth certificate release, he didn't drop it. He continued pushing for more records in 2012. As recently as 2015 he said he "didn't know" if Obama was born in the U.S. or not, and "I don't know why he wouldn't release his records". It's Trump's pushing of this issue, both overtly and wink-wink, that has a majority of Republicans believing it. The birther thing is a signature issue for him. But it may not need to be in the lede of this biography; in the text is probably enough. Dr. Fleischman, why do you find it and the Reform Party issue mutually exclusive? Why can't they both be there? --] (]) 04:07, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
:::::The Reform Party sentence sticks out like a sore thumb as being relatively non-noteworthy compared to both the birther stuff and the rest of the lead section material. Trump flirted with a presidential bid for 2012 in connection with his birther campaign, and I believe that got a lot more media attention. There's no reason why 2000 gets space in the lead and 2012 doesn't. --] (]) 05:28, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
::::::As mentioned, I shortened that material in the lead today about the 2000 candidacy so it's now very concise: "He briefly ran for president in 2000 but withdrew before any votes were cast." My feeling is that actually announcing a candidacy for president is a major milestone in a person's life, right up there with the person's date of birth and full middle name. Doesn't the shortening of this sentence make it more acceptable? Before, it said: "He briefly sought the Reform Party's nomination in the 2000 presidential election but withdrew prior to any primary contests."] (]) 06:24, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
:::::::I concur with that change and believe it should remain in the lead. Including the ] (which was significant enough that we have an article about it) in the lede is entirely independent of where to mention birtherism; they are unrelated. --] (]) 17:04, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
::::It's incorrect that Trump's pushing caused a majority of Republicans to doubt eligibility. shortly before Trump got involved. It cites a poll saying 58% of Republicans already had doubts about his citizenship and eligibility.] (]) 04:25, 24 August 2016 (UTC)


== Current consensus == <!-- Must be on this page, not the subpage, to support mobile users -->
:::: The source above for 2015 indicates that he was responding to a question. The body of this article states that it was during a 6 week period in 2011 that he really pushed the issue. Compared to the things he's done in his career, and the things he's said in this presidential campaign (over a much longer period of time), I just don't see why this rises to the level of being ledeworthy.] (]) 05:09, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
{{/Current consensus}}


== Racially charged ==
Can we please just put DrFleischman's edit back? It's pretty clear that CFredkin is ] DS to make POV ] edits by removing any piece of text, no matter how relevant or well sourced and then running around repeating "don't restore! don't restore! discretionary sanctions! discretionary sanctions!". My good faith hath runneth out.] (]) 03:58, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
<!-- START PIN -->{{Pin message|}}<!-- ] 10:51, 10 November 2034 (UTC) -->{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil|2046768684}}<!-- END PIN -->
:I can see how CFredkin's might suggest that, but it's important to assume good faith. --] (]) 04:03, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
Hello all, I see Consensus #30, based particularly on ] says: "The lead includes: "Many of his comments and actions have been characterized as racially charged or racist."" I can also see that this is the only mention of "racially charged" in the article. Would editors here support removal of "racially charged" until such text is supported in the body? ] (]) 04:19, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
::After that edit, he self-reverted much of it, so I don't think his edits as a whole might suggest that.] (]) 04:58, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
:{{tq|Would editors here support removal of "racially charged" until such text is supported in the body?}} Not this one, per process. We're not going to amend #30 until the body is fixed, then reverse the amendment. "Racially charged" appears to have enough RS support, so just find a way to work it into the body. &#8213;]&nbsp;] 05:54, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
:::No, but the bit about DS was unprovoked and unnecessary. --] (]) 05:22, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
::<s>What does "reverse the amendment" mean? Go back to Consensus 24? ] (]) 06:07, 12 November 2024 (UTC)</s> I understand. ] (]) 06:07, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
:::: I think you're making an (incorrect) assumption that the reference to DS was directed at you or anyone in particular.] (]) 05:33, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
:::I see the grammatical ambiguity. :) &#8213;]&nbsp;] 07:06, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
::::He did not self-revert the removal of the sentence ''"In 2011 he repeatedly and publicly ] ]'s citizenship and eligibility to be President. In June 2015, "'', which is the bone of contention here. He self-reverted some minor stuff instead.] (]) 05:36, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
:::::Well sure, removing new content in the lead does not necessarily have anything to do with "gaming the system". I agree with Melanie that having the birther stuff in the text is probably enough.] (]) 05:43, 24 August 2016 (UTC) ::This seems backwards. Lead follows body. We shouldn't treat the consensus list as sacrosanct, it's merely there to keep track of RfCs. If the article has moved on, I'd support a new RfC to challenge the previous one. ] (]) 07:32, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
:::{{u|Riposte97}} I think an RfC should be avoided if it can be. Do you think you could ]? I'll have a go as well in a bit. If we don't have luck we can look at overturning Consensus #30.
{{od}}
:::Given it's an ] claim, high-quality sources will be needed. I wouldn't accept journalists being arbitrators of whether his comments were "racially charged", political scientists will have written on it and we shouldn't accept inferior sourcing. This is the standard that was applied for "cult of personality". ] (]) 07:57, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
Here's a sentence that could go in both the body and lead:
::::Your reasoning seems consistent with ]. A departure, probably more impactful (disruptive?) than you realize, but maybe ultimately good for the article. No strong opinion provided we adhere to the established consensus process. If that means revisiting #30, I suppose you pass the "significant new argument(s)" test. &#8213;]&nbsp;] 08:37, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
:: Trump has said that he "single-handedly forced President Obama to release his birth certificate" after failed efforts by Senators John McCain and Hillary Clinton.<ref name="bbclongform">{{cite news |title=Obama Releases 'Long Form' Birth Certificate |url=http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-13212230 |work=BBC News |date=April 27, 2011 |quote=Mr Trump took credit for forcing Mr Obama's hand. ‘I've accomplished something that nobody else has been able to accomplish,’ Mr Trump told reporters. ... ''Analysis By Mark Mardell'': As I talked to people afterwards, it was very clear many ... wondered why something hadn't been said more clearly much earlier. }}</ref><ref name="page">{{cite news |last1=Page |first1=Susan |last2=Kucinich |first2=Jackie |date=April 28, 2011 |title=Obama Releases Long-Form Birth Certificate |url=http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/washington/2011-04-27-obama-birth-certificate_n.htm |newspaper=USA Today |quote=Trump ... bragged that he had ‘accomplished something that nobody else was able to accomplish’ in forcing the document's release. }}</ref><ref name="favole">{{cite news |last1=Favole |first1=Jared |last2=Lee |first2=Carol |date=April 27, 2011 |title=Obama Seeks to Quell ‘Birther’ Talk |url=http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052748704187604576288811924282824 |newspaper=Wall Street Journal |quote=By releasing the fuller birth certificate, White House and Obama campaign officials were also hoping to take away ... Mr. Trump's megaphone... He claimed credit for the release. }}</ref><ref name="trumpbio">{{cite web |url=http://www.trump.com/biography/ |title=Donald Trump Biography |date=2016 |website=Trump.com |publisher=The Trump Organization |archiveurl=http://web.archive.org/web/20150828003415/http://www.trump.com/biography/ |archivedate=August 28, 2015 |deadurl=no |quote=In 2011, after failed attempts by both Senator McCain and Hillary Clinton, Mr. Trump single handedly forced President Obama to release his birth certificate... }}</ref>
::::@], apologies that I've not had the time to properly devote to this. I'll see what I can add to your page in the coming days. ] (]) 10:37, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
{{reflist}}
Several other reputable sources are available, but 1-3 have the broadest circulations. --] (]) 06:58, 24 August 2016 (UTC) :Yep definitely. ] (]) 19:45, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
::No, we cannot say in Misplaced Pages's voice that Hillary Clinton wanted Obama to release his "long form" just because Trump says she did. More generally, let's keep this out of the lead, please. Trump's had lots of big or even bigger controversies (Judge Curiel, Mrs. Khan, Cruz's father, etc.).] (]) 07:44, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
:::I agree with AYW that Dervorguilla's proposal won't work--both on verifiability and importance grounds. However I disagree about comparing the birther thing to the campaign controversies. The birther campaign was more than a controversy, it was a sustained campaign that has drawn sustained media coverage ''for years'' and laid the foundation for his 2016 run. And the campaign controversies are already in the lead with the reference to Trump's many controversial statements during the campaign. --] (]) 16:47, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
:::: I would not object to saying something like "before and during the campaign". ] (]) 17:34, 24 August 2016 (UTC)


I have created a page ] as a space for research on this article. I intended to use academic sources in ] as the basis to follow summary style, but extremely disappointingly, only six of the almost 500 sources are academic.
I have proposed a partial rewrite of the "birther" paragraph in the "Involvement in politics, 1988–2015" section, see below. I think this paragraph is sufficient to cover the matter and it does not need to be in the lede (we can't possibly mention every controversial thing he has said in the lede). As for mentioning Hillary Clinton or John McCain in this context, as if to imply that they also had doubts about Obama's birth or citizenship, I absolutely oppose that. --] (]) 18:18, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
:As I said, Trump's birtherism was more than just another controversial statement, it was a sustained campaign that laid the foundation for his 2016 run. --] (]) 18:25, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
::This definitely should not be in the lede. It's a non-issue.] (]) 07:56, 25 August 2016 (UTC)


This is collaborative so please help! If this can be pinned to the top of this page for a short while it would be valuable. Remember, for ], we are not merely looking for multiple sources describing him or his comments/actions as racist/racially charged, but for the weighted response of high-quality academic sources to these questions. ] (]) 10:21, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
== Trump's claim about president's grandmother ==
:{{u|SusanLesch}} Pinging you in case this effort is of interest. Been working mostly on collating books right now as journals are daunting for finding discussion of general scholarly consensus. If you find other useful texts along the way providing a scholarly retrospective assessment on aspects, I'm currently dropping them in ]. ] (]) 17:17, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
{{hat|Consensus reached, ] fully rewritten (section from "For six weeks" to "Ivy League school")}}
::Will do. Sorry if I'm slow today with journals but I will catch up. On this topic per ], {{tq| not everything in the lead must be repeated in the body of the text}}, however this statement absolutely should be cited per ]. Seems like a good place for a perfectly cited footnote. -] (]) 17:42, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
For a long time (more than a month) this article said "Trump's claim was based upon an incomplete transcript filed years earlier in a court case".
:::Thanks :) Yes the key issue is definitely it being uncited. ] (]) 17:48, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
:'''Support removal'''. "Racially charged" is . When you consider that in the same sentence we are saying that Trump's comments and actions have been characterized as outright racist, it makes even less sense to "soften" the characterization with this term. Reading that old discussion, I think the true reason that many editors tended to support the euphemism was because it softens the perception that we are saying he is racist in ]. "Characterized by some" was rightly rejected by editors as too vague, but perhaps "characterized by critics" could be used to clearly attribute the characterization and prevent reader misunderstanding. — ] (]) 01:34, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
::it needs removing for sure. it's against ] on multiple counts, but specially "Remove contentious material that is unsourced or poorly sourced" ~ ] 18:29, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
:::It's sourced in ]. A citation should be added to the lead per ]. &ndash;&nbsp;]&nbsp;(]) 18:44, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
:::To be clear, I do not oppose the lead's inclusion of the fact that many characterize Trump as racist. I am only supporting the removal of the term "racially charged", which I feel is redundant. — ] (]) 17:08, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
*Suggest you look up the meaning of "racially charged". Regards, ] (]) 23:40, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
*:This comment is going over my head. ] (]) 01:19, 8 December 2024 (UTC)


*'''Support removal''', per ]'s comment (they've already written everything). ] (]) 18:37, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
That was removed today by a bold edit without prior talk page discussion.


== Tracking lead size ==
I objected at the talk page: "Regarding his statement about the grandmother, I likewise think that useful content was removed; we make it sound like he made up a story out of thin air but that's not so."
Word counts by paragraph and '''total'''.
{{hidden
| headerstyle = text-align:left; font-weight:normal;
| header =
&mdash; '''614''' = 29 + 101 + 106 + 156 + 101 + 121
| content =
&mdash; '''657''' = 46 + 101 + 116 + 175 + 176 + 43


&mdash; '''418''' = 62 + 76 + 153 + 127
No one replied, so I restored the same basic material, though edited somewhat: "a claim that others had previously made based upon an incomplete court transcript of what the grandmother said."


This edit of mine was then reverted, and the material was removed, with edit summary "i don't see consensus on talk for restoring this text". &mdash; '''406''' = 56 + 70 + 138 + 142
}}
{{hidden
| headerstyle = text-align:left; font-weight:normal;
| header =
&mdash; '''418''' = 53 + 64 + 158 + 143
| content =
&mdash; '''413''' = 54 + 62 + 153 + 144


&mdash; '''422''' = 58 + 57 + 141 + 166
I have several objections to the last removal: (1) no one replied at the talk page when I said the material should be restored; (2) it's rarely appropriate to remove content with a bare assertion of "no consensus" without giving any substantive reason, see ]; (3) longstanding content like this requires a consensus for removal, not consensus for restoration per .] (]) 06:14, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
:Is this addressed to me or is it about one of CFredkin's edits? ] (]) 06:19, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
::I don't think CFredkin was involved in this. My objection is to .] (]) 06:26, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
:I removed that sentence because it added too much detail with no biographical value. The point is that Trump's statement about Obama's grandmother was wrong. There is no benefit to describing in depth how this fallacy arose before Trump repeated it. --] (]) 16:37, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
::Do you think there is value in saying that he repeated it instead of made it up himself?] (]) 17:04, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
:::The article neither says nor implies that Trump made it up himself. There would be more value in saying that the falsehood was long before Trump repeated it. --] (]) 17:25, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
:::: something like that might work. ] (]) 17:32, 24 August 2016 (UTC)


&mdash; '''437''' = 58 + 57 + 156 + 166
:::: I also agree with {{U|DrFleischman}}'s proposal.- ]] 12:04, 25 August 2016 (UTC)


&mdash; '''465''' = 87 + 60 + 154 + 164
===Proposed rewrite===
}}
<span id="rew"></span>
{{hidden
I propose a partial rewrite of that section, as below. I have simply left out the stuff about his grandmother as TMI (Trump didn't invent that anyhow, he was just repeating conspiracy-buff claims). I added his often-touted claim that he "sent investigators to Hawaii". And in addition to "he rarely mentioned it again" I believe we should add that when he is asked about it, he defends raising the issue to this day. Here is my proposal to replace the current "birther" paragraph which is in the "Involvement in politics, 1988–2015" section of this article. Comments? --] (]) 18:11, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
| headerstyle = text-align:left; font-weight:normal;
| header =
&mdash; '''438''' = 58 + 60 + 156 + 164
| content =
&mdash; '''432''' = 58 + 60 + 145 + 169
}}


== Tracking article size ==
:For six weeks starting in March 2011, Trump publicly questioned ]'s citizenship, reviving the longstanding ] about Obama's eligibility to serve as president.<ref name=NYT2016>{{cite news |last1=Parker |first1=Ashley |last2=Eder |first2=Steve |url=http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/03/us/politics/donald-trump-birther-obama.html |title=Inside the Six Weeks Donald Trump Was a Nonstop 'Birther' |newspaper=] |date=July 2, 2016}}</ref> He repeatedly demanded that Obama show his birth certificate (Obama had already released his birth certificate in 2008, but "birthers" demanded a more detailed document called the "long form birth certificate") and said "I'm starting to think that he was not born here."<ref name=NYT2016/><ref>{{cite news |url=http://ac360.blogs.cnn.com/2011/04/25/trump-claims-obama-birth-certificate-missing/ |title=Trump claims Obama birth certificate 'missing' |date=April 25, 2011 |publisher=CNN |accessdate=May 14, 2011}}</ref><ref>{{cite news |title=Birtherism: Where It All Began |url=http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0411/53563_Page3.html |work=] |date=April 22, 2011 |accessdate=April 25, 2011}}</ref> Trump also claimed to have sent a team of investigators to Hawaii to research the question, saying "They cannot believe what they are finding"; however, there is no evidence that he actually sent representatives to Hawaii.<ref name = "NYT2016"/><ref>{{cite news|url=http://www.salon.com/2011/04/08/trump_hawaii_investigators/|title=Did Trump really send investigators to Hawaii?|last=Elliott|first=Justin|date=April 8, 2016|work=Salon|accessdate=24 August 2016}}</ref> In April 2011, the ] sought to put the longstanding matter to rest by releasing the long form birth certificate.<ref>.'']'' (April 27, 2011): "the document whose absence has long been at the heart of the conspiracy-riddled discussion...."</ref> Trump took credit for getting the document released and said he hoped it "checks out".<ref name=Madison27April>{{cite news |url=http://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-takes-credit-for-obama-birth-certificate-release-but-wonders-is-it-real/ |title=Trump takes credit for Obama birth certificate release, but wonders 'is it real?' |first=Lucy |last=Madison |publisher=CBS News |date=April 27, 2011 |accessdate=May 9, 2011}}</ref> He rarely mentioned the matter again, although he continued to defend his pursuit of the issue when asked.<ref name="NYT2016" /> In 2013 he said, "I don't think I went overboard. Actually, I think it made me very popular."<ref>{{cite news|url=http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/donald-trumps-history-raising-birther-questions-president-obama/story?id=33861832|title=Donald Trump's History of Raising Birther Questions About President Obama|last=Keneally|first=Meghan|date=September 18, 2015|work=ABC News|accessdate=24 August 2016}}</ref> When asked in 2015 where Obama was born, Trump said, "I really don't know. I mean, I don't know why he wouldn't release his records. But you know, honestly, I don't want to get into it".<ref name=Lee9July>{{cite news |url=http://www.cnn.com/2015/07/08/politics/donald-trump-illegal-immigrant-workers/ |title=Trump says he still doesn't know where Obama was born |date=July 9, 2015 |accessdate=August 18, 2015 |first=MJ |last=Lee |publisher=CNN}}</ref><ref>, ''Anderson Cooper 360 Degrees'' (July 9, 2015).</ref> Trump has also questioned whether Obama's grades alone warranted entry to his ] schools, and called for release of school records.<ref>Madison, Lisa (April 26, 2011).. CBS News.</ref>
] size in words &ndash; Wiki markup size in bytes &ndash; Approximate number of additional citations before exceeding the ] limit.
{{hidden
| headerstyle = text-align:left; font-weight:normal;
| header =
&mdash; 15,818 &ndash; 421,592 &ndash; 103
| content =
&mdash; 15,883 &ndash; 427,790 &ndash; {{0}}46


&mdash; 15,708 &ndash; 430,095 &ndash; {{0}}12
{{talkref}}
:It could use some tweaks here and there, but overall it's a major improvement so I support implementing this now and we can make further edits later. --] (]) 18:22, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
::I'll give it until tomorrow. --] (]) 00:05, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
:::{{ping|Dervorguilla|MrX}} I see that you have both been tweaking this paragraph in the article. Would you be OK with replacing it with this version? --] (]) 03:12, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
::::
:::: No; it's a good-faith edit, but not a particularly good edit. To illustrate: ''Huffington Post'' and ''Salon'' do at first look like reputable sources. But a more experienced contributor would likely hesitate to use them in an ideologically contentious article. Why not substitute a more mainstream source?
:::: Also, three very mainstream sources -- BBC News, ''USA Today'', and the ''Wall Street Journal'' -- actually contradict the ''NYTimes'' article's statement that the subject "rarely mentioned the matter again".<ref name="bbclongform">{{cite news |title=Obama Releases 'Long Form' Birth Certificate |url=http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-13212230 |work=BBC News |date=April 27, 2011 |quote=Mr Trump took credit for forcing Mr Obama's hand. ‘I've accomplished something that nobody else has been able to accomplish,’ Mr Trump told reporters. ... ''Analysis By Mark Mardell'': As I talked to people afterwards, it was very clear many ... wondered why something hadn't been said more clearly much earlier. }}</ref><ref name="page">{{cite news |last1=Page |first1=Susan |last2=Kucinich |first2=Jackie |date=April 28, 2011 |title=Obama Releases Long-Form Birth Certificate |url=http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/washington/2011-04-27-obama-birth-certificate_n.htm |newspaper=USA Today |quote=Trump ... bragged that he had ‘accomplished something that nobody else was able to accomplish’ in forcing the document's release. }}</ref><ref name="favole">{{cite news |last1=Favole |first1=Jared |last2=Lee |first2=Carol |date=April 27, 2011 |title=Obama Seeks to Quell ‘Birther’ Talk |url=http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052748704187604576288811924282824 |newspaper=Wall Street Journal |quote=By releasing the fuller birth certificate, White House and Obama campaign officials were also hoping to take away ... Mr. Trump's megaphone... He claimed credit for the release. }}</ref> (And the subject continues to ''openly'' brag in his biography page that he "single-handedly forced" Obama to release the document.<ref name="trumpbio">{{cite web |url=http://www.trump.com/biography/ |title=Donald Trump Biography |date=2016 |website=Trump.com |publisher=The Trump Organization |archiveurl=http://web.archive.org/web/20150828003415/http://www.trump.com/biography/ |archivedate=August 28, 2015 |deadurl=no |quote=In 2011 ... Mr. Trump single handedly forced President Obama to release his birth certificate... }}</ref>)
:::: {{reflist}}
:::: As one of the non-sysop contributors here, I ought to tell you, ], that I think we're capable of dealing with this issue on our own. Before you spend additional time spelling out your views, could you address a more administrative-level question? I need to find out whether there's a guideline somewhere about reverting "longstanding" material.
:::: If you come up with a definitive answer, you'll help contributors resolve disputes not just here but throughout Misplaced Pages. --] (]) 09:24, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
::::::{{u|Dervorguilla}}, I agree that HuffPost and Salon aren't the ''most'' reliable sources out there, but they're used throughout Misplaced Pages and the community has consistently considered them sufficiently reliable in response to many, many challenges. I do not think it's fair for you to continue making these sorts of objections without recommending alternate sources. I asked you for this twice in another discussion (, ) and you have ignored me. Please engage in ], not gridlock. --] (]) 16:49, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
::::::: Time, Wall Street Journal, BBC News. Posted BBC News, USA Today, Wall Street Journal. Posted --] (]) 00:35, 26 August 2016 (UTC)


&mdash; 15,376 &ndash; 414,196 &ndash; {{0}}67
::::: ], I think you know that I am here as an ] and have been actively participating for months. So I am as entitled as anyone to propose wording. I appreciate your constructive criticism of this proposal, and I will work on incorporating your suggestions into my draft. <br>As for the definition of "longstanding", I know that you have seen the discussion about it on my talk page, where it became clear that there is no firm definition. I was a "learner" myself at that discussion, where more experienced admins explained that the wording of DS is meant to stabilize the article and to favor the status quo - so that a bold edit which removes longstanding material may be considered as "contentious" and can be challenged by reverting. One admin at that discussion suggested that something which has been in a very active article for a month or six weeks could be considered as "longstanding". But as I said, I am speaking here as an ordinary editor, not an admin, and am merely quoting what others have said. --] (]) 11:02, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
}}
{{hidden
| headerstyle = text-align:left; font-weight:normal;
| header =
&mdash; 15,479 &ndash; 415,176 &ndash; {{0}}64
| content =
&mdash; 15,279 &ndash; 404,464 &ndash; 122


&mdash; 15,294 &ndash; 405,370 &ndash; {{0}}80
::::: {{ping|MelanieN}} I think it's pretty good, but the parenthetical should be revised into a sentence. I also think there should be some mention of Trump incorrectly stating that Obama's grandmother had said she had witnesses Obama's birth in Kenya. {{U|Dervorguilla}} Makes valid point about using better source.- ]] 12:01, 25 August 2016 (UTC)


&mdash; 14,863 &ndash; 402,971 &ndash; 190
Thanks for your input. How about these changes?
* I can leave out the Salon source. There are already other links that cover the information. I will also leave out the Politico source, it's redundant. I don't see a problem with the Huffpost source, but I can replace it with a NYT link if you want.
* I was going to leave out the grandmother as TMI, but if consensus is to include it, how about a single sentence, with a source that includes both his assertion and the debunking? Dr.Fleischman's PolitiFact source does both very nicely. Also a good suggestion to rewrite the information about Obama's earlier release of his birth certificate so it isn't parenthetical. How about something like this:
**Although Obama had released his birth certificate in 2008, Trump echoed a "birther" demand that Obama release a "long form" birth certificate as well. He also repeated a debunked claim that Obama's grandmother said she had witnessed his birth in Kenya.
*Dervorguilla, your three references all date from April 2011; they don't disprove that he "rarely mentioned the matter again", i.e., after March-April 2011. How about this:
**Although he has rarely brought the subject up since 2011, he brags about it in his biography, and he defends his pursuit of the issue when asked about it.


&mdash; 14,989 &ndash; 409,188 &ndash; 180
Comments? --] (]) 15:36, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
}}
*It seems a bit long. I'm wondering if one of Trump's quotes could/should be trimmed.] (]) 15:53, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
{{hidden
*It sounds good to me.- ]] 16:48, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
| headerstyle = text-align:left; font-weight:normal;
*I'm in rural Maine for a few days so won't say much. I am skeptical about this article saying Trump "revived" the issue, since it was already raging just before he got involved. (I see "2011" appearing 58 times on that archived page). I also think this material is a tad long, and since there appears to be no evidence that he ''didn't'' send reps to Hawaii I'd zap the stuff about it ("Trump also claimed to have sent a team of investigators to Hawaii to research the question, saying 'They cannot believe what they are finding'; however, there is no evidence that he actually sent representatives to Hawaii"). Back in April 2011, Salon Magazine stated "If media organizations must report Trump’s claim about sending investigators to Hawaii , they should make it very clear that he has offered no evidence". I don't think we "must" report this claim by Trump; why report stuff if there's no evidence either way? <u>Postscript: Per ], the investigator info would be more appropriate at ].</u>] (]) 17:24, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
| header =
*I tentatively agree with the preceding three comments, but they shouldn't hold up implementing Melanie's proposal in the article. It's more efficient to let the iterative BRD process work. --] (]) 18:21, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
&mdash; 14,681 &ndash; 404,773 &ndash; 187
::I seem to recall reading somewhere ("Is it in that stack of magazines over there?") that the Bureau of Records in Hawaii had verified that "Not a single representative of Donald Trumps has come forward to investigate our records". Not sure how to Google the right question to find the source but it was reliable... ]<small>]</small> 18:27, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
| content =
:::: Found it. NYT. ''Dr. Alvin Onaka, the Hawaii state registrar who handled queries about Mr. Obama, said recently through a spokeswoman that he had no evidence or recollection of Mr. Trump or any of his representatives ever requesting the records from the Hawaii State Department of Health.'' ]<small>]</small> 07:38, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
&mdash; 14,756 &ndash; 403,398 &ndash; 191
:::About "revived", most sources indicate that it was Trump's "megaphone" that took this from an under-the-radar, conspiracy-buff issue to a front page issue. But I mainly wanted to make clear that he did not invent this stuff, just took existing claims and brought them to prominence, so we could use a different word than "revived". I do think we should include his repeated claim that he sent representatives to Hawaii (we could leave out "and you won't believe what they're finding!") along with the fact that there's no evidence he actually did so (if he did send them, they seem to have left no traces in Hawaii and produced no information that Trump ever used). I will go ahead and post the paragraph with the changes already indicated. Thanks, all, for your input. I have always found it's better to hammer out a consensus wording on the talk page rather than to tweak and revert each other at the article. --] (]) 18:46, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
}}
:::OK, done. I did cut or paraphrase some of the Trump quotes as CFredkin suggested. --] (]) 19:26, 25 August 2016 (UTC)


== RfC on describing Trumpism in lead ==
===Revision added to the article 8-25-16===
<!-- START PIN -->{{Pin message|}}<!-- ] 10:40, 14 December 2034 (UTC) -->{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil|2049705633}}<!-- END PIN -->
This version of the "birther" paragraph, based on the above discussion, was added to the article on 8-25-16:
The current lead contains a simple mention of Trumpism. Should a brief description be added to this mention? A proposed wording for the added text, which is also up for debate here: {{tq|characterized by ], "]" nationalism, and economic ].}} — ] (]) 04:51, 16 December 2024 (UTC)<br> Addendum: A shorter version of the proposed addition could look like {{tq|led to ], a ] movement.}} — ] (]) 18:31, 17 December 2024 (UTC)


:'''Support with changes''' It seems odd to not include his major political positions in the lead. I would move those categorisations into a separate sentence explaining his political views, rather than about 'Trumpism' itself. Too much focus on words, not on policy and stances that will bear historical weight. ''']]''' 02:48, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
::For six weeks starting in March 2011, Trump publicly questioned ]'s citizenship, reviving the longstanding ] about Obama's eligibility to serve as president.<ref name=NYT2016>{{cite news |last1=Parker |first1=Ashley |last2=Eder |first2=Steve |url=http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/03/us/politics/donald-trump-birther-obama.html |title=Inside the Six Weeks Donald Trump Was a Nonstop 'Birther' |newspaper=] |date=July 2, 2016}}</ref> Although Obama had released his birth certificate in 2008,<ref name = "released"/> Trump echoed a "birther" demand that Obama release a "long form" birth certificate as well.<ref name=NYT2016/><ref>{{cite news |url=http://ac360.blogs.cnn.com/2011/04/25/trump-claims-obama-birth-certificate-missing/ |title=Trump claims Obama birth certificate 'missing' |date=April 25, 2011 |publisher=CNN |accessdate=May 14, 2011}}</ref> He also repeated a debunked claim that Obama's grandmother said she had witnessed his birth in Kenya.<ref>{{cite news|url=http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2011/apr/07/donald-trump/donald-trump-says-president-obamas-grandmother-cau/|title=Donald Trump Says President Obama's grandmother caught on tape saying she witnessed his birth in Kenya|last=Farley|first=Robert|date=April 7, 2011|work=PolitiFact|accessdate=25 August 2016}}</ref> Trump claimed he had sent a team of investigators to Hawaii to research the question, but there is no evidence that he actually did so.<ref name = "NYT2016"/> In April 2011, the ] sought to put the longstanding matter to rest by releasing the long form birth certificate.<ref name = "released">{{cite news|url=http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/28/us/politics/28obama.html|title=With Document, Obama Seeks to End 'Birther' Issue|last=Shear|first=Michael D.|date=April 27, 2011|work=The New York Times|accessdate=25 August 2016}}</ref> Trump took credit for getting the document released and said he hoped it "checks out".<ref name=Madison27April>{{cite news |url=http://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-takes-credit-for-obama-birth-certificate-release-but-wonders-is-it-real/ |title=Trump takes credit for Obama birth certificate release, but wonders 'is it real?' |first=Lucy |last=Madison |publisher=CBS News |date=April 27, 2011 |accessdate=May 9, 2011}}</ref> Although he has rarely brought the subject up since 2011, he brags about it in his online biography,<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.trump.com/biography/|title=Biography|work=www.trump.com|accessdate=25 August 2016}}</ref> and he defends his pursuit of the issue when asked about it. In 2013 he said, "I don't think I went overboard. Actually, I think it made me very popular."<ref>{{cite news|url=http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/donald-trumps-history-raising-birther-questions-president-obama/story?id=33861832|title=Donald Trump's History of Raising Birther Questions About President Obama|last=Keneally|first=Meghan|date=September 18, 2015|work=ABC News|accessdate=24 August 2016}}</ref> When asked in 2015 where Obama was born, Trump said he didn't know and didn't "want to get into it".<ref name=Lee9July>{{cite news |url=http://www.cnn.com/2015/07/08/politics/donald-trump-illegal-immigrant-workers/ |title=Trump says he still doesn't know where Obama was born |date=July 9, 2015 |accessdate=August 18, 2015 |first=MJ |last=Lee |publisher=CNN}}</ref><ref>, ''Anderson Cooper 360 Degrees'' (July 9, 2015).</ref> Trump has also questioned whether Obama's grades alone warranted entry to his ] schools, and called for release of school records.<ref>Madison, Lisa (April 26, 2011).. CBS News.</ref>
::{{reflist}}


:{{small|Previous discussion at ]. — ] (]) 04:51, 16 December 2024 (UTC)}}
That addition was reverted, so this is what is in the article now:
:'''Support'''. The statement "Trump created Trumpism" without further description is meaningless. If there is any single piece of information which a reader should take away from the lead, it is that Trump is America's leading proponent of right-wing populism, and the person who has done to most to reshape the Republican Party along these lines. It was argued by some in the previous discussion that details should be saved for the Trumpism article, but I believe that these words briefly and simply introduce what much of the rest of the lead and article are seeking to explain. Just as ]'s lead describes in broad terms what "]"ism is and ]'s describes what "]" is, so too should Trump's lead briefly describe Trumpism. This is especially relevant after the recent election, as Trump and Trumpism's importance in U.S. political history only continues to grow. — ] (]) 04:51, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
::For six weeks in Spring 2011, Trump repeatedly and publicly questioned President ] and thus joined the longstanding controversy about Obama's eligibility to serve as president.<ref name=NYT2016>{{cite news |last1=Parker |first1=Ashley |last2=Eder |first2=Steve |url=http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/03/us/politics/donald-trump-birther-obama.html |title=Inside the Six Weeks Donald Trump Was a Nonstop 'Birther' |newspaper=] |date=July 2, 2016}}</ref> In an interview on '']'', Trump incorrectly stated that Obama's grandmother had said she had witnesses Obama's birth in Kenya.<ref name=Farley>{{cite web |last=Farley |first=Robert |url=http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2011/apr/07/donald-trump/donald-trump-says-president-obamas-grandmother-cau/ |title=Donald Trump Says President Obama's grandmother caught on tape saying she witnessed his birth in Kenya |publisher=] |date=April 7, 2011}}</ref><ref name=Factcheck2011Apr>{{cite news |url=http://www.factcheck.org/2011/04/donald-youre-fired/ |title=Donald, You're Fired! Trump repeats false claims about Obama's birthplace. |publisher=Factcheck.org |date=April 9, 2011 |accessdate=September 13, 2015}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |url=http://cdn.factcheck.org/UploadedFiles/2011/04/bergtranscriptofmcreacall.pdf |title=Berg Transcript of McRae Call |publisher=FactCheck.org}}</ref> Trump also questioned whether Obama's grades alone warranted entry to his ] schools, and called for release of school records,<ref>Madison, Lisa (April 26, 2011).. CBS News.</ref> plus release of a long form birth certificate.<ref>{{cite news |url=http://ac360.blogs.cnn.com/2011/04/25/trump-claims-obama-birth-certificate-missing/ |title=Trump claims Obama birth certificate 'missing' |date=April 25, 2011 |publisher=CNN |accessdate=May 14, 2011}}</ref><ref>{{cite news |title=Birtherism: Where It All Began |url=http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0411/53563_Page3.html |work=] |date=April 22, 2011 |accessdate=April 25, 2011}}</ref> In April 2011, the ] sought to put the longstanding matter to rest with release of the long form.<ref>.'']'' (April 27, 2011): "the document whose absence has long been at the heart of the conspiracy-riddled discussion...."</ref> Trump said he hoped it "checks out", and expressed pride about his role, and then rarely mentioned the matter again.<ref name=NYT2016 /><ref name=Madison27April>{{cite news |url=http://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-takes-credit-for-obama-birth-certificate-release-but-wonders-is-it-real/ |title=Trump takes credit for Obama birth certificate release, but wonders 'is it real?' |first=Lucy |last=Madison |publisher=CBS News |date=April 27, 2011 |accessdate=May 9, 2011}}</ref> When asked years later where Obama was born, Trump said: "I really don't know. I mean, I don't know why he wouldn't release his records. But you know, honestly, I don't want to get into it".<ref name=Lee9July>{{cite news |url=http://www.cnn.com/2015/07/08/politics/donald-trump-illegal-immigrant-workers/ |title=Trump says he still doesn't know where Obama was born |date=July 9, 2015 |accessdate=August 18, 2015 |first=MJ |last=Lee |publisher=CNN}}</ref><ref>, ''Anderson Cooper 360 Degrees'' (July 9, 2015).</ref>
:'''Suppport''': we need to know what Trumpism is about.--] (]) 04:55, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
::{{reflist}}
:'''Oppose''' as I believe it is unnecessarily adding to an already excessively large article. The article is not about ] - which is linked in the text for the purpose of providing a shortcut should people wish to know more about what constitutes such, without contributing further to the word count. <span style="border:1px solid#880808">]</span><span style="background:#880808;border:1px solid#880808"><span style="color:white"><sup>]</sup></span></span> 05:05, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
:'''Comment''' Further explanation of Trumpism seems relative in the lead, or at least, it likely will be within the next four years. ] (]) 06:13, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
:'''Oppose''' a, this article is already too long, and 2, it might need a lot more explanation then we can give it in the lead, what is Trumpism? ] (]) 14:50, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
:'''Support''' but it should be limited to one sentence after a more detailed yet brief description is provided in the body. I agree that anyone with a political movement named after them should have some more description about it other than "they created it". I don't have exact wording but something along the lines of its impact on the Republican Party or American politics would be warranted as per Goszei. Any statement would need to be sourced in the body first, however, to avoid OR. Agreeing on a description in the political practice and rhetoric section would be helpful first before adding it to the lead. ] (]) 14:57, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
*'''Support''' since Trumpism is mentioned, then it should be explained what it is. A single sentence in the lede, and a brief elaboration somewhere else in the article. The wording in the lede could be as proposed above, or something a bit different. ] (]) 19:18, 16 December 2024 (UTC)


Please discuss any suggested changes, or your preference for one version or the other, in the section below. ] (]) 19:28, 26 August 2016 (UTC) *'''Oppose''' as misplaced for the lead, and per Artem. ] (]) 01:34, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' too wordy in an already bloated article. Artem is indeed correct. ] (]) 03:30, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' because “Trumpism” in the lead should be replaced with “MAGA”, which is a much more widely discussed and widespread thing.] (]) 04:01, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
:{{ping|Artem P75|Slatersteven|Nikkimaria|Nemov}} To those opposing the proposed text based on concerns about length, would you support a shorter addition such as {{tq|led to ], a ] movement.}}? — ] (]) 04:03, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' We don't have room for this, and this isn't the Trumpism article, it is the Trump article. Also, this would need to be added to the body first, since the lead follows the body. ] (]) 15:00, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' per Anythingyouwant. I've never heard of Trumpism before. Neither has Britannica, which instead has an article for MAGA movement. -] (]) 18:48, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
*:What the Britannica article describes is exactly what our article at ] describes. The term MAGA movement should probably be added to that article's lead as a synonym. — ] (]) 18:59, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
*::It's a redirect. The said, {{tq|But is there such a thing as Trumpism? Well that might be stretching it.}} -] (]) 23:12, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
*::This article doesn't mention MAGA. Maybe somebody wanted to make something of Trumpism? -] (]) 16:33, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' mainly as {{TQ|it is unnecessarily adding to an already excessively large article}} per Artem, also because ] isn't a ''"a thought-through philosophy, a carefully mapped world view"'' inextricably linked to the man in the way that Marxism or Leninism are. Trumpism is more of a term descibing a series of populist instincts which are not very often used to characterise reactions/policies etc. When/if Trumpism itself becomes more elaborated, and the term more used, WEIGHT might then dictate a brief definition. At present it would be at least unnecessary and potentially confusing.] (]) 07:57, 21 December 2024 (UTC)


:* '''Support''' Very much ] to summarise the key tenets of his political ideology, much more so than discussing specific policies as in the status quo. I’m very confused about the opposes, however the leads of ] and ] only mention their ideologies rather than describe them
===Addition was reverted; further discussion needed===
:] (]) 10:17, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
* I oppose per ]'s (and ]'s) unaddressed concerns and for ]. The independent clause ("''he brags about it in his online biography''") contradicts the subordinate clause ("''he has rarely brought the subject up since 2011''"). --] (]) 08:26, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
*'''Weak oppose''', while it's only a few extra words it's still more to an already-too-big article, and the link to the Trumpism article is there for a reason. — ''']''' <sup>''(])''</sup> 10:37, 24 December 2024 (UTC)


:*'''Weak Oppose''', Agree with same sentiment as @] 's comment above. Seems like redundancy when we have a link that lets readers click on it if they don't understand a concept or definition. This also sets bad precedence to have to define every single political descriptor.
:: ]: Please establish an actual ] before making a disputed edit. You seem to be claiming here that you've identified a "''consensus wording''" after giving the other editors 25 hrs for discussion. --] (]) 09:41, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
:] (]) 16:39, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''': Trump's lead is already "huuuge." And considering that ] (which discusses the use of {{tq|"technical terms or terms of art and jargon specific to the subject matter"}}) asks the question, {{tq|"On the other hand, do not treat every “scientific” word as a technical term. Ask the question: Is this the only article or one of a very few where the term might be encountered in Misplaced Pages?"}}, and seeing as there is another page entirely dedicated to discussing the topic, and where we're already pushing ] best practices with the length and depth of Trump's ], let's move on.
:As a side note, ] has some handy recommendations for handling formatting of the word "Trumpism" for those interested. ] (]) 17:13, 7 January 2025 (UTC)


*'''Support''' : For me this is almost a mandatory addition for a very simple reason, the lead has zero words used to describe Trump's rise to power. Zero. This is not acceptable. These three very simple and short words describe it very well and are widely sourced. The description should take its place at the end of the second paragraph, in a chronological order, to either describe Trumpism or even more directly his first election campaign. The objection that the lead is not convincing. Other things can go. <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 14:41, 8 January 2025 (UTC)</small>
Fair enough, Dervorguilla. I added it because I was being urged (by Dr. Fleischman) to implement it immediately and amend it later. Six people had commented, and I took all of their suggestions, including yours (replacing two sources and rewriting the "rarely" sentence). Anything didn't like the "investigators" sentence but Buster supported it, so I rewrote it but left it in; that can be discussed further, one sentence doesn't need to delay implementation. Please lay out what your additional concerns are, and let's establish a clearer consensus so we can restore this version (or are you suggesting that the previous version, which you restored to the article, is preferable?). Specifically, what were the unaddressed concerns of ] and ]? Let's fix them. As for the "not mentioned again" sentence which you found contradictory, IMO "although" and "rarely" in the subordinate clause do set up the sentence to describe the times when he HAS brought it up again. But how would you suggest the sentence should read so as not to be contradictory? (For reference, the sentence I proposed is ''"Although he has rarely brought the subject up since 2011, he brags about it in his online biography, and he defends his pursuit of the issue when asked about it."'' Do others find this to be contradictory?) BTW I did hesitate over the word "brags" and would welcome a more neutral suggestion. --] (]) 14:48, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
:I think we have consensus. If {{u|Dervorguilla}} doesn't like something in the re-write then they can change it in the article space. But reverting the whole thing saying there's no consensus is obstructionist. --] (]) 17:01, 26 August 2016 (UTC) *'''Oppose.''' Misplaced jargon in the leading section of the article leads to unnecessary confusion. ] (]) 19:46, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
::I agree. There's been quite a bit of compromise on the wording. {{U|Dervorguilla}}, what is your specific remaining concern(s) that you believe must be addressed before implementing this edit? How about if we remove the phrase ''"he brags about it in his online biography,"'', which is original research anyway and the apparent source of concern about contradiction? - ]] 17:19, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
:{{re|MelanieN}} Suggestion to avoid "he brags": ''Although he has rarely brought the subject up since 2011, this is still mentioned in his online biography.'' — ] <sup>]</sup> 17:17, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
::Thanks, ]. I will make the change. Do you have an opinion about whether you prefer the revised paragraph that was recently added and deleted, or the original version which is in the article now? --] (]) 17:20, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
::: I hadn't paid attention before, but I'm happy to weigh in. Your proposed version above flows well and sounds much easier to understand from a reader's standpoint. It's still a bit overloaded with direct transcripts from Trump's rambling speech style, which is harder to follow in writing than when listening, so I'd advise further summarizing what he said rather than quoting him ''verbatim''. — ] <sup>]</sup> 17:29, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
::: Concretely, I suggest:
:::* replacing {{tq|and said "I'm starting to think that he was not born here."}} with {{tq|and expressed doubts about his place of birth.}}
:::* keeping the direct quote {{tq|In 2013 he said, "I don't think I went overboard. Actually, I think it made me very popular."}}
:::* replacing the last rather unreadable 2015 direct quote with {{tq|When asked in 2015 where Obama was born, Trump opined that the situation wasn't crystal clear but dismissed the need for further discussion.}}
::: Regards, — ] <sup>]</sup> 17:43, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
:::: Thanks for your input. I'm sorry, I didn't make clear what version I was talking about. You were looking at my original proposal, before I modified it according to everybody's suggestions. You are right about the quotes, and in fact they already have been cut or paraphrased as you suggest. I'll put the article's original version of the "birther" paragraph (that is the version currently in the article), and the proposed revision (which was added and reverted), on this page right above this discussion, so people can see what we are talking about. --] (]) 19:36, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
::::: No problem at all; it's easy to get confused with these live mega-threads… So, here's what I would suggest, based on your draft above (proposed changes bolded, removals struck out). — ] <sup>]</sup> 20:21, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
::::: {{talkquote| For six weeks starting in March 2011, Trump publicly questioned Barack Obama's citizenship, reviving the longstanding controversy about Obama's eligibility to serve as president. Although Obama had released his birth certificate in 2008, Trump echoed a "birther" demand that Obama release a "long form" birth certificate as well. He also repeated a debunked claim that Obama's grandmother said she had witnessed his birth in Kenya. Trump claimed he had sent <s>a team of</s> investigators to Hawaii to research the question, but there is no evidence that he actually did so. <s>In April 2011,</s> '''When''' the White House sought to put the <s>longstanding</s> matter to rest by releasing '''Obama's''' long'''-'''form birth certificate''',''' Trump '''immediately''' took credit for getting the document released <s>and said he hoped it "checks out"</s>. <s>Although he has rarely brought the subject up since 2011,</s> '''To this day, Trump's purported role in forcing Obama's hand is still mentioned''' in his online biography, and he defends his pursuit of the issue when '''prompted'''. In 2013 he said, "I don't think I went overboard. Actually, I think it made me very popular." When asked in 2015 where Obama was born, Trump '''opined that the situation wasn't crystal clear but dismissed the need for further discussion.''' Trump has also '''called for Obama to release his school records, questioning''' whether '''his''' grades <s>alone</s> warranted entry '''into an''' Ivy League school<s>s, and '''he''' called for release of school records</s>.}}


:'''Support''' since this is a pretty major part of what Trump has done,
:::::: Personally, I don't see this as an improvement over the current wording.] (]) 21:52, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
:And because just ¨Trump started Trumpism¨ isn't a very good description of that, let alone anything. ] ] ] 21:34, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::::Thank you, JFG. I think most of these changes are positive and I will be happy to do them (unless people disagree). However, I don't think "opined that the situation wasn't crystal clear but dismissed the need for further discussion" is an improvement over "said he didn't know and didn't "want to get into it"". 0'-D We could remove the quotes from "didn't want to get into it" if you prefer. --] (]) 22:20, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
:::::: "To this day..." doesn't seem like encyclopedic language. Also, are there reliable secondary sources that reference the fact that the birther thing appears in Trump's web site?] (]) 23:13, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
::::::: I haven't found one yet, ].
::::::: I agree about the language not being encyclopedic. ] says editors usually avoid using phrases like ''to date''. To me, the phrase "''to this date''" sounds even less appropriate. --] (]) 23:59, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
::::::::Was the previously proposed language ("this is still mentioned in his online biography") more encyclopedic or more to your liking? About the reference, it is the website itself. That is a primary source; does that make it unacceptable? If we can't find a third party source that mentions this, are you recommending we should leave out the "biography" part of the sentence? --] (]) 00:21, 27 August 2016 (UTC)


:::::: ]: I can't tell which source you're using to support the information that someone debunked the erroneous claim about what Sarah Obama said. --] (]) 01:25, 27 August 2016 (UTC) *'''Oppose''', the ] is sufficient (they were created for a reason), it's not necessary to write the definition on the Trump page. ] (]) 06:46, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::::: ]: We can use the passage from the Trump Organization website per ]. Proposed language:
:::::::::: By August 2015 he was claiming on his business Biography page that he had "single handedly" compelled the president to release it.<ref name="trumpbioabr">{{cite web |url=http://www.trump.com/biography/ |title=Donald Trump Biography |date=2016 |website=Trump.com |publisher=The Trump Organization |archiveurl=http://web.archive.org/web/20150828003415/http://www.trump.com/biography/ |archivedate=August 28, 2015 |deadurl=no |quote=In 2011 ... Mr. Trump single handedly forced President Obama to release his birth certificate... }}</ref>
:::::::: {{reflist}}
:::::::: (Alternatively, "...that he had 'single handedly forced' the president to release it".)
:::::::: Compare ''Chicago Manual of Style'', 16th ed., ¶ 14.245 ('Citations of website content'): "As of July 18, 2008, Hefferman was claiming on her Facebook page that ..." --] (]) 02:14, 27 August 2016 (UTC)


== Edit War ==
:::::: ]: Please delete the language about "''a 'birther' demand''". The term "''birther''" isn't in the dictionary. See ''Merriam-Webster Unabridged'' and ''''. Worse, some readers may believe that it ''is'' in the dictionary and may misinterpret the quotation marks as ]. So they may well come to think that Misplaced Pages is trying to ].
I think there is an edit war going on here. Following the ], Trump left office. Till he won, the title was clear, post-presidency. After he won, an edit war started.
:::::: And according to a BBC News Analysis, ''many'' people supported that demand. The BBC's North America editor noted:
For some weird reason, these are the choices at hand:
:::::::: "I ... rushed to find a diner with a TV to watch what the president said. As I talked to people afterwards, it was very clear many had doubts about the president's birth certificate and wondered why something hadn't been said more clearly much earlier."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
:::::: This eminently reputable source says "many people", not "many 'birthers'". (Many journalists and transparency advocates wondered why, too.) --] (]) 03:44, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
1. Interpresidency
:::::::: Thanks for your suggestions, Dervorguilla. <br>1) The source for the debunking of the grandmother claim is the same as the source for Trump making the claim: .<br>2) Re the biography page, I'd rather use "As of" instead of "By", and I don't like the POV word "claim". And I'd rather "his page was saying" instead of "he was saying". How about this: "As of August 2016 his business Biography page was still saying that he had "single handedly forced" the president to release the long form birth certificate." (P.S. We don't need to use an archived 2015 version of the web page; the page still says it.)<br>3) Although two of the three sources do use the word "birther", in quotes, I agree it is not ideal. The problem is getting three ideas into the article: 1) Obama had released his birth certificate, 2) some people were calling for a long form birth certificate, 3) Trump was repeating that demand. (I don't want to just say "Trump demanded" without the context that others had demanded it before him.) How about these possibilities: ''"Although Obama had released his birth certificate in 2008, Trump joined in the call for Obama to release a "long form" birth certificate as well."'' or ''"Although Obama had released his birth certificate in 2008, some people had been asking for a "long form" birth certificate as well, a demand that Trump echoed."'' <br>Thoughts? ] (]) 14:47, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
2. First post-presidency
3. post-presidency (current)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
At first, people used choice number 3. Then the edit war started after the election, and people cannot decide between these choices. We need better security for this article, Extended confirmed is clearly not doing it here. Just please decide. ] (]) 19:11, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
:The situation is neither uncommon nor illegitimate when there is no clear talk page consensus. See ] for another example. It has nothing to do with the level of protection. Regardless, the next level after ECP is full protection, which is not going to happen. &#8213;]&nbsp;] 19:32, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
::Well, you see, Edit protection is next, ensuring only experienced people can do it. Look, i'm just saying we have to be really careful around this particular article mainly from the controversies. I have asked an experienced person to assess the situation. ] (]) 18:38, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
:On January 20, 2025, the title of the section should be changed to "Post-presidency (2021–2025)". If there is a "second post-presidency (2029–)", we can change that to "First post-presidency (2021–2025)". I googled "Inter-presidency" and got a bunch of hits for Inter Milan President Beppe Marotta. ]] 17:10, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
::"Dormancy (2021–2025)". Or remission. ;) &#8213;]&nbsp;] 17:45, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
:::He was not dormant, rather pretty active. False claims rised before he finally conceded. Not to be rude, but this title wouldn't be the best. I'll admit, we do need a clear consensus. ] (]) 18:55, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
:::We thought it was the end of the movie but it was just an intermission. ]] 21:54, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
::::Correct, although after "the end of the movie" he was still active. And "Dormancy" was suggested in ] not ]. Dormancy is described as a non-active state, although his activity between 2021 and now is active. ] (]) 23:24, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
:I support option 1 as the most accurate of the three. ] (]) 17:21, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
::The word isn't in any dictionary. ]] 18:07, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
Why not use the model of the Cleavland article? ] (]) 19:22, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
: That's pretty much what I'm proposing, except for the "election of 18xx" part (we have the campaign/election sections instead) and not knowing how long Trump's second presidency and post-presidency will last. ]] 22:02, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
::Legally it has to end in 2028. ] (]) 22:04, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
:::January 20, 2029. He's 78 — we'll see what happens. ]] 22:39, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
::Problem, it uses First post-presidency. It is already inaccurate but I will not discuss unrelated articles. ] (]) 23:25, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
:::"§7 First presidency (2017–2021)" could change to "§7 Presidency (2017–2021)"? He only served one term. -] (]) 23:29, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
::::This is concerning the following section. And I'm not sure if I should say this but I don't think we should start this on the Grover Cleveland talk page. ] (]) 23:41, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::And I was referring to the Cleveland article when I said First post-presidency. Sorry for not pointing it out. ] (]) 23:42, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
'''Between presidential terms (2021–2025)'''. Cheers, ] (]) 20:14, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
:You know, that sounds like a good idea.
:Any objections? ] (]) 17:04, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
:Works for me. ] (]) 17:07, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
:Solution in search of a problem, but meh as long as you wait until after the inauguration — just in case lightning strikes or an Acme anvil falls. ]] 18:14, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
::Thanks. As far as I'm concerned, anyone can make the change after the inauguration on 1-20-2025. Regards, ] (]) 22:38, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
:::Well, sounds good to me.
:::Ok, what should the next steps be?
:::Also, just curious, who pinned this? ] (]) 15:32, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
::::{{tq|who pinned this?}} &#8213;]&nbsp;] 16:11, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::Huh — looks as though BoB K tried to (because I said "meh"??) and then you did? Can't figure out what happened. My suggestion: unpin. ]] 19:32, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::I care about ''how'' it's pinned. Apathetic on ''whether'' it should be pinned. &#8213;]&nbsp;] 20:13, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::::As I mentioned in my edit summary, "added template to prevent archiving of this thread until a week after inauguration". I did that because this discussion was about taking an action after the inauguration. Mandruss changed the time from a week after the inauguration to 10 years and made an announcement in a box at the top of the section. Whatever you want to do is fine with me. Regards, ] (]) 15:10, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::::Well it seems all set. ] (]) 02:06, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::Looks like you made this change re archiving . ] (]) 07:19, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::::::"Whatever you want to do is fine with me." ] (]) 17:06, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
]


== "]" listed at ] ==
===Proposed final version===
]
New version taking the latest remarks into account. Replaced "birthers" with "activists", simplified mention of his biography, adding a quote of it, unified citation format and removed a redundant one. Also clarified the question asked of him by Anderson Cooper in 2015, from the transcript.
The redirect <span class="plainlinks"></span> has been listed at ] to determine whether its use and function meets the ]. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at '''{{slink|Misplaced Pages:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 December 30#Individual 1}}''' until a consensus is reached. <!-- Template:RFDNote --> ] (]) 23:57, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
:] and ] are also discussed there.<span style="font-family:Segoe Script">]</span><span style="font-size:115%">]</span> 19:44, 10 January 2025 (UTC)


== Are you kidding with the bias in the introduction? ==
: For six weeks starting in March 2011, Trump publicly questioned ]'s citizenship, amplifying the longstanding ] about Obama's eligibility to serve as president.<ref name=NYT2016>{{cite news |last1=Parker |first1=Ashley |last2=Eder |first2=Steve |url=http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/03/us/politics/donald-trump-birther-obama.html |title=Inside the Six Weeks Donald Trump Was a Nonstop 'Birther' |newspaper=] |date=July 2, 2016}}
</ref> Although Obama had released his birth certificate in 2008,<ref name = "released"/> Trump echoed activists' demand that Obama disclose a "long form" certificate as well.<ref name=NYT2016/><ref>{{cite news |url=http://ac360.blogs.cnn.com/2011/04/25/trump-claims-obama-birth-certificate-missing/ |title=Trump claims Obama birth certificate 'missing' |date=April 25, 2011 |publisher=] |accessdate=May 14, 2011}}
</ref> Trump said that he had sent investigators to Hawaii to research the question, but he did not follow up with any findings.<ref name = "NYT2016" /> He also repeated a debunked allegation that Obama's grandmother said she had witnessed his birth in Kenya.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2011/apr/07/donald-trump/donald-trump-says-president-obamas-grandmother-cau/ |title=Donald Trump Says President Obama's grandmother caught on tape saying she witnessed his birth in Kenya |work=] |last=Farley |first=Robert |date=April 7, 2011 |access-date=25 August 2016}}
</ref> When the ] sought to put the matter to rest by releasing Obama's long-form birth certificate,<ref name = "released">{{cite news |url=http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/28/us/politics/28obama.html |title=With Document, Obama Seeks to End 'Birther' Issue |work=] |last=Shear |first=Michael D. |date=April 27, 2011 |accessdate=27 August 2016}}
</ref> Trump immediately took credit for obtaining the document, saying "I hope it's the right deal."<ref name=Madison27April>{{cite news |url=http://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-takes-credit-for-obama-birth-certificate-release-but-wonders-is-it-real/ |title=Trump takes credit for Obama birth certificate release, but wonders 'is it real?' |first=Lucy |last=Madison |work=] |date=April 27, 2011 |accessdate=May 9, 2011}}
</ref> His official biography mentions his purported role in forcing Obama's hand,<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.trump.com/biography/ |title=Donald J. Trump – Biography |publisher=] |access-date=27 August 2016 |quote=In 2011, after failed attempts by both Senator McCain and Hillary Clinton, Mr. Trump single handedly forced President Obama to release his birth certificate, which was lauded by large segments of the political community. }}
</ref> and he defends his pursuit of the issue when prompted. In 2013 he said, "I don't think I went overboard. Actually, I think it made me very popular."<ref>{{cite news |url=http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/donald-trumps-history-raising-birther-questions-president-obama/story?id=33861832 |title=Donald Trump's History of Raising Birther Questions About President Obama |work=] |last=Keneally |first=Meghan |date=September 18, 2015 |access-date=27 August 2016}}
</ref> When asked in 2015 whether Obama was born in the United States, Trump said he didn't know and didn't want to discuss it further.<ref name=Lee9July>{{cite news |url=http://www.cnn.com/2015/07/08/politics/donald-trump-illegal-immigrant-workers/ |title=Trump says he still doesn't know where Obama was born |first=MJ |last=Lee |publisher=] |date=July 9, 2015 |access-date=August 18, 2015}}
</ref> Trump has also called for Obama to release his school records, questioning whether his grades warranted entry into an Ivy League school.<ref>{{cite news |url=http://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-how-did-obama-get-into-the-ivy-league/ |title=Trump: How did Obama get into the Ivy League? |work=] |first=Lucy |last=Madison |date=April 26, 2011 |access-date=27 August 2016}}
</ref>


The intro should highlight that he was re-elected by the American people in reaction to the progressive agenda pushed by the current administration, high inflationary periods between 2020-2024, and a desire for better economic performance. This victory was unprecedented given the amount of lawsuits against Trump and the extreme anti-Trump sentiment in the media. ] (]) 05:33, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
Consensus yet? — ] <sup>]</sup> 16:14, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
{{reflist-talk}}


:Misplaced Pages articles are written based off of what reliable sources say, not based on your ] on why he was elected or how "unprecedented" it is. ] (]) 19:36, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
*It looks good to me.- ]] 16:19, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
::The article doesn't seem to give any reason for Trump's victory. I did a quick google search "" and the first thing I found was . In this source there was Anthony Salvanto, CBS News' executive director of elections and surveys, who said that there were three main factors behind voters' support of Trump: the role of the economy, a steady MAGA base, and out-of-touch democrats. ] (]) 21:31, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
::Thanks {{u|MrX}}. {{ping|MelanieN|Anythingyouwant|CFredkin|Dervorguilla|DrFleischman}} Does this look like a consensus version, so we could close the matter? — ] <sup>]</sup> 01:49, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
*Looks good to me. Nice work. --] (]) 02:02, 29 August 2016 (UTC) :::That seems like it would fit better in the article on the election than in the article on Trump. ] (]) 21:37, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
::::Why is that? This is information that is directly related to his career in politics. ] (]) 23:31, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
* No, my objections remain. I thought people were going to come up with another word for "reviving". Trump did not revive the controversy in 2011, as it was already going gangbusters. Amplified perhaps, but not revived. Also, is there any evidence that Trump did not send investigators? I think that whole sentence ought to be dropped. Detectives typically don't wear a sign that says their occupation and employer, after all. Also, per ], "To write that someone asserted or claimed something can call their statement's credibility into question, by emphasizing any potential contradiction or implying a disregard for evidence." Moreover, please explain why you want to remove that "Trump said he hoped it 'checks out'". Is that because we believe that Trump hoped the opposite?] (]) 02:44, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
::Happy to provide sources of you can confirm that you will make the changes. Not sure who the gatekeeper is for what the world views on Misplaced Pages, but I hope is is not just one person. ] (]) 23:32, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
::{{re|Anythingyouwant}} OK, replaced "reviving" with "amplifying" as suggested. Regarding investigators, I have no clue, we are just citing the source, but I agree that the whole sentence could be dropped as this assertion is not particularly notable. Do our fellow editors agree that we could strike this out? For the "I hope it checks out" comment, it looked superfluous to me; the operative statement is that Trump took credit for getting Obama to release the document. — ] <sup>]</sup> 04:35, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
:::Not how things work here. You suggest a change or addition, which is supported by citation to a source. Discussion will then begin from there on whether or not to include it. ] (]) 00:54, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
:::Thanks ]. I would also change "repeated" to "echoed" because the present language suggests that maybe Trump is the one that initially made the grandmother claim, then it was debunked, and then he repeated it. As for Trump's statement that he hopes it checks out, let's suppose for the sake of argument that he was telling the truth; then that would be a really extraordinary statement, indicating that Trump hoped Obama would legitimately remain in office and the nation would be spared a constitutional crisis, which runs counter to the whole narrative that Trump was stooping to birtherism in order to kick Obama out by any dubious means. So I'd include it for NPOV, and let readers decide if Trump really meant it.] (]) 11:41, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
:::There isn't exactly a "gatekeeper for worldviews" on this site, you need sources for statements you want to induct into the article and like what other people said, no original research. ] (]) 03:10, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
::::We're already using "echoed" in the previous sentence, "repeated" is a fine sysnonym, it's a stretch of the imagination that readers would think he originated the grandmother claim rather than merely repeating it. On the "I hope it checks out" part, I get your point but I still think that's too much detail at this point in the biography; readers who do want more detail can read the sources. — ] <sup>]</sup> 17:00, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
:That kind of introduction is more fitting for Conservapedia, not Misplaced Pages. ] (]) 12:57, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
:::"Reviving" is debatable, but I don't think "amplified" is quite right. As MelanieN put it {{tq|"About "revived", most sources indicate that it was Trump's "megaphone" that took this from an under-the-radar, conspiracy-buff issue to a front page issue. But I mainly wanted to make clear that he did not invent this stuff, just took existing claims and brought them to prominence, so we could use a different word than "revived"."}} It might be better to say "exploiting" or "co-opting".- ]] 12:15, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
::::"Amplifying" is exactly what a megaphone does, so it sounds about right to me if we want to take {{u|MelanieN}}'s comment into account here. — ] <sup>]</sup> 17:00, 29 August 2016 (UTC) ::{{Ping|NesserWiki}} ] is extremely ironic, it's not to be taken seriously. On the contrary, what the OP wrote started a discussion that perhaps could be useful (although I don't think it will be useful). ] (]) 01:01, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
:] ] (]) 21:17, 11 January 2025 (UTC)


== New official portrait <span class="anchor" id="When Trump's new potrait is taken during his second term, should that replace the photo of his last Presidential potrait?"></span> ==
:::{{ping|JFG}} The sentence should not be dropped. If anything, we should make it clear that Trump repeated his claim that sending investigators to Hawaii, as noted in NYT. Other sources have covered this so I believe it's noteworthy.- ]] 12:00, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
{{small|Original heading: "When Trump's new potrait is taken during his second term, should that replace the photo of his last Presidential potrait?" &#8213;]&nbsp;] 12:59, 3 January 2025 (UTC)}}
::::], given all the false things that Trump has said, why not use those things instead of this thing about which there's no significant evidence of falsity? Let's put the falsity label on things that are actually known to be false.] (]) 12:20, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
:::::None of the proposed text says anything about the claim being false; only that there is not evidence that he actually sent investigators to Hawaii. Let's read what some source says:
::::::{{talkquote|"In the run-up to the 2012 election, Trump, who in the early part of that race flirted with launching his own campaign, repeatedly claimed he had sent investigators to Hawaii, Obama’s birth place, and that it was “absolutely unbelievable” what they were finding. He never released any information to back up those claims, but his focus on the issue made him a favorite of grassroots conservatives and helped pave the way for his success in the 2016 election."|source=''''}}
::::::{{talkquote|"He even said he had sent investigators to Hawaii, the president’s birthplace, to seek the truth. Trump never walked back those claims and even mentioned them again in 2015 at the Conservative Political Action Conference in Washington."|source='''''}}
::::::{{talkquote|" Ignoring the evidence of Obama’s Hawaiian birth, he claimed that his investigators found that he was not born in the United States. He never produced evidence, just headlines. When proven false, rather than acknowledge his wrongness, he talked about the “service” he provided by keeping the issue in the news."|source='''''}}
:::::Trump claimed it's “absolutely unbelievable” what they were finding. Does anyone actually think that if Trump had unbelievable information about Obama that he would not shout it from the rooftops? That's why this is so noteworthy.- ]] 13:18, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
::::::Did any of the sources speculate about what Trump would have said if he had found absolutely unbelievable stuff in his investigation? Such an investigation likely touched upon personal and private information, which would be ample reason to keep it under wraps. Another reason is that Obama released the form, so there was no longer any need for publicizing private information. (One piece of privacy-related info was a video recorded in the State of Washington about a transcontinental visit just a few days after Obama's birth by the baby and his mother, and the interviewed friend talks about how Obama's mother didn't even know yet how to change the diaper and the poop got all over and the whole thing was yucky.). Anyway, tons of stuff was published about Trump that's reliably sourced, but we ought to be discerning. It's transparently partisan to say there's no evidence Trump sent investigators without also saying there's no evidence the other way either (which there isn't AFAIK).] (]) 13:44, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
:::::::I haven't heard the baby poop story before, but then again, I don't follow conspiracy theories. We're staring to venture into the OR zone and we probably shouldn't speculate about what happen or should have happened. All we know is that Trump made a claim and didn't follow through. Our sources are pretty consistent about saying this without making any other conclusions. I think the question that remains is one of weight. I've shown roughly a half a dozen sources. Perhaps other editors can weight in about whether they think this material is important or not. I would be OK with changing "...but there is no evidence that he actually did so" to "...but it's unknown whether he actually did so". - ]] 14:00, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
::::::::I just want to point out that we don't actually know he didn't follow through. He could very well have hired some expensive private investigators to go investigate it, engaged in hyperbole about what he thought they would find, then stopped talking about it when they found nothing. Anythingyouwant is making a good point here. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em; class=texhtml">] ]</span> 14:04, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
:::::::::To clarify, when I wrote " didn't follow through", I wasn't referring to the investigation; I was referring to the revelation that would have presumably come after finding absolutely unbelievable information.- ]] 14:11, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
::::::::::That's fine, but one could argue that he ''couldn't'' follow through because the investigators found nothing. I know it's not a very good argument, but Trump is campaigning for president, not writing a work of investigative journalism. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em; class=texhtml">] ]</span> 14:19, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
{{od}} Alright, seems there is no consensus to remove this sentence. Adding it back in a slightly altered formulation taking your remarks into account: {{tq|Trump claimed that he had sent investigators to Hawaii to research the question, but he did not follow up with any findings.}} This version doesn't try to prove or disprove that he did what he said, we just report that he offered no results (which is true despite his bombastic claim of finding extraordinary stuff), so readers can draw their own conclusions. Is this acceptable? I'd really like to close this now, we're spending too much time discussing the fine details of one single paragraph in a long biography article. Let's keep it as simple as possible (but no simpler). In my opinion, the entire paragraph as massaged above is ready to go into the article. I'll leave it one more day open for comments, then I'll publish it. — ] <sup>]</sup> 17:00, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
:I'm good with that wording. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em; class=texhtml">] ]</span> 17:15, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
::I think we should keep the sentence about investigators in the article; he asserted it repeatedly, and boasted that the supposed investigators were finding unbelievable stuff - stuff which for some reason he never used. We also have the Hawaii <s>health department</s> registrar saying they were never contacted by any Trump investigators, which would seem like a basic starting point for any investigation. However, I would not say he "claimed" he had sent them, since "claimed" is a bit NPOV and implies disbelief. A simple "said" would work. I actually prefer the original version saying there is no evidence he sent them, but will accept the "never released any findings" if consensus favors it. (Has any Reliable Source ever put it that way, that he never released any findings? or is it WP:OR? We DO have a reliable source saying that he never provided any evidence that he sent them.) As for the other issues raised by Anythingyouwant, I am fine with replacing "revived" with "amplified" or any other synonym people prefer, and with either "echoed" or "repeated". I have no opinion about "hope it checks out", which may be superfluous; one of the complaints about the original draft was that it contained too many direct quotes from Trump. --] (]) 17:32, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
::::::: From the New York Times ''Dr. Alvin Onaka, the Hawaii state registrar who handled queries about Mr. Obama, said recently through a spokeswoman that he had no evidence or recollection of Mr. Trump or any of his representatives ever requesting the records from the Hawaii State Department of Health.'' ]<small>]</small> 18:53, 29 August 2016 (UTC)


Allright, ], I think it's time to add this to the article. You have pretty well responded to everyone's suggestions. If anyone wants to make further suggestions, they should make them here, and if agreed to they can be added to the article. --] (]) 20:09, 30 August 2016 (UTC) :I think it makes sense to replace it to the new one once it becomes available. Current official picture should be then moved to the section about his first presidency. ] (]) 21:11, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
::Yes I also think it's reasonable to replace the current portrait with the 2025 version once it's available. ] (]) 00:19, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
::I am concerned that JFG said above "Alright, seems there is no consensus to remove this sentence...." That is not the appropriate standard. The real question is whether there is "firm consensus" to insert it. And likewise whether there is "firm consensus" to remove that Trump hopes the certificate "checks out". I have no objection paraphrasing the latter instead of quoting. Can we please see the revised draft?] (]) 20:20, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
:::The 2025 portrait is now available. Hopefully someone can update it. ] (]) 17:41, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
:::1) RE the "investigators" sentence, we have three peoole (JFG, MrX, and me) who want it in the paragraph in the original version. We have MJolnirPants, who wants it in the article but modified. And we have you, who wants to leave it out. Consensus must be "firm" but it does not have to be unanimous. 2) If the "hope it checks out" bit is all that important to you, I will go along and say it should be included, preferably with the direct quote. (You seem to think that comment provides balance, i.e., makes Trump look like he really does hope it proves Obama was born here; but it can equally or more likely be read as expressing skepticism on the subject, "sure, he gave us a document, but it might be phony".) Anyhow, go ahead and include it and let's get this thing posted. --] (]) 20:57, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
::::No, it is not. That is a photograph taken by a private individual, not a government portrait. There is no evidence that the photographer of this photograph has or ever will release it under an acceptable free license. It does not suddenly become public domain just because Trump wants to use it. Nobody other than the photographer or someone they sign rights away to, not even the President, can release copyright on an image they did not take. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez &#124; ] &#124; ] 18:28, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
:::: {{u|MelanieN}} makes a good point about the "I hope it checks out" quote, which can be interpreted both ways depending on the reader's opinion of Trump: sincerity or sarcasm. Indeed, going back to the source it's quoted from, their article title says {{tq|Trump takes credit for Obama birth certificate release, but wonders "is it real?"}} (editorially choosing to emphasize doubt) and in the text we have several verbatim quotes of Trump saying {{tq|We have to look at it, we have to see is it real, is it proper, what's on it, but I hope it checks out beautifully}} and {{tq|It is rather amazing that all the sudden it materializes, but I hope it's the right deal.}} So, if we must insert a quote, rather than "I hope it checks out" I would suggest using "I hope it's the right deal", which still leaves the reader free to interpret it as sincere relief or lingering doubt, but is a bit less colloquial. I have amended the proposed paragraph accordingly, and will publish it now. — ] <sup>]</sup> 05:50, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
::::JFG said about the investigator sentence: "I agree that the whole sentence could be dropped as this assertion is not particularly notable". MJolnirPants said, "Anythingyouwant is making a good point here".] (]) 21:26, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
:::::{{re|Anythingyouwant}} I still think the sentence is superfluous but considering other editors' remarks I'm happy to keep it in the shortened and neutral form as amended after discussion. In the same spirit, taking your concerns into account, I am adding back a direct Trump quote expressing hope that Obama's certificate was legit. — ] <sup>]</sup> 05:50, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
{{hab}}


I don't believe there is a standard for this exact situation yet on here, given that Trump is only the second person to serve two non-consecutive terms as POTUS. Although, newer potraits tend be used over older ones on pages for other politicians. Overall, I'm curious as to what you all think should happen. ] (]) 12:54, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
== Trump's new immigration stance ==
:For infoboxes for politicians, Misplaced Pages uses the most recent official portrait. &#8213;]&nbsp;] 13:05, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
:There is a precedent with Barack Obama. We use the most recent, second White House portrait which is closer to how he currently looks (salt-and-pepper rather than his earlier black hair). https://petapixel.com/2013/01/18/a-closer-look-at-obamas-new-official-presidential-portrait/ ] (]) 08:25, 6 January 2025 (UTC)


== Making this article fully protected ==
, etc. How are we gonna deal with that? Man, this guy makes the life of a Misplaced Pages editor hard.] (]) 14:14, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
:Oy. But fortunately we don't have to do anything yet, since at this point Trump is merely ''weighing'' changing his stance. --] (]) 17:05, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
::As usual it's impossible to tease out what he really means by these hints, so we should hold off. Interesting side note: Trump has cancelled three appearances this week. They were supposed to be all about laying out or clarifying his new (?) policy on immigration; in fact this was supposed to be "immigration week". The campaign has not explained why they called off the appearances, but one possible reason is that he and his campaign advisors have not agreed what his immigration policy should be. --] (]) 17:15, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
:::I was just about to post something about , or . It absolutely should be added, and I don't think we need to wait an indefinite period for details which may or may not ever emerge. It already has historical significance, if for no other reason than the ambiguity about his actual position this close to the election.- ]] 17:24, 25 August 2016 (UTC)


when he is instated, there will be a wave of people (i think) that will try to edit it, and even bots. i find it necessary to make it fully protected (gold lock) ] (]) 13:46, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
:::Unlikely that he knows his position at the moment. But, it makes no sense for the article to say: "Day 1 of my presidency, illegal immigrants are getting out and getting out fast" when his position appears to be an unknown. There should, at least, be a follow-up statement that his position is in flux. ] (]) 17:31, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
:Pages are not protected preemptively... - ] (]) 17:32, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
::::We don't even know if it is in flux. His campaign manager says his position is "to be determined", suggesting flux. Trump himself says "I'm not flip flopping," suggesting no flux. ] (]) 20:13, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
:It's called ] ] (]) 21:13, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::He's not flipflopping. But he knows America is not a dictatorship. There are checks and balances and he'll have to govern with Congress, the Senate and the judiciary. That's all he's been saying. If anything, he has said he would work with the courts, proving that he wants to honor the constitution.] (]) 20:37, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
::i know, but i think there will be a large vandalism wave, maybe one we cant actually control. over the next 4 years we will definitely see vandalism, which will be extremely annoying and tedious to defend against. ] (]) 21:15, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::Do you speak for him? --] (]) 16:57, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
::is there anything that actually is fully protected? ] (]) 21:16, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::::"He hasn't changed his position on immigration. He's changed the words that he is saying." You know, the words about his position. This waffling doesn't belong on Trump's bio page, at least not yet. ] is right about its importance, though, and I believe it should already be on the campaign page. When he and his team decide what he's proposing, we can clarify. &ndash;&nbsp;]&nbsp;(]) 19:56, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
:::Not in this life...I would prefer to see the page taken down completely for 24 hours than it freezing due to edit conflict but that`s censorship as well ] (]) 22:03, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::::Just the other day Trump announced his revision of his revision of his original Immigration Policy. At the thread "Immigration policies" all the sources are from June. Would a re-write of the section be better than just adding each revision as it is announced? (which hasn't happened as of yet) Or just change the section each time? ]<small>]</small> 15:51, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
::::ok ] (]) 10:27, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::::::Not yet. All we could say is that he may be waffling, or then again maybe he isn't. When he comes out with an actual policy, something he will stand behind and stick to, we should revise it then. --] (]) 02:04, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
:::I couldn't really find any actual pages that are full protected but there are some portals I've seen that get full protection such as the current events portal. Though while looking I found it funny that for the Israel-Hamas war page it is on such tight lockdown even the talk page has extended-protection which I honestly find pretty dumb considering the talk page is a place for editors to discuss changes and thus doesn't really need protection but I don't make the rules. For this page in particular I think the level of protection is enough though to deter all but the most determined who attempt to sabotage it so making it full protected seems like overkill. ] (]) 02:07, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
{{od}} Wishful thinking that. :-) --] (]) 19:02, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
::::ok, but trump supporters are really dedicated (january 6th attacks)
:Maybe after tonight? --] (]) 01:19, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
::::maybe some people might spread misinformation?
::Based on what I'm seeing on Twitter, there is no change in policy or softening. Ann Coulter is happy. She can still pimp out that book. &ndash;&nbsp;]&nbsp;(]) 01:47, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
::::im just worried that some dedicated supporters might try to change information on here ] (]) 12:32, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::We can take care of that through the normal means. Full protection would make it impossible for us regulars to update and improve the article without calling in an admin for help. ] (]) 13:58, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::It is likely there will be some people with enough dedication to try and still vandalize the page even with the level of protection it has now. The best way to counter this though is to remain vigilant ourselves in making sure the article stays as objective and non-biased as possible. The edit history makes it clear what changes are made so it isn't extremely difficult to monitor and with how prevalent this page is I doubt there will be a shortage of people willing to keep checked in on it to make sure no misinformation is allowed to stay here. With his upcoming presidency there is a need for people capable of editing the article as a great amount of new information will undoubtedly need to be added as it progresses so it wouldn't really be feasible right now to lock it down completely. The only real solution left for us is to simply monitor the page constantly and make sure nothing slips through the cracks. ] (]) 02:01, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::all right. still, we can't be constantly vigilant. could we make a backup article, just in case something goes really wrong? ] (]) 22:29, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::::Self-quote from below: {{tq|In the absolute worst case, we could always restore a days-old revision.}} Every edit creates a new revision, and every revision is a "backup article". I could revert the article to January 15, 2015 with a few clicks. Very little is not easily reversible at Misplaced Pages. &#8213;]&nbsp;] 22:40, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::::ok, then it wont be necessary to make it fully protected ] (]) 09:54, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
:The article survived the election with the current protection. It will likewise survive the inauguration. In the absolute worst case, we could always restore a days-old revision. &#8213;]&nbsp;] 00:09, 6 January 2025 (UTC)


== RfC: Donald Trump's false campaign statements == == Donald trump is now president. ==
{{rfc|pol|rfcid=179CF78}}


Change from President-elect to President. ] (]) 18:40, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
Should the lead section, which currently says:
:''"His statements in interviews, on Twitter, and at campaign rallies have often been controversial, ..."''
be changed to read (changes in bold):
:''"'''Many of''' his statements in interviews, on Twitter, and at campaign rallies have been controversial '''or false''', ..."''
The proposed sources are:
* {{cite web|url=http://www.factcheck.org/2015/12/the-king-of-whoppers-donald-trump/|title=The ‘King of Whoppers': Donald Trump|publisher=]|date=December 21, 2015}}
* {{cite web|url=http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2015/dec/21/2015-lie-year-donald-trump-campaign-misstatements/|title=2015 Lie of the Year: the campaign misstatements of Donald Trump|publisher=]|date=December 21, 2015|first1=Angie Drobnic|last1=Holan|first2=Linda|last2=Qiu}}
Prior talk page discussion . --] (]) 17:36, 25 August 2016 (UTC)


:@] you have to wait 14 more days... ] ] 18:42, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
{{collapse top|notes added by Anythingyouwant}}
:has he been inaugurated? ] (]) 18:43, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
'''NOTE''': Dr. Fleischman has acknowledged that both sources above are rather old now (from 2015), and he points to the following two additional sources (though it is still unclear whether Dr. Fleischman objects to omitting footnotes from this lead which has thus far omitted them per ]):
:No, he is not. His term will start at noon on the 20th. Just like Biden's started at noon on 20 January 2021. Just like Trump's previous term started at noon on 20 January 2017. --] (]) (]) 19:26, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
:No he's not, wdym???? He'll be the president starting from Jan 20. There's still two weeks left ] (]) 11:43, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
:I find titles for Presidents and other politicians in Misplaced Pages articles to be inconsistent. For example in President Biden’s article, one can see President Barack Obama and former president Donald Trump in the article, and political titles should be used more.
:The Twentieth Amendment uses the term, “President-elect,” as you are using here, yet Misplaced Pages in this article, and in the article, “President-elect,” uses “president-elect,” “President,” is not capitalized.
:The fact is people were more formal when I was younger, a President had the title of President the rest of his life. ] (]) 10:21, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
::He has been referred to as President but in encyclopedic knowledge it makes no sense to refer to Former President as President. This will of course change again in couple of days once he takes the oath for the length of his last presidency. ] (]) 21:15, 11 January 2025 (UTC)


==Personal life section: The late president's article <span class="anchor" id="The late president's article"></span>==
* Gregory, Sean. , '']'' (April 29, 2016).
Looking at the article for the late ], the Misplaced Pages article for him has a substantial section about his medical history as 'Personal life' and 'Health' which appears at the bottom of the article. The section at the Jimmy Carter article looks comprehensive and respectful. The Trump article, however, seems to put the Personal life section and Health section all the way near the top of the article which seems like an odd place to put this information. When I looked at the article for Washington, then the Personal life section is also put towards the bottom of the article. Should the 'Personal life' section and 'Health' for Trump be moved to the bottom of the article as seems to be the standard practice for Misplaced Pages president articles such as Washington and Carter? ] (]) 16:12, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
* Lippman, Daniel et al. , '']'' (March 13, 2016).


Please also note that this RFC about the lead is followed later in this talk page by a similar discussion about the body of this BLP (see ]).] (]) 00:27, 30 August 2016 (UTC) :Interesting point, My only input is that it might have to do with the weight the information holds in contrast to the rest of the content in the article? Is there any MOS format that suggests that personal life/health might be better located at the bottom of an article? ] (]) 17:43, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
::Part of the problem maybe that Carter was kind of a notable politician who happened to also be a businessman, whereas Trump was a notable businessman who (or maybe a celebrity) who happened to become a pelican. So the article grew organically. ] (]) 17:46, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
{{collapse bottom}}
:::Autocorrect or some kind of avian easteregg? ] (]) 18:01, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
::::One was created from the off as about a politician, one grew into one about a politician. ] (]) 18:05, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::"pelican"? ] (]) 18:20, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::It looks like Slatersteven was trying to type "politician" rather than 'pelikan', which he can edit into his comment if he wants to. I'm also finding that the president's article for ] also has Personal life section which appears near the end of the article, as opposed to the Trump article which for some reason has put it at the top of the article. The Misplaced Pages preference for Washington, Jimmy Carter, and now John Quincy Adams, see to all be placing the Personal life section towards the end of the article. Should the Trump article be consistent with the other president articles on Misplaced Pages and place the Personal life section towards the end of the article? ] (]) 00:34, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::::I don't see why not. Most people probably don't come to this page to read about DJT's schooling. ] (]) 01:33, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
:No. Trump's private life is part of his tabloid persona, and other presidents' articles (e.g., Lincoln and Obama) have long early life sections that go into details about their families. ]] 21:07, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
::That sounds ok for the Marriages part of Personal life, but the Health subsection of Personal life really does not seem to belong at the top of the article. Jimmy Carter, Washington, and JQA all place Private life to the bottom of the article. Is there really much advantage to reading about Trump's golf life at the top of the current article when it could better be located towards the bottom of the Table of Contents. ] (]) 21:31, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
:::Where towards the bottom would you put it? Teetotalism, sleep and exercise habits are also part of his public persona. The "healthiest president ever" claim was part of the 2016 campaign, and the removal of the medical records happened during the first presidency. ]] 13:15, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
::::My thoughts might suggest the best place for that Personal life Health section to be placed right before the Assessments section towards the bottom of the article. His golf life appears significantly less important than reading about his business life and his media life at the top of the article. ] (]) 20:51, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
:The difference here is Trump’s ] politics. Status quo is fine ] (]) 22:05, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
::Actually, Erdogan’s, Orban’s, and Chavez’s articles have Personal life at the bottom, so I’ll support following those ] (]) 22:13, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
{{u|Space4Time3Continuum2x}}: I'm going to suggest after looking at the set of responses that all of them but yours is for moving the section to the bottom of the table of contents. If you have some comment to keep part of it higher in the table of contents and to move the other part towards the bottom of the table of contents, then you might add your comments here. ] (]) 16:02, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
:Of the six editors who commented in this section only two supported your suggestion, one with {{tq|I don't see why not}} and one with {{tq|three random articles also have personal life/health at the end of the article.}} As to the latter, : {{tq|Article content is generally determined on an ad hoc basis and so the existence of other articles where (or is not) ].}} BTW, there are other articles (e.g., Obama, Lincoln, Franklin D. Roosevelt) where early life, personal life, education are at the top. How many watchers of this Talk page even realized that a discussion entitled {{tq|The late president's article}} proposed moving two sections? IMO, this isn't sufficient to form a new consensus. ]] 17:10, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
::We aren't {{tq|adding or excluding content}}. My point was that other personalist politicians have their section at the bottom. Unfortunately, there's no style guide for politicians. The actual title of this section is {{tq|Personal life section: The late president's article}}. ] (]) 17:27, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
:::{{tq|Personal life section}} was added after I posted my comment, and "adding or excluding content" was just an example for ]. {{tq|My point}}: I got that, and my point was that other politicians don't. ]] 19:23, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
::::Agreement with Riposte97, MaximusEditor, and Kowal12701, and others. The Personal life section looks misplaced at the top of the article and should be moved toward the bottom of the Table of Contents. It looks as if your claim is that this information in the Personal life section is of very high importance to the Trump article, and that it must he placed at the top of the article where it currently stands. These other editors do not seem to agree with your position. If its not of high importance, then it should be moved towards the bottom the table of contents. Following the Jimmy Carter example makes sense. Agreement with the other editors on this. ] (]) 15:20, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::I think you may have misunderstood Maximus and the "others". ]] 17:27, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::Their comments look explicit:
:::::::"I don't see why not (to move Personal life to the bottom of the article)." Riposte97
:::::::"Actually, Erdogan’s, Orban’s, and Chavez’s articles have Personal life at the bottom, so I’ll support following those." Kowal2701
:::::::My own comments that his golf life does not look important, and the section should be at the bottom of the TOC. ] (]) 19:58, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::If this needs to be placed as a Proposal on this Talk page, then possibly that's your (Space4Time) preference? I'm not sure anyone here has agreed with your standpoint. ] (]) 19:58, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::::I see consensus to move it. Perhaps we wait another 24 hours before doing so. ] (]) 20:12, 14 January 2025 (UTC)


== Proposal to supersede consensus #50 <span class="anchor" id="RfC to supersede consensus #50"></span> ==
*'''Strong support''' - His frequent false statements, as noted by Pulitzer Prize winning sources, have become a staple of his campaign .- ]] 18:03, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
{{not a ballot}}
*'''Strong support''' for adding "or false"- His covert, coded and often repeated rhetoric is most often deceitful and without specific regret afterwards. Examples are abundant and can be found with very little effort. ]<small>]</small> 18:16, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
Do you support or oppose the lede sentence to now read: {{tq|Donald John Trump (born June 14, 1946) is an American politician, media personality, businessman, and criminal who served as the 45th ] from 2017 to 2021.}}? ] (]) 16:39, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
*{{ec}}Fact checking organizations are often controversial. Indeed, I've seen accusations of a liberal bias many MANY times, and I've seen precious little refuting those accusations (except memes with pithy little comments like "The facts have a liberal bias"). That being said, I'm not at all convinced that those accusations are true. Politifact has given every candidate this season except Sanders at least one "Pants on Fire" rating. Factcheck.org has slammed Clinton, Sanders, Stein, Johnson and Trump.
*'''Support''' His sentencing today has met ] requirement that {{tq|a conviction has been secured for that crime}}, support adding {{tq|and criminal}} in the lede sentence per consistency with other ] articles.] (]) 16:39, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
:That being said, I don't like using those sites as a source. They are too controversial, and there's not enough evidence that the criticisms of them are unfounded (I believe they are, but I can't prove it with reliable sources). In this case, I've read articles from CNN, PBS and NPR about Trump's numerous untrue statements. shows many sources that could be significantly less controversial. I'm sure anyone willing (not me, nope nope nope nope) to put more effort into finding a reliable source for these statements will find some pretty good ones. So '''I'm okay with the proposal, but not okay with the proposed sources'''. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em; class=texhtml">] ]</span> 18:21, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
*:*As in: "'''Mark Robert Michael Wahlberg''' (born June 5, 1971), formerly known by his stage name '''Marky Mark''', is an American actor, former rapper, and criminal"?
::I don't think your position on the reliability of these fact checkers is consistent with ], which focuses on the source's reputation for fact-checking and accuracy rather than ], but if this objection picks up steam, I agree, it could be easily remedied by adding additional sources such as the ones MrX has proposed. --] (]) 18:26, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
*:—] 16:55, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
:::FactCheck.org is often cited by other reliable sources, and even . One indication of reliability is ]. Of course, PolitiFact is one of the Pulitzer Prize winners, which suggests a degree of reliability.- ]] 18:50, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
*:*Or: "'''Marshall Bruce Mathers III''' (born October 17, 1972), known professionally as '''Eminem''' (stylized as '''EMINƎM'''), is an American rapper, songwriter, record producer, and criminal.—] 16:58, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
::{{u|MjolnirPants}}, how about ? --] (]) 18:05, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
*:*::Eminem "criminal"? Is this a joke? ] (]) 20:53, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
::::{{ping|DrFleischman}}, {{ping|MrX}} I don't think you understood what I was saying. I personally feel that the fact checking sites do a wonderful job and are free from any meaningful bias. If there was an RfC on whether or not we can use fact checking sites, I'd !vote Yes in big, bold letters. But I can't prove it, because there are lots of other sources complaining about them, and few other sources defending them (it seems to be so widely held in journalistic circles that they ''are'' accurate that few journalists feel the need to defend them). So I don't like using them simply because doing so provides an excuse for editors who disagree with them to complain about how unreliable they are, and start a big stink about it. Given that the fact checking sources often cover the same material as other, less controversial sources, I will (until there is a clear consensus that questioning the reliability of fact checkers is pointless) always elect to use the less controversial sources. So that time magazine source is absolutely perfect, from where I sit. however, whenever there is no other good source for a claim, I say go with the fact checkers and be ready to defend oneself. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em; class=texhtml">] ]</span> 18:24, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
*:*:::He pleaded guilty to weapons charges for two incidents in 2000, got probation both times. It's mentioned in ]. He wasn't running for president at the time ]. ]] 21:08, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
:::Ok, gotcha. FWIW 's another strong source, this time from Politico. --] (]) 18:37, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
*:*::::{{Ping|Space4Time3Continuum2x}} in the sense: almost all American rappers who started rapping between the early 90s and early 2000s committed criminal actions, so Eminem (like many other rappers) isn't a correct example for this talk page. ] (]) 21:30, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
:::I see your point {{U|MjolnirPants}}. It never hurts to have more and better sources.- ]] 21:01, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
*:*:::::I think Alalch was just referring to the OP's consistency claim by pointing out that the article on Eminem, who had pleaded guilty to a felony, also doesn't call him a felon or criminal in the first sentence (or anywhere else, AFAIK — I just skimmed the article). WP says we should avoid labels and, instead, describe what happened. ]] 12:59, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
:::: ]: The ''Wall Street Journal'' has won ''seven'' ] — and <s>it</s> <u>one of its editorial-board members</u> characterizes PolitiFact as "" for mislabeling opinion pieces as 'fact checks'. --] (]) 04:21, 27 August 2016 (UTC) 08:30, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
*:*::::::{{Ping|Space4Time3Continuum2x}} exactly, '''it would be a big problem for Misplaced Pages if the community decided to add "criminal" only to the Donald Trump page'''; since no other page in the encyclopedia would contain the word "criminal" in the first lines of the lead, a huge avalanche of users would probably protest (very, very rightly) on this talk page. ] (]) 20:10, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::The article is paywalled, but judging from it's lead, I'm doubtful that is makes such a sweeping generalization. Nor does it matter, given the abundance of sources at our disposal.- ]] 11:24, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
*:*:That would be undue, his criminal characterization has not received sustained widespread coverage, unlike the president-elect. ] (]) 17:00, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::: {{reply to|MrX}} It looks like the ''Journal'''s <u>editorial-board member</u> does make the "''sweeping generalization''" that PolitiFact is selling mislabeled opinion pieces:
*:*::Criminal characterization? What does that mean? —] 17:04, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::: <u>The Site Once Vouched for Its “Lie of the Year”</u>
*:*:@] Ridiculous and fallacious, as in the slippery slope fallacy, or a ] as you are creating here.
::::::: ... is out with its “Lie of the Year”...
*:*:How many celebrities or even gangster rappers do you know that have been convicted of crimes? More than I can count. So, not notable.
::::::: We cannot fault PolitiFact for the lie it chose...
*:*:But what if the crimes themselves are so notable they outweigh the other ] aspects of a public person, as in the case of Harvey Weinstein? Yes, notable.
::::::: Which isn’t to say PolitiFact doesn’t function as a state propaganda agency. For in the past — when it actually mattered, before ObamaCare became a law — PolitiFact vouched for Barack Obama’s “Big Lie”...
*:*:Now, how many Presidents in US history can YOU COUNT that have been convicted of multiple felonies, ones that are related to election interference? Only one. And just like it is notable to objectively state as notable fact that Barack Obama is the first black President elected in US history, it is more than relevant to mention (in the opening sentence) that Trump is the first convicted felon/criminal elected to become President of the United States, especially considering that American democracy has as its bedrock the rule of law as enforced by convictions of juries of their peers, with even Trump himself making it his legacy to publicly argue that he is literally (and should be) above the law as President. So there is no other way around this. It is ] on all counts as prescribed by etiquette surrounding ]. ] (]) 21:59, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::: PolitiFact ... includes the following acknowledgment: “In 2009 and again in 2012, PolitiFact rated Obama’s statement Half True”...
*:*::The Obama article doesn't even include "African American" in the first sentence, that's only in the second sentence. —] 22:30, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::: As the '''' noted last month, in PolitiFact rated the same statement ... as flatly “true”...
*:*:::@] So then include it in the second sentence. That's a good compromise. But you are against that as well it would seem, so why bother with that ]? ] (]) 22:45, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::: Its past evaluations of the statement were not “fact checks” at all, merely opinion pieces endorsing ObamaCare...
*:*::::This request for comment (please read ]) is not about the second sentence, it's about the first sentence, as worded in the proposal. This isn't a negotiation for us to come to a compromise. What is being responded to is the proposal, as stated in the question. Editors are, each individually, to the best of their ability, giving arguments for why the proposal should be implemented or not. And, in any case, what would that second sentence be like while reusing the exact language from the proposal: "And, in addition, he is a criminal"? —] 22:51, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::: But selling opinion pieces by labeling them “fact checks” is fundamentally dishonest.
*:*:::::@] I'm sure that as long as it is included in the first of second sentence as either "the first convicted felon" or "the first convicted criminal" to be elected to the office of Presidency, then that is well within the ballpark here.
:::::: --] (]) 02:35, 28 August 2016 (UTC) 08:30, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
*:*:::::The larger debate is that now that the highest law in the land from the SCOTUS doesn't think Donald Trump is exceptional here, and now that sentencing has concluded, he is a convicted criminal/felon as a matter of empirical verifiable fact. This isn't about the time he shoplifted a DVD player as 21 year old (joking) about 30+ serious felonies.
:::::::I guess that's their opinion. Other publication see it differently. The Washington Examiner not a source I would rely on for "noting" anything concerning president Obama or Obama Care.- ]] 02:53, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
*:*:::::I can buy that argument that this is more than relevant and necessary to place this objective factual information as front and center as possible given its newsworthiness and historic importance. Misplaced Pages is first and foremost about both.
:::::::: ]: No need to. The ''Journal'' is the largest reputable newspaper in the country. Both the ''Journal'' and <u>a columnist at</u> ''Time'' -- the largest reputable newsmagazine in the world -- see PolitiFact as "" or worse. --] (]) 08:49, 28 August 2016 (UTC) 08:30, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
*:*:::::I maintain neutrality only because the RFC won't be decided on a vote count, or our arguments here, but arbitrarily by an admin coming in to decide on a whim or which way the wind is blowing it would seem. Fair point on both sides as there is no mechanism for this unprecedented moment. ] (]) 23:00, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::::: ]: I'm sure you noticed that in the same Time article, the following was stated(referring to Politifact): "" ] (]) 03:44, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
*:*::::::You're in no position to be sure of anything as someone who clearly hasn't dealt with these things for long enough on Misplaced Pages and don't understand how decisions are made. You need to be less sure about what you're telling yourself, and more sure about what people who know what they are talking about are telling you. They are telling you things such as: {{tq|This request for comment (please read ]) is not about the second sentence, it's about the first sentence, as worded in the proposal. This isn't a negotiation for us to come to a compromise. What is being responded to is the proposal, as stated in the question. Editors are, each individually, to the best of their ability, giving arguments for why the proposal should be implemented or not. }} What you claim to be the debate is not the debate here and now in this talk section. The "debate" question is as follows: {{tq|Do you support or oppose the lede sentence to now read: Donald John Trump (born June 14, 1946) is an American politician, media personality, businessman, and criminal who served as the 45th president of the United States from 2017 to 2021.?}} —] 23:28, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::::: {{reply to|Gaas99}} Note the limiting adverbs and the adversative conjunction. (Emphasis added.) "They’re ''generally'' doing well. They ''often'' do it better than the rest... ''But''..." --] (]) 04:26, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
*:The conviction was secured in May 2024. January 10th was sentencing, which has no bearing on conviction. ] (]) 17:56, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Oppose'''. Politicians make false statements. That's not exactly relevant to the lead of their bios.] (]) 18:43, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
*:BLPCRIME says nothing about ''placement'' of content. It allows ''inclusion'' of content, and the article already does that. Your policy claim is invalid. &#8213;]&nbsp;] 18:17, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Strong support''' - per MrX - this has received extremely wide and deep coverage from multiple high-quality journalistic sources. ]<sup>]</sup> 19:13, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
*:'''Support.''' Factual, verifiable, and most importantly widespread coverage. Satisfies ]. ] (]) 21:08, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Support''' I originally opposed, but given the discussion above and the strength of the sources, I think this two-word addition is justified. Yes, many politicians shade the truth or even outright lie on occasion, but Trump has carried it to a whole new level, as has been well documented by neutral reliable sources. --] (]) 20:05, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
*'''Oppose'''. It's called politics. It is also my impression that it would be false to say that. If anything, he's been '''too honest''' for his own good. By the way, I also object to the use of the word "controversial" as it is POV. Instead, we should say, "'''politically incorrect'''".] (]) 20:33, 25 August 2016 (UTC) *'''Oppose''' for the same reasons as the last time we discussed this. I don't see why a no-penalty sentence would make it more likely we add it in the opening sentence. It's already mentioned later in the lead, so this is ]. — ''']''' <sup>''(])''</sup> 16:49, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
*:We don't get to determine whether a no-penalty sentence is due or not, it has received wide coverage in reliable sources to the extent that they keep reporting him as the first felon to become president. ] (]) 16:59, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
*:{{ping|Zigzig20s}} Can you cite some reliable sources that support your reasoning, especially " he's been '''too honest''' for his own good"? It strikes me as very odd that you seem to think your "impression" should receive more consideration than Pulitzer Prize winning sources.- ]] 21:52, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
*::We do get to decide if it's due in the first sentence, and ] arguments make it undue. — ''']''' <sup>''(])''</sup> 22:01, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Support''' as nom. The argument that Trump's falsehoods are politics as usual has no basis in our policies and guidelines and is directly contradicted by the cited reliable sources, among many others. --] (]) 21:00, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
*'''Oppose'''. Not first-sentence material.—] 16:49, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Support''' The frequency and severity of the falsehoods stated by the Trump campaign have been the subject of discussion from numerous secondary sources. Sources appear to treat this as above-and-beyond the typical political truth spinning. NPOV directs us to reflect the sources in a neutral manner and the proposed wording does that. DUE directs us to mention it because it's been so widely and extensively covered. ] ] 21:04, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
::Could you please be more specific? It seems to me it would be false; he's been more truthful than most politicians.] (]) 21:07, 25 August 2016 (UTC) *'''Oppose''' Per the last time. ] (]) 16:50, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Support''' It is a factual verifiable statement..he is a convicted felon...it`s spelled lead ] (]) 17:28, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
:::Sources MrX provided above are a good starting point. Some others: . I know of no reliable source suggesting that Trump is more truthful (or even equally as truthful) than other politicians. ] ] 21:20, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
*:. —] 17:31, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
::::Those sound like opinion pieces. ''The Guardian'' is left-wing; could we cite ''Breitbart'' then?] (]) 21:28, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
*:It's spelled lede, as in bury the lede, or the most important and relevant part of a story. Which, trump being the first convicted felon elected as president of the US, is very relevant. ] (]) 18:00, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::They aren't categorized as opinion pieces by the outlets. We cannot assume they are. Guardian is more leftwing, but it's RS. Breitbart generally is not because of its history of factual errors. (See RSN discussion archives). We are required to accurately and neutrally reflect RS, even if we don't agree with what they say. ] ] 21:33, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
*:This isn’t a question of whether it's true. Lots of things about Trump are true, and they can't all go in the first sentence. — ''']''' <sup>''(])''</sup> 22:02, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::::The tone of this specific Guardian article certainly sounds like an opinion piece. My worry is not that we can't cite them, but that citing them would make Misplaced Pages look bad/biased.] (]) 21:39, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
::*The says:
::::::A few more links: PolitiFact's Lie of the Year was covered by other sources (). . ] ] 21:37, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
:::::::The problem is that this sounds POV. Are we going to say that Clinton lies a lot in her lede? (Just google it.) That's what politicians do.] (]) 21:42, 25 August 2016 (UTC) :::{{tqb|"Some use the spelling lede. At AP, we side with the Poynter Institute’s Roy Peter Clark in viewing lede as jargon-like spelling while lead reminds us to lead readers into the story."}} So it's correct to spell it either way. -] (])
:The article is not about him it`s about trump ] (]) 17:34, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::::Sources are allowed to be POVish (see ]). It seems that sources have covered Trumps falsehoods more and say that he has more of them than Clinton. ] ] 21:45, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
::Oh right, thanks, I forgot —] 17:38, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::Not really. Google "Clinton pinocchio". There's even . My point is that you're free to say Trump is the worst person in the entire universe by citing it, but ultimately that makes Misplaced Pages look bad. This should not be used as a political platform.] (]) 21:50, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' putting it in the first sentence like that. It needs context that can happen later in the lead, but not the first sentence. &ndash;&nbsp;]&nbsp;(]) 17:42, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::::::We're not talking about a handful of falsehoods. We're talking about so many that it's become a regular subject of media coverage by ]--not just a specific falsehood, but the overall pattern. A t-shirt isn't a reliable source. In any case, if you see the same thing about Clinton then you are more than welcome to propose a similar addition at ]. --] (]) 22:06, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
*:It's first sentence material, as he is now the first convicted felon in US history to be elected president, which in and of itself is noteworthy. ] (]) 17:54, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::::Zigzig, give it up. You are apparently repeating the Trump campaign line that he "tells it like it is". But the reliable sources are pointing out things he says that are FACTUALLY FALSE. And it's not just lies about his opponent, like "Hillary wants to create totally open borders" or she want to "abolish the Second Amendment". It's lies about simple, verifiable facts, like "We're the highest taxed nation in the world" or "GDP was essentially zero in the last two quarters" or "Americans are the only country that has birthright citizenship" or "South Korea doesn't pay the U.S. for our troops there protecting their country". It's lies about his own biography, like "Trump University has a "A" from the Better Business Bureau" or "The Art of the Deal is the best selling business book of all time" or "I got to know Putin very well when we were both on 60 minutes" or …. shall I go on? The Washington Post's "Fact checker" has awarded Trump their highest rating, "Four Pinocchios" (meaning a flat lie), on 65% of the statements they tested, and most of the rest are Three Pinocchios. In contrast, most politicians earn Four Pinocchios 10-20% of the time. This is NOT a case of "all politicians lie". Trump has set a new standard, according to everybody who rates this kind of thing. --] (]) 22:16, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
*::Being sentenced to an "unconditional discharge", i.e. literally nothing, is not "first sentence material". &ndash;&nbsp;]&nbsp;(]) 17:59, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::::::::It's called hyperbole. It's political speech. Perhaps this could go in the body of the text, but not in the lede. It is too POV and makes Misplaced Pages look biased. I want Misplaced Pages to remain neutral, and this would look bad in my opinion. But I've made my point--hopefully you will listen.] (]) 22:31, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
*:::As the first convicted felon to be elected president, it is first sentence material. ] (]) 18:01, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::::::It's way beyond hyperbole. According to Google, "hyperbole" is "exaggerated statements or claims not meant to be taken literally". His comments are meant to be taken literally. &ndash;&nbsp;]&nbsp;(]) 22:35, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
*::::Is not. John Adams was the first president not to own slaves. Not in the first sentence. —] 18:31, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::::::::::It's political speech. Obama said he would close Gitmo. He hasn't, as it's the next best thing to keep America safe. But I bet voters believed him. This is what politicians do.] (]) 22:46, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
*::::] was the first to be impeached. Not in the first sentence. —] 18:41, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::Obama hasn't closed Gitmo because Congressional Republicans blocked all of his attempts to do so. It's a broken promise, but again, it was meant literally. Like Trump's statements. (And lol to Gitmo keeping America "safe".) &ndash;&nbsp;]&nbsp;(]) 22:51, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
*:::::Thanks for the counter-examples, but I think it's sufficient to say that {{tq|As the first convicted felon to be elected president, it is first sentence material.}} lacks policy basis. &#8213;]&nbsp;] 18:45, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::Are you suggesting Obama was being "hyperbolic"? If not, I fail to see the relevance. ] (]) 05:35, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
*::::::I think being the first convicted felon to be elected president does not mean much, but being extensively covered as such by reliable sources does mean much, especially when he is portrayed as a career criminal with hundreds of felony charges. ] (]) 19:07, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::::Oh, and since you keep bringing up Clinton, here is a head-to-head comparison from the Washington Post, as of July: For Trump: 52 claims were rated. 63% were Four Pinocchios, 21% 3, 10% 2, 2% 1, 4 % truthful. For Clinton: 36 claims were rated. 14% were Four Pinocchios, 36% 3, 30.5% 2, 5.5% 1, 14% truthful. --] (]) 22:27, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
:::::::::::::The ''Washington Post'' has been at loggerheads with Trump. Of course they would publish anti-Trump pieces now.] (]) 22:32, 25 August 2016 (UTC) *::::::Thanks for the feedback. The examples serve as illustration of editorial practices, for those unaware of what they look like in reality. —] 21:55, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
*:How about the second? ] (]) 03:53, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::::::… are you seriously citing a t-shirt as a reliable source? ] (]) 05:35, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' per ]. ] (]) 21:15, 25 August 2016 (UTC) *'''Oppose''' per Czello, Muboshgu, etc. &#8213;]&nbsp;] 17:57, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' The felony conviction is a minor aspect of his career, not important enough for the first sentence. It is already mentioned later in the lead. ] (]) 19:09, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
::Could you point to some policy to support your position? Just saying the press is lying isn't sufficient as it is your personal opinion. ] ] 21:22, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
*:The first ever president of the United States receiving a felony is a minor aspect of his career? ] (]) 19:45, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
:::I'd also suggest avoiding if you'd like your opinion to be taken more seriously. This is a Donald Trump RfC, not a Donald Trump campaign rally, after all. ''']'''&nbsp;<sup>]</sup> 00:29, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
*::Yes. He is famous for being a controversial president, making inflammatory remarks and having divisive policies. The felony convictions are not the reason he is notable, his presidencies and business career are. The conviction should be mentioned in the lead, but not the first sentence. ] (]) 14:21, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
::::It's German terminology, unless everything used by the National Socialists becomes "Nazi" related, in which case universal healthcare is Nazi ideology. ] (]) 11:35, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
*'''Support'''. False is false, and this is very well documented in sources above. That is what multiple reliable sources tell. Very simple. ] (]) 21:19, 25 August 2016 (UTC) *'''Support''' Passes ] as stated earlier. However, I would change criminal to "convicted felon". A lot of former discussion against this suggested we wait until his sentence was official. It now is. ] (]) 19:40, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
*: &#8213;]&nbsp;] 19:49, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Support''' When something is demonstrably false (like the NFL letter he claimed to receive, or the "very top" Chicago PD people he claims to have spoken with, both of which have been disconfirmed), it's demonstrably false. Politicians obfuscate and tell half-truths, but totally false statements are another level. &ndash;&nbsp;]&nbsp;(]) 22:16, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
*'''Comment''' - Can we please let people have their say, without telling them they are wrong, the closer will judge that, it is not for us to say. ] (]) 18:04, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' Trump has indeed made false statements. That's true of all politicians. He's told some whoppers. That's true of other politicians as well (e.g. Hillary's ) I don't see how that's ledeworthy. In fact, I would argue that 2 factors mitigate in Trump's favor in this regard: 1) He's not a politician, so when it comes to policy or political issues, he may not have as firm a grasp on those facts as someone who has spent his/her career in politics, and 2) he responds to questions from journalists more frequently than some other politicians (when Hillary made her comment on 8/5/16, that was the first time she had taken questions from journalists in 244 days) and you're definitely more likely to make mistakes when not reading from a script.] (]) 00:07, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
*: I guess it depends on the relevance of ] .. he`s a convicted criminal,,it's got nothing to do with Andrew Johnson or anyone else's impeachment..at least Nixon was smart enough to not get caught...trump is by definition a criminal but you think it's irrelevant...what can a moral or ethical person say to that ? ] (]) 19:13, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
::The significance isn't the falsehoods themselves; rather, the significance as stated in all of the sources is the ''quantity'' of the falsehoods. The rest of your comment is irrelevant. The proposed content doesn't say or imply that Trump lied, and any argument along the lines of "cut him a break" has no place in our policies or guidelines. The quantity of falsehoods has received enormous press coverage, and that should pretty much cover it. --] (]) 17:18, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
*::It is not moral or ethical to put words in others' mouths during content discussions. Nobody has said {{tq|it's irrelevant}}. &#8213;]&nbsp;] 19:35, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Support'''. The volume of false statements as documented by reliable sources is remarkable, and therefore clearly relevant. This is not "spin". These are outright inventions.] (]) 00:28, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' placing it in the first sentence (in the ). Please mention in the lead at a later spot. -] (]) 19:24, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Strong support''' The high number of false statements is well document in diverse reliable sources. Those opposing this above have very weak and unconvincing cases with little substantiation. -] (]) 01:11, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
*'''Strong support'''The proposed change is strongly supported by reliable sources, most importantly by the reliable sources who specialize in fact-checking. ] (]) 01:44, 26 August 2016 (UTC) *'''Oppose''' the first sentence. Later in the lead I think is merited as it is a first and very heavily covered by RS. (Likely to stay that way as it is reported he's fund raising on it.) ] (]) 19:35, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' in the opening sentence as this is not reflected across wikipedia for other politicians who are convicted criminals. One key example being ] who was Italian PM convicted of multiple crimes including a 4 year sentence for tax fraud which is mentioned in his 4th opening paragraph not the opening sentence. ] (]) 19:55, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
* '''Strong Oppose''' – For all the complaints about Trump's ''tone'' during the primaries, we shouldn't let Misplaced Pages get infected by blanket generalizations and allow our lead section to attack the candidate's probity. Same goes for Clinton, naturally. What's next? "Donald John Trump is a notorious racist bigot child molester who is very likely to start World War III over a tweet." All this could be easily sourced, and still be utterly unencyclopedic. — ] <sup>]</sup> 03:11, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' The proposal is for a "crime label" for which there is an essay: ]. As listed by the essay, Misplaced Pages has had vast and lengthy arguments over crime labels, where in countless RFC's such labels are nearly universally unsuccessful. Or at least there has to be an obvious rationale for it. Basically, they are misleading, vague, and poor writing. In the present case, it smacks of simple name calling. Far better to just include a brief description of the criminal instance in the lead. I would, however, be in favor of a new section in the article bringing together all of Trump's sundry criminal and civil episodes; such a section may well then suggest an appropriate label. ] (]) 20:52, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
:: Nobody is suggesting any of that stuff, and none of it could be sourced. This is also not about his "tone". Let's please stick to discussing the actual suggestion here (to add the two words "and false" to the uncontested statement that a lot of what he says is controversial). --] (]) 05:59, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
*'''Comment''' - It's beyond relevant..it's the only thing he will be remembered for in the end...a rich criminal who bought his way into power at the bequest of those more sinister than him ] (]) 21:02, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
::: Fair enough. I'm not seriously suggesting that editors would follow this particular slope (although we were almost there with prior discussions on alleged racism). I'm using hyperbole to outline that we should not let ''Misplaced Pages's tone'' get infected by a candidate's hyperbole or his opponents' rhetoric. To the point being discussed here ''stricto sensu'', I maintain my strong opposition. — ] <sup>]</sup> 08:02, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
**{{Ping|Anonymous8206}} Trump became president twice (2016, 2024) democratically (US elections are democratic), to claim otherwise is simply wrong. ] (]) 02:36, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
::JFG's argument is ''expressly'' contradicted by ], which says that in the case of public figures, "If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs in the article – even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it." The reason we don't have that parade of horribles in our lead section is because, as extensively hashed out on this talk page, there aren't reliable sources to support any of it. --] (]) 17:24, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
**:The US is not a true direct democracy...all citizens did not vote all votes were not counted..if that had happened there is no way he would win the popular vote ] (]) 18:54, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
:::Thankfully we agree about avoiding such bolsterous statements per BLP and common decency. And the issue of Trump's tendency to blanket his discourse with dubious or misinformed statements should be soberly addressed in the article, in the same way that Clinton's apparent obfuscation and contradictions should be covered as neutrally as possible. I still object to ''defining'' any candidate as a liar in the lead section. — ] <sup>]</sup> 20:32, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
:::: No one has proposed adding any definitions or anything about lies. --] (]) 00:02, 27 August 2016 (UTC) *'''Oppose''' for the time being. I doubt this is what he'll be consistently noted as, but could be proven wrong. ] (]) 21:09, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Strong Support''' This is absolutely first sentence material and possibly one of the most textbook ] pieces of information in wikipedia history as far as the ] goes, according our rules governing it.{{pb}}FACT- Trump was now officially sentenced for multiple felony crimes. That makes him the FIRST convicted felon (by a jury of his peers) to be elected President. Just like in the Obama wikipedia article, it mentions "Obama being the first African-American elected", this is equally notable. This is a first. And even the American Supreme Court allowed for Trump to be sentenced, so there is no question legally of where this stands.{{pb}}Of course, there are politically biased editors making ridiculous arguments against this in violation of etiquette and rules of wikipedia. And many examples listed AGAINST THIS are fueled by fallacious reasoning, or use petty examples that simply don't match here. The only reason to exclude this is because Trump is not only above the law in this country but above our rules apparently for ideological reasoning here.{{pb}}Again, no convicted felon in history was EVER elected President. And this is for multiple notable felony crimes involving a scheme to interfere in the democratic election, which is WHY NY law was able to amplify misdemeanor crimes into a felony crime scheme verdict/finding. Perhaps if the American SCOTUS down the road overturns this we can revisit this.{{pb}}And to be clear, if Biden was ever convicted of a crime or any democratic President then I too would strong support mention of that in the first sentence.{{pb}}However, the idea that if enough biased editors come here to OPPOSE THIS that we will allow for mob rule to override rules of what is ] is a sad day for wikipedia, and proof that our community fails in upholding journalistic standards that we claim we uphold. If enough biased editors set up an RFC vote for a pro flat-earth position or a Holocaust denial position, would be both sides that?! Of course not, as wikipedia is clear on ] thinking, which is what is driving a delay on including this very important notable information per the standards of ].{{pb}}That it is buried in the article is a lame fallacious way around what is at heart here. That we treat all people and biographies the same regardless of political power. A President being convicted of serious crimes is every bit as notable (if not more so) than race or gender as it makes wikipedia come off as more concerned about notability about the color of one's skin that one's choices and behavior. No, this is a test of whether we can truly be objective about the facts and the mission of wikipedia, or if we simply cower in the face of fear of being unpopular. ] (]) 21:06, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Comment'''. The lede is supposed to be a summation of the text of the article. So far as I could tell, the falseness or veracity of Mr. Trump's statements in interviews/speeches/on Twitter is not <u>'''directly'''</u> addressed in the text of the article (though two references include in their quotes some false/erroneous/hyperbolic statements Mr. Trump has made). ] (]) 06:18, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
*:See ] and ]. State your case without accusing others of incompetence or bad faith, even if unnamed. &#8213;]&nbsp;] 21:19, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
::Yes, this issue was raised in a previous discussion. Editors are invited to fill out the article body with this material. --] (]) 17:26, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
*::@] No, the "unnamed" part is actually important here for it to be ], as there are exceptions to the rule when I'm in the right to call a ] a spade given the stakes and clear violation of ] in an effort (albeit intentional or otherwise) to carve out an exception for a convicted criminal here who is now leading a democratic country.
*'''Aarrrgh!'''. Per Shearonink above, the lede is supposed to summarized sourced content in the article. The body of the article does not establish that Trump's false campaign statements are a significant issue in his candidacy. Perhaps they are, perhaps they are not, but the place to develop that content is in the article itself, not by proposing wording tweaks in the lede. Additionally, there is no doubt that Trump's campaign has made many false statements, but that is a different issue than his making controversial statements. This should be explained, cautiously and with careful support, with respect to the nature of the campaign and what it has to do with Trump, the election, and American politics, not just adding the invective "false" to a throw-away sentence in the lede. In other words, if editors are willing to say this, they should be ready to do so as sourced content. - ] (]) 06:24, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
*::This also happens to be that great rare example of ]. The AGF guideline recognizes that one can easily misjudge another's intentions or motives, and thus urges caution in that area. Ironically, the very act of citing AGF can suggest an assumption of bad faith, since one is assuming that the other is not also assuming good faith.
::Yes, but this shouldn't hold up development of the lead section. FWIW I believe there has been longstanding consensus to use the "controversial" language in the lead. --] (]) 17:30, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
*::Some disputes are exceptional, whether it is climate-change denial, holocaust denialism, arguing for a flat-earth, or in this case a plain and simple case of being in denial of stating ] facts in a way that our rules surrounding ] demands. The aforementioned reasons I've stated are the only honest empirical reasons for ]ing this content in the way we are doing now (by burying it and treating a powerful figure like Trump as some exception to the rules). Otherwise, matters of lesser importance (like mentioning Kamala Harris as the first female Vice President, or Obama as the first black President, in the first sentence of an article) should also be removed as we are making a statement as a community (intention or otherwise) about where our priorities lie insofar as what is ] and what is not.
*'''Comment''' I agree with {{u|Shearonink}} and {{u|Wikidemon}}. If it is well sourced it should be included in the body of the article along with any existing opposing views (justification, replies etc) if they are also properly sourced so the final text has a NPOV. --] (]) 09:23, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
*::Precedence should decide, not the emotion of the moment, and the process regarding Trump's convicted guilt has been allowed to play out long enough here that it is time to do right by the community, and follow our own precedents and rules. ] (]) 21:36, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
*:I read the previous three comments from {{U|Shearonink }}, {{U|Crystallizedcarbon}}, and {{U|Wikidemon}} as not objecting to the RfC proposal provided that we also add (a few paragraphs?) of sourced detail to the body of the article. - ]] 11:57, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
*:::Unlike you, I have years-long experience with many of the Opposing editors here, including myself. Unlike you, I happen to know that we are ''anything but'' biased in favor of Trump. That kills your whole argument, and clearly shows the need for adherence to ]. You need to cease this line of argument or risk admin action. &#8213;]&nbsp;] 21:54, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
::: {{ping|MrX}} In my opinion, if the information is added to the body of the article, consensus should probably be reached on whether it should also be included on the lead following ], and if so, how to include it in a brief and neutral way. --] (]) 12:31, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
*::::@] Disagreeing with you as forcibly as you are disagreeing with me is not worthy of an ], but if you must please go right ahead. As for the record, when reviewing your own history, . And you are literally going around this thread making it a point to comment on many others with whom you don't agree (who did not consent to your opinion on the matter, with multiple arguments), trying to convince made-up minds that clearly won't change based upon your emotionally-reasoned attempts. So, what of your bulverism here?!
::::That is the purpose of this RfC. --] (]) 17:32, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
*::::At best, we agree to disagree, so nothing is "killed" here. And there is no truly unbiased person politically-speaking in any walks of life. There are countless examples of it on wikipedia, as you already know.
*<s>'''Oppose'''</s> -> '''<u>Strong oppose</u>''' per ] policy, which cautions against basing large passages on opinion pieces. <s>The</s> <u>A</u> ''Wall Street Journal'' <u>editorial board member<u/> has characterized PolitiFact as "''''" for calling its opinion pieces 'fact checks'. Also, <u>a</u> ''Time'' <u>columnist</u> says it may be "''''". --] (]) 10:01, 26 August 2016 (UTC) 23:09, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
*::::As for this RFC vote, I've spoken my mind, and made my case, voted, so I plan to move on, and I'm done here. Are you? ] (]) 22:05, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
*:The vast majority of available sources are not primary sources by any definition, and only a couple are opinion sources. You have found one article in one source that impugns a statement in another source, but that doesn't negate the plethora of other sources that prominently state that Trump frequently makes false statements.- ]] 11:45, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
*:::::{{tq|Disagreeing with you as forcibly as you are disagreeing with me}} See ]. I am not the one persistently violating accepted principles of talk page behavior here. {{tq|not spotless when it comes to your own behavior}} Laughable. Congratulations on ferreting out my one block in 11 years, from {{frac|9|1|2}} years ago. Great detective work. {{tq|I plan to move on}} Good call. {{tq|I'm done here. Are you?}} I'm done if you are. &#8213;]&nbsp;] 22:14, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
::: Here's a ''third'' , which says, "PolitiFact ... has marketed itself ... on the pretense of impartiality." (And this one's <s>a news story</s> <u>by the ''Journal'''s editorial board</u>.) --] (]) 23:24, 26 August 2016 (UTC) 08:30, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
*:::::
*:The Time piece only objects to Politifact's simplified rating system, not its veracity, diligence or accuracy - ] (]) 15:27, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
*:::The content isn't being censored at all, that's a very silly suggestion. It's still included, just not in the literal first sentence.
::: ''Time'': "Inaccurate-but-catchy language ... can create false impressions and misinform people." <u>The</u> ''Time'' <u>columnist</u> appears to be questioning the accuracy of PolitiFact's language. --] (]) 22:45, 26 August 2016 (UTC) 08:30, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
*:::And yes, implying people are voting no because of "political bias" is an assumption of bad faith, so cool it. — ''']''' <sup>''(])''</sup> 22:07, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
::The sources Dervorguilla is linking to are opinion sources. All reliable news outlets get criticized from time to time by people who don't like their conclusions. Moreover, you TIME is reliable, and TIME : "Throughout the campaign, however, professional fact checkers have had a field day singling out Trump’s false statements. Politifact has posted a running tally, now at 57, of Trump’s inaccuracies: after Trump’s sweep of five primary states on Tuesday and speech on foreign policy on Wednesday, the Washington Post found Trump uttered eight falsehoods in sixteen hours." Would you flip your !vote if we added that source? --] (]) 17:45, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
*::::@] I stand by my vote, and my reasoning behind it. ] (]) 22:11, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
::: <u>The</u> ''Time'' <u>columnist</u> is saying that PolitiFact and the ''Post'' had "a field day" — meaning, "an occasion marked usually by extreme fun or hilarity; an occasion or opportunity for unrestrained ridicule". "''Oppose''" -> "''Strong oppose''". --] (]) 23:09, 26 August 2016 (UTC) 08:30, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
*::::@] P.S. And I'm not talking about whether it should belong in the article or not. I'm talking about whether this is ] by way of suppressing it in the opening sentence insofar as precedence, and etiquette surrounding ] and ] are concerned. If we are to find Barack Obama's skin color notable enough to mention in the opening sentence of his biography ''as a first for Presidents'', then mentioning "the first convicted criminal/felon to be elected President" is certainly more than notable for the same empirical reasons and as a matter of wikipedia precedence. ] (]) 22:15, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
::::I'm sorry Dervorguilla, I'm having a hard time maintaining the assumption good faith. Please help me out here and explain how TIME's use of "field day" has any bearing on what we're trying to decide, beyond emphasizing how many of Trump's statements have been false. --] (]) 23:33, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
*:::::I know, I'm saying it not being in the first sentence is not censorship. Additionally, what other articles do is not particularly relevant to this article. Other stuff, whataboutism, etc. — ''']''' <sup>''(])''</sup> 22:21, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
::::: Based on "field day" def. 2 & def. 3 ("a period when full opportunity ... finally appears to unleash and satisfy ... restrained desire"), <u>the</u> ''Time'' <u>columnist</u> appears to be saying that PolitiFact may sometimes have a "desire" to sell unrestrained ridicule. --] (]) 04:42, 27 August 2016 (UTC) 08:30, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
*::::::@] Not to butt in, BUT (no pun intended) ''you did mention'' to the OP that it was "included in the body" as YOUR retort about an RFC literally about whether it is worthy to include this pertinent information front and center, not whether or not it should be included period. So that much was clear from the OP and those taking his/her/their position on this.
::::::And... what does that have to do with ''either'' PolitiFact or TIME's ], paying particular attention to ]? --] (]) 05:18, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
*::::::And that retort is a popular dodge/red-herring in this debate and the one before it, as fallacies have been mentioned.
*'''Comment''' I do agree with those who say this should be in the body of the text (whether or not it is in the lede). Does someone want to undertake to write a few sentences to go in the "2016 campaign" section? <s>IMO the item should be worked out here at the talk page, not just boldly stuck into the article.</s> --] (]) 15:48, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
*::::::I'm neutral on this row.
:::P.S. A couple of sentences that look perfectly acceptable to me have been added to the text. IMO the "two words" can now be added to the lede without the objection that it isn't mentioned in the text. --] (]) 17:47, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
:::: I made a couple of minor edits in order to hew more closely to the proposed version for the lede and to adhere to the sources.] (]) 19:33, 26 August 2016 (UTC) *::::::But it does appear you are not IMO. ] (]) 22:49, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
*:::::::Sorry but I'm not quite following your point. My position has always been that it shouldn't be in the opening sentence, but is acceptable later in the lede (as it is currently). So no, I'm not neutral on this.
::::: I concur with your edits. They improved the sentence. (I wish we had a more definite statement than "more than his opponents" - the sources actually say things like "we've never seen anything like it" - but I think we can go with what we've got.) --] (]) 19:57, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
*:::::::The retort I made isn't a dodge - consensus is decided locally; what's is Obama's lede is apples and oranges. — ''']''' <sup>''(])''</sup> 23:11, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Support''' It's a simple factual statement that is well-proven and easily verifiable. Heck, I'd even go so far as to say "most", rather than just "many". ] (]) 16:11, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
*::::::::@] How so? lol It IS significant in a country like America where after hundreds of years of elections of white 'lawabiding' men a black man is elected President for the same reason that a convicted criminal with 34+ felony convictions is elected. It is historic, newsworthy, and very much a defining part of his legacy. He literally ran on that distinction.
::I don't think that would be verifiable. --] (]) 17:59, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
*::::::::And consensus isn't god when it comes to undeniable history or empirical fact as far as a certain bottom goes even by wikipedia standards. If a local consensus suddenly decided the world was flat, an admin could overrule that as you know consensus be damned. You are not providing a compelling reason not to include it front and center other than you think it somehow is unfair and even disparaging against the subject, and outside the norms. Well, so is a democratic country like America electing its first convicted criminal in its hundreds of years as lawful democracy.
*'''Oppose''' It's a simple not factual statement that is not well-proven and not easily verifiable. Heck, I'd even go so far as to say "some", rather than just "many". --] (]) 19:40, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
*::::::::Misplaced Pages is not beyond its own flaws, and editors are within their rights to call it out when they they have compelling case to do so. Do with that what you will, but it's not a violation of good faith given the exceptional circumstances here for some to challenge your thinking. That's my neutral point of view in this. Food for thought. ] (]) 23:24, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
*:Is that your opinion, or can you point to some reliable sources that refute the reliable sources already presented?- ]] 20:55, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
*:::::::::{{tq|If a local consensus suddenly decided the world was flat, an admin could overrule that as you know consensus be damned.}} That's actually false. A closer can override the numbers if the minority has a stronger policy basis. There is no Misplaced Pages policy that the world is spherical. But this point is academic since flat-earth arguments would never have a majority and could never have a stronger policy basis. &#8213;]&nbsp;] 00:03, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
::{{u|Malerooster}}, please read the sources. No one is talking about adding unverified content to the article. --] (]) 21:37, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
*:::::::::It's significant enough to go into the lead, which it already is. It's not defining enough to be in the first sentence.
*'''Strong oppose'''. Wait a second, don't ''all'' politicians lie? Donald Trump obviously has said things that may not have been accurate, but Hillary Clinton, Ted Cruz, Bernie Sanders, and all the rest are the same way. Why should we single Trump out and ignore Sanders, Cruz, Clinton, and the others? That is blatant POV. We should be beyond this, especially in such an election year. --] (]) 20:28, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
*:::::::::I never said it shouldn't be included because it's disparaging against the subject. There seems to be an odd trend among some voting 'support' to believe those of us opposing it are sympathetic to Trump (I mean, take a look at this article and try to argue it's pro-Trump, lol). ''This'' is what's a violation of good faith.
*:No, all politicians don't lie, and we're not discussing a comparison of politicians or other biographies. If you have a policy-based argument for your strong oppose, I would love to hear it.- ]] 20:55, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
*:::::::::As for your views on consensus, Mandruss has very effectively addressed that. — ''']''' <sup>''(])''</sup> 09:04, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
::As mentioned elsewhere in this RfC, yes, other politicians lie, but no one has uttered as '''''many''''' falsehoods as Trump and no one has received as much coverage in the reliable sources for it. --] (]) 21:39, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
*::::::::::@] Mandruss has not. And neither of you are admins. So your opinions count as much as anyone other users. Your are flirting with ] language, so respect the POVs of others, and that includes the OP you are addressing. ] (]) 13:37, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
:::Seriously? Trump has lied more than anyone else? ''Seriously!?'' What about Clinton, who has a pretty bad reputation (even among centrists and others) for dishonesty? To say that Trump has said more lies than ''anyone else'' sounds like POV to me. MrX, sure there may be politicians who are honest, but it is not uncommon to have politicians or people involved in politics to say things that are not true (whether intentionally or not). Also, if you want a policy, I'll cite ]. I don't like the phrase "controversial or false". I think we should keep the "false" part out, but if we are going to include this, we should split the sentence up to say something like "...controversial. Additionally, his statements have been criticized as being false." Have his statements been controversial ''because'' they were false, or is there a difference between the controversial statements and the false ones?--] (]) 22:48, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
*:::::::::::Whether we are admins is irrelevant; their opinion doesn't count for more than ours anyway. Nor do we need to be admins to highlight issues of AGF. — ''']''' <sup>''(])''</sup> 15:58, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
::::Yes, seriously. Have you not read any of the discussion here, read any of the links? This is not POV or partisanship, this is solid neutral reporting. The people whose business it is to evaluate the truth or falsity of politicians say they have "never seen anything like it" - the way Trump will say things that are factually untrue, and continue to say them after being shown they are not true. If you read through this thread you will find that 65% of Trump's statements that have been evaluated turned out to be flat lies; the comparable number for Clinton was 14%. In fact Trump would probably not even mind being characterized as untruthful; in his book he touts exaggeration and hyperbole as essential business tools. --] (]) 23:15, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
*:::::::::::Czello is correct. You have a distorted view of what admins do, and of the division of responsibility between admins and non-admins. I wish behavior issues were handled solely by admins, but that is not the reality. One of en-wiki's greatest flaws is the requirement for ordinary editors to police the very people they are expected to collaborate with. I don't know how many other wikis have the same flaw. &#8213;]&nbsp;] 17:35, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
::::{{u|1990&#39;sguy}}, evidently you haven't checked the sources. Please read the sources before questioning my seriousness. --] (]) 23:36, 26 August 2016 (UTC)


* Yes please take users to ANI or their talk page, do not discuss user conduct here. ] (]) 22:08, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
'''Comment''' - Trump and his campaign are immersed in falseness. The continuing campaign to sanitize any and every thing that may be derogatory to some editors preferred candidate is hurtful to the article and to Misplaced Pages's position as a place of reliable information. His doctor who mis-states his credentials, Menlania's educational and green card status, the letter from the NFL,"I sent agents to Hawaii", "I don't know anything about David Duke", "I can't provide my taxes 'cause I'm being audited", "I might lie to you like Hillary does all the time", "I was being sarcastic", "I'll pay your legal fees", "I have personally interviewed all the instructors" and so much more I can't even remember. This sanitizing effort requires 60% of the RFC editors to suspend their capacity to see and hear what they (and reliable sources) know to be lies and pretend they never happened. ]<small>]</small> 22:47, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
::I mostly agree, but I wouldn't race to assume that everyone who opposes inclusion is a Trump POV pusher. Some of these people don't like seeing controversial but verifiable facts about public figures and don't seem to realize that omitting such facts is in ] of our BLP policy. --] (]) 00:11, 27 August 2016 (UTC)


*'''Support''' Forget about conviction. We've never had a POTUS who was even criminally indicted.] (]) 22:43, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
'''Comment''' 1990's guy makes a good point about not conflating "controversial" with "false". Maybe we should say "Many of his statements in interviews, on Twitter, and at campaign rallies have been controversial, and many have been rated as false." Or maybe a simple "and/or". --] (]) 23:20, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
*:You are talking about "We" on a global site here. This site is not meant to be America centric or an American encylopida. Worldwide leaders have been convicted of crimes and it is not in their lead sentence and this shouldn't be any different see ] ] (]) 23:06, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
:Yes, that makes sense. Not every controversial statement is false, and we don't know if every false statement is controversial. - ]] 23:27, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
*::@] That's a bad example.
:I'm fine with splitting it out like that, but I don't like "rated as." Various highly reliable sources have said many of Trump's statements have been false. That's all we need to say that many of Trump's statements have been false. --] (]) 23:30, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
*::It is a first for an American President, leader of the world's only remaining superpower and long-standing democracy.
::Good point. I missed that. How about: "Many of his statements in interviews, on Twitter, and at campaign rallies have been controversial, and many are false." - ]] 23:41, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
*::The notability between a little known Italian leader and the President of a nuclear superpower could not be any more difference in what is ].
:::Works for me. --] (]) 00:12, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
*::According to ] ''"For perpetrators, the victim of the crime is a renowned national or international figure, including, but not limited to, politicians or celebrities; or the motivation for the crime or the execution of the crime is unusual—or has otherwise been considered noteworthy—such that it is a well-documented historic event. Generally, historic significance is indicated by sustained coverage of the event in reliable secondary sources which persists beyond contemporaneous news coverage and devotes significant attention to the individual's role."'' That is beyond question here. The argument of the supporters is that Donald Trump should not be an exception to that simply because of the heat of the moment. It's a valid POV. ] (]) 23:15, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
::::I support..."Many of his statements in interviews, on Twitter, and at campaign rallies have been controversial, and many are false." ]<small>]</small> 01:34, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
*:::This response is amazingly biased. " leader of the world's only remaining superpower and long-standing democracy." this is nothing more than opinion from you nothing factual here.
'''Comment''' In cases like this it is best to stick as closely to the sources as possible. So, I would suggest something like this: "Many of his statements in interviews, on Twitter, and at campaign rallies that have been check by fact checking organizations have been found to be mostly false or false." --] (]) 04:23, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
*:::Your point of Berlusconi being little known is also your own personal view he is one of the most notable Italian politicians post Mussolini and one of the most notable European politicians in the last number of decades due to his multiple scandals and convictions which are all documented in his article.
:No, the sources make broader statements than that. They don't say that many of his statements they checked were false; rather, they say that many of his statements have been false. The in particular talks about how many of his statements have been false in general, and Poiltico isn't traditionally known as a fact checker. --] (]) 05:11, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
*:::On your last point " including, but not limited to, politicians or celebrities; or the motivation for the crime or the execution of the crime is unusual—or has otherwise been considered noteworthy—such that it is a well-documented historic event." this all applies to Berlusconi and other politicians worldwide who have been convicted of crimes who are not labeled criminals in their opening sentence.
*:::But for purposes of points and notability in an American context the article for ]does not label him a criminal in the opening sentence either. He was the first and only sitting vice president of the USA convicted of a crime. ] (]) 23:32, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
*:::Berlusconi "a little known Italian leader"? Is this a joke? The fact that he wasn't American doesn't mean that he's and has been little known; the world isn't, and never will be, US-centric. ] (]) 04:42, 11 January 2025 (UTC)


:'''Oppose''' per ], ], ] and others. This addition is not ] as Trump is certainly not most notable for an unconditional discharge sentencing. ] (]) 00:59, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
'''Comment:''' I've been watching this proposal since it started and have had a hard time being comfortable with the proposed sentence. It rubs me as being ]-ish for lack of a better term. While I agree that the linked sources support the claim I wonder if you can't find a better way of saying it. I also don't like the way it's crammed into the sentence talking about unrelated protests and riots. I can't think of a specific wording, but it might be able to be worked into the previous sentence...maybe something about him receiving tons of free media attention in part because of outrageous claims and appeals to fringe theories (supported in the body and by ). Or you could take an "attribution" route and work in something along the lines of "..and political fact checking organizations have singled him out as having made record numbers of false statements during his campaign." These are really rough examples, obviously inappropriate for a copy/paste into the article, but I hope they might lead to something more nuanced than just adding the words "and false" into an existing sentence. <span style="font-family:times; text-shadow: 0 0 .2em #7af">~] <small>(])</small></span> 04:50, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
:::::I like that wording and I have put it into the article text sentence, in place of the namby-pamby "more than other candidates". --] (]) 16:58, 27 August 2016 (UTC) :Why isn't a CONVICTED FELON text on the intro? ] (]) 04:07, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
::Because we had an extensive discussion on it some months ago and there was no consensus to include that. It exists later in the lead. — ''']''' <sup>''(])''</sup> 09:05, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
: While I'm opposed to calling Trump (or Clinton) a liar in Wikpedia's voice, I would approve {{u|Awilley}}'s suggestion: {{tq|Political fact checking organizations have singled him out as having made record numbers of false statements during his campaign.}} This states the facts unambiguously while maintaining a detached point of view. — ] <sup>]</sup> 06:52, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
:'''Oppose''' - not notable enough yet to warrant mention in the first sentence. Of course if that changes in the future, so should the lede. ] (]) 19:53, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
::Fortunately, no one is proposing calling Trump a liar; were simply saying that many of his statement are false. Maybe he actually believes what he says. Awilley , I can't support any wording that would obscure the simple fact that many of Trump's statements are false. Attribution is not needed because it is a widely-accepted, provable conclusion. Yes, he makes outrageous claims: some are hyperbole and others are blatantly false. He sometimes makes further false statements when called to account for previous false statements. If there is a better way to work this material into the lead, I'm fine with that, but we don't need to use more words when fewer will do.- ]] 11:44, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
:'''Oppose''' - it is true, but doesn't warrant first sentence status as it's not at all what he is most notable for. I would support adding something about his being the first president to be convicted of a felony somewhere in the first paragraph. Being a felon isn't notable enough, but being the first president/felon is arguable noteworthy enough for first paragraph status. Separate from that I'd oppose calling him a criminal even if we did include his conviction in the first sentence as 'criminal' is too generic a term that could be interpreted in many ways. "Convicted Felon" seems more specific and more in keeping with other articles that referencing well known criminals ] (]) 20:00, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
:::I'm not convinced that many of the RfC respondents have looked at how "or false" will fit into the whole sentence. <blockquote>Many of his statements in interviews, on Twitter, and at campaign rallies have been controversial or false, and some of the rallies have been accompanied by protests or riots.</blockquote> Are the protests and riots related the the false statements, because the proximity in the sentence suggests that. Fewer words is good, but I think you'll need more than two. <span style="font-family:times; text-shadow: 0 0 .2em #7af">~] <small>(])</small></span> 14:54, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
#
::::I made a proposal a few lines up that seems to have some support: "Many of his statements in interviews, on Twitter, and at campaign rallies have been controversial, and many are false." The sentence stands on its own as a summary. The rally protests and riots should definitely be kept separate.- ]] 15:00, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
Closeses are based on the strength of policy based argument, and can be challenged, they are not some "whim". ] (]) 23:04, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::Still it wouldn't hurt to have some attribution. "Many of his statements in interviews, on Twitter, and at campaign rallies have been controversial, and a significant number of them have been debunked by fact checking organizations." It changes it from something that will smack many readers as biased writing to something even Trump supporters can agree with and verify. See ] for an example of what I'm talking about. <span style="font-family:times; text-shadow: 0 0 .2em #7af">~] <small>(])</small></span> 15:44, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
::::::I see your point, but if we're going to include attribution, it needs to encompass to full range of debunkers: fact checking organizations; major newspapers, magazines and news programs; professors; and his friend, Mark Cuban.- ]] 16:12, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
'''Note:''' See the thread ''Working draft of a section about Trump's false statements'' below and collaborate on a draft to insert this topic into the article ]<small>]</small> 16:21, 27 August 2016 (UTC)


*'''Oppose''' per Zaathras' Osama Principle. If the Misplaced Pages cannot even say directly "] was a terrorist," then virtually no article is suitable for a "Subject is a <pejorative>" opener. ] (]) 01:39, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
'''Strong oppose''' - the predominance of prominence and so due ] is 'controversial', so '''just follow the cites''' and stick with just that, this just isn't what's out there to the point of deserving of LEAD prominence. I'm also reluctant to do any edits at this time with judgemental bits as they are just going to be suspect anyway of being corrupt ] and PR efforts rather than conveying external encyclopedic info. Finally, it looks bad because 'trustworthiness' is more noted on the Hillary side along with money topics, while Donald is more about controversies or offensiveness, and a bit on the 'crazy' tone. So just let it be. ] (]) 00:10, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
*:{{Ping|Zaathras}} your comment is one of the most useful, I largely agree with you. ] (]) 05:20, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
*:Terrorist is value-laden and he was never duly convicted in a court of law. Criminal is a legal term when a citizen is duly convicted in a court of law and not a pejorative. ] (]) 07:41, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
*::I was convicted in a court of law, once, decades ago (actually I pled guilty, a distinction without a difference). According to , I'm a criminal. I'll wear that as part of my sentence. If you called me a criminal as one of my handful of defining attributes, I would likely take offense. I won't apply a different standard to Trump; I love Misplaced Pages more than I hate Trump. &#8213;]&nbsp;] 11:50, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
*:While I am opposed as well I disagree with your argument. have numerous articles that do mention someone's conviction in their first paragraph so there is plenty of president for declaring someone a convicted felon already. ] (]) 20:02, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Strongly oppose''', I don't understand the users who agree (obviously I don't judge). ] (]) 02:27, 11 January 2025 (UTC)


*'''Comment''' As President, there is really nothing else that Trump is known for more than his criminal behavior, convictions and evasion of serious penalties for said crimes. JFK was known for the Cuban Missile Crisis. Lincoln for his role in winning the civil war. In Trump's case, what is he most known for as President is his hundred plus indictments. And his criminal conviction. Making him the first ever convicted criminal felon to be elected to the office of the Presidency. It's absurd to suggest that historic first, and his criminal behavior (most of which he has been able to avoid consequences because of his re-election), is not on the top of list of what he is presently known for. It would be like burying Neil Armstrong's moon landing achievement, being the first man to set foot on the moon, deep in the body of an article. If you remove emotion from this, and simply view this through an historic lens, then this is a no brainer. Of the 45 white men that have served the office of Presidency, only one was a black man. Only one was a convicted felon. "It is said on wikipedia that JFK was the youngest person elected president at 43 years." Please put your bias aside, or your dogma about these exceptional circumstances, and let history and newsworthiness decide, not your egos. ] (]) 04:04, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Support''' per {{u|MrX}}, {{u|Neutrality}}, and {{u|EvergreenFir}}, among others. The falsity of so many of Trump's statements has been a hallmark of his campaign, as demonstrated by a preponderance of reliable sources. While I respect {{u|Wikidemon}}'s argument that the lede is supposed to be based on the body of the article ({{talk quote|the place to develop that content is in the article itself, not by proposing wording tweaks in the lede}}), I must agree with {{u|DrFleischman}} that the fact that this information should be included in the body is no reason to hold up it's insertion in the lede, provided that it should be in both. ] (]) 00:33, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
*:In the first lines of the lead of the articles of well-known criminals (Hitler, Mussolini, Mao, Stalin, etc.) the term isn't present. Trump isn't remotely comparable to them, yet you (and not only you) would like to add "criminal" to this page; it's very strange. ] (]) 05:05, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Strongly oppose''' <u>and '''proposing a compromise'''</u>. ] says: "The necessity for citations in a lead should be determined on a case-by-case basis by editorial consensus. Complex, current, or controversial subjects may require many citations; others, few or none. The presence of citations in the introduction is neither required in every article nor prohibited in any article." There are no footnotes in the lead of ], ], ], ], et cetera. I don't favor modifying the lead of this article to include footnotes either. The best way to proceed is to edit the main body of the article, including footnotes as appropriate. Then summarize in the lead. Moreover, I oppose making general statements about Trump's campaign based on sources that pre-date 2016.] (]) 01:06, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
*::They were not convicted of a crime, for those convicted see ], ], ]. ] (]) 05:42, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
::{{re|Anythingyouwant}} The point about being in the lead is a good one. But didn't his campaign start in Summer 2015? I'd thing sources after that would be fine. ] ] 01:19, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
:::Sources dated 2015 are insufficient sources for making statements about what his campaign has been like in '''''both''''' 2015 and 2016.] (]) 01:23, 28 August 2016 (UTC) *:::For relevant political examples see ] and ] ] (]) 12:53, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
*:I'd say Trump is most famous for his inflammatory rhetoric, immigration policies, and January 6. The hush money conviction is not in the top 5. ] (]) 20:03, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
::::Ah, okay. I see your point now. If the sources were ''only'' or ''mostly'' 2015, I'd be opposed to that. But having a few 2015 sources with more/mostly 2016 ones is fine be me as it shows a pattern. Don't think we need to summarily exclude the 2015 sources if there are recent ones to support/corroborate them. ] ] 01:37, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' having criminal/felon in first sentence. Donald Trump is not primarily known for his criminal convictions. The coverage in the lead is sufficient weight as it is now. There was already no consensus to add this last year, and nearly nothing has changed since then. The formality of the judge sentencing him, to literally no punishment I may add, is not a good reason for rehashing this matter. ]<sup>]</sup> 07:13, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::This RFC is asking about inserting material into the lead based upon two proposed sources that are both dated 2015.] (]) 01:45, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
*'''Comment''' This is a textbook example of information that has ]weight in the ]. As others have pointed out, we don't get to determine whether a no-penalty sentence is due or not, the press does.
:::::::I see the ones added by MrX too. With those, I'm not worried about the content itself. The lead part might be an issue. ] ] 01:47, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
::::::::People are !voting on the RFC statement by Dr. Fleischman, not other material mentioned by MrX.] (]) 01:54, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
::AYW tends to abandon common sense when interpreting procedural rules. As mentioned in various other comments, the problem he/she complains of is easily remedied by adding 2016 sources that have already been linked to and discussed. --] (]) 17:32, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
:::Common sense is in force in the leads of ], ], ], ], et cetera where there are '''no footnotes in the lead'''. I don't favor modifying the lead of this article to include footnotes either. Moreover, if you want people to consider other sources than those in the RFC statement, then you can modify the RFC statement, but whatever new footnotes you propose should not go in the lead. Why mention two sources in the RFC statement while asking editors to hunt through the discussion for other sources that you think are also necessary? This discussion ought to be based on sources, not kneejerk opinions of editors, so please clarify the proposed sources in the RFC statement. Thanks.] (]) 21:30, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
::::'''Clarification:''' The proposed sources are whatever sources the community finds that might support the proposed content, including but not limited to those discussed in this RfC. How they are included in the article depends on how the content in the body of the article develops while this RfC is ongoing. No offense, but you are smarter than this, so yes I am accusing you of ] (again). --] (]) 00:19, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
::::::I'm not playing any games, I'm flatly opposing the notion of putting footnotes in the lead, because it's better to first put all the relevant footnotes in the body of the article. There's no gaming about it. Moreover, you've made it difficult for editors to respond to this RFC because you've given a couple sources in the RFC statement, you've later acknowledged they're insufficient, but you won't supplement the two in the RFC statement (you even have hidden such supplementation). Anyway, I hope to soon have time to substantively address the central RFC question. (And if I were you, I wouldn't start accusing other editors of gaming when you yourself just tried to get this RFC closed after a mere four days.)] (]) 01:14, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
:::::::'''Compromise''': I do not yet see a firm consensus to put the proposed language into the lead (as required by the notice atop this talk page), but still a lot of editors support it, and it's undeniable that the mainstream media has very widely written about this. So I suggest a compromise. I suggest editing the lead like this: "Many of his statements in interviews, on Twitter, and at campaign rallies have been controversial '''''or ]''''', and some of the rallies have been accompanied by protests or riots from both sides of the political spectrum." This is based on the sources cited above as well as the following insightful article: Flitter, Emily and ]. , ] (August 28, 2015): "Trump's penchant for exaggeration could backfire - he risks promising voters more than he can deliver....Optimistic exaggeration...is a hallmark of the cutthroat New York real estate world where many developers, accustomed to ramming their way into deals, puff up their portfolios. 'A little hyperbole never hurts,' he wrote....For Trump, exaggerating has always been a frequent impulse, especially when the value of his Trump brand is disputed." This proposed compromise does not include putting any footnotes into the lead. I strongly oppose using the word "false" because it (like a sledge hammer) lacks all nuance.] (]) 03:50, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
::::::::Reject so-called "compromise." You are suggesting ignoring various extremely reliable sources with a single source that acknowledges the term "hyperbole" comes from Trump's book ''The Art of the Deal'', whose own ghostwriter now was a euphemism for lying. As for the footnotes, you and I both know that they aren't necessary once content about Trump's false statements has been added to the article body. --] (]) 17:37, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
{{od}}On the contrary, if the blunt and disparaging word "false" is put into the lead without elaboration, then it requires both in-text attribution as well as citations, regardless of what's in the article body, and no such proposals have been clearly stated in this RFC, much less received any consensus in this RFC.
*]: "The necessity for citations in a lead should be determined on a case-by-case basis by editorial consensus".
*]: "Any statements about living persons that are challenged or likely to be challenged must have an inline citation every time they are mentioned, including within the lead."
*]: "any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be explicitly attributed to a reliable, published source, which is usually done with an inline citation."
*]: "In-text attribution involves adding the source of a statement to the article text, such as Rawls argues that X. This is done whenever a writer or speaker should be credited, such as with quotations, close paraphrasing, or statements of opinion or uncertain fact."<br />
Footnotes plus in-text attribution in the lead for this item would thus be required, but the footnotes would cause lots of problems. Readers will start putting other footnotes into the lead, thinking they are necessary throughout, and the lead would indeed look weird with only one sentence footnoted. With footnotes throughout the lead, editors would then feel entitled to stick stuff into the lead regardless of what's in the article body, and so the lead and body would fall out of sync, while the lead becomes unstable. The whole thing is a mess, IMO. I've tried to compromise by putting his self-identified tendency to exaggerate into the lead, instead of a bald insinuation of being a serial liar; the latter stuff needs context and nuance which can only be done in the article body (as it is done for just about every other candidate who prevaricates).] (]) 23:34, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
*'''Strong Oppose''' The RfC proposer knows better. He wants Misplaced Pages to take sides and become an arbiter or truth. This flies in the face of core policy. The proposed statement could not be allowed to remain in the article regardless of the outcome of this RfC, if the article is to comply with Misplaced Pages standards. ] (]) 03:09, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
**{{U|Eclipsoid}} What policy does this fly in the face of and why? Also, what policy allows you to abandon ] after apparently reading DrFleischman's mind?- ]] 16:33, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
*'''Strong Support''' Via Mother Jones: "You can call Trump's statements lies or fabrications or even falsehoods if you insist on being delicate about it. But you can't call them questionable or controversial or salesmanlike or disputed or even faulty." ~ ] (]) 11:27, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
:::The complete paragraph from Mother Jones in Nov 24, 2015: ''It's way past time for this stuff. You can call Trump's statements lies or fabrications or even falsehoods if you insist on being delicate about it. But you can't call them questionable or controversial or salesmanlike or disputed or even faulty. The man is a serial, pathological liar. Isn't it about time for the journalistic community to work up the courage to report this with clear eyes?'' ]<small>]</small> 18:23, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
*'''Strong Support''' The addition of the two words doesn't imply a majority of his statements are false or even more than one. Does anyone really doubt that he has made false statements? Like "Clinton and Obama were the founders of ISIS". And for those editors who excuse this kind of thing as something said in the "fog of battle (political)", he maintained the same wording for days even when pressed by conservative Hugh Hewitt to retract them ] (]) 21:21, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
*'''Strong Oppose'''-Numerous statements made by Hillary Clinton, particularly on matters of national security, have been proven false, and yet there is no mention of any of any false statements, or scandal of any sort, in the lead section of her biography, nor any active discussion on the talk page of adding such information. I would add it myself but I'm certain that it would soon get reverted. It is therefore inappropriate to include such language in the Trump article at least until the lead of the Clinton article begins to acknowledge some of the major scandals surrounding her that have taken place. ] (]) 23:52, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
*:Hillary's false statements have absolutely no bearing on what we do in this article. Your reason for opposing doesn't seem to be grounded in any Misplaced Pages policy or guideline.- ]] 01:37, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
::: {{reply to|Display name 99}} Sorry, ] is correct about the statements having no bearing. (Unless reputable mainstream sources say they do. For an example, see , at BBC News.) --] (]) 05:11, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
*'''Comment''' what does "many" mean? The majority? A few? Most? I understand it's reliably sourced but I don't know if it makes sense for Misplaced Pages to use ambiguous language. ] (]) 00:38, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
*:{{ping|Mr Ernie}} In ascending order of magnitude:
::'''none''' ➜ '''one/a/an''' ➜ '''a couple''' ➜ '''a few''' ➜ '''some''' ➜ ''']''' ➜ '''most/a majority''' ➜ '''all'''
::- ]] 18:19, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
::Ernie "many" is how the reliable sources describe Trump's falsehoods, so there is no reason why we shouldn't either. "Many" and similar terms are used ''all over'' Misplaced Pages. --] (]) 00:15, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
*'''Strong Oppose''' That sort of wording would violate npov. ] (]) 02:28, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
*'''Strong Support''' Trump has made an overwhelming number of completely false statements that have a large impact on perceptions of him and the race, and this has been to a much greater extent than Clinton or any other politician. This is abnormal behavior that has been covered extensively in the media well beyond just the fact-checkers that have given him many more pants on fire ratings than anyone else. ]<sup>]</sup> 06:09, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
*'''Strong support''': Trump's false statements are frequently mentioned in ]s, enough that it is approprate for the inclusion in this article. --] (]) 10:16, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
*'''Support''' - Yes, "it's politics"; yes, all politicians lie. And if there's a huge number of sources which place their use of false statements as a major talking point of their campaign (not coverage of specific lies, but the use of false statements as a general) such that it constituted ] to include it in a summary about the campaign, then I would support adding such a statement there, too. The sources look to support it here. &mdash; <tt>] <sup style="font-size:80%;">]</sup></tt> \\ 00:45, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
*'''Strong Oppose''' - False is objective, there are no reliable sources that can prove he has said false statements. His statements can be perceived and interpreted as reflecting false information, but nothing he says in exact words can be proved to false. ] (]) 22:20, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
*: {{ping|CCamp2013|label=Chase}} {{talk quote|nothing he says in exact words can be proved to false.}} Please tell me you're kidding. Assuming you're not, let's look at a few examples:
*:* Trump said "I don't know anything about David Duke" (and various variations thereof) four times on February 28 on CNN. This is despite the fact that the man with the "world's greatest memory" (his words) referenced Duke in a press conference a couple days earlier. He also mentioned Duke in an interview with Bloomberg the year previous and thrice during his 2000 presidential campaign, describing him as a "racist".<ref>http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/mar/02/donald-trump/trumps-absurd-claim-he-knows-nothing-about-former-/</ref> Was his statement true or false?
*:* In a speech in June, Trump said, "For the amount of money Hillary Clinton would like to spend on refugees, we could rebuild every inner city in America." Politifact wrote, "There is no comprehensive tally of what it would take to deal with substandard housing and infrastructure, but we quickly found a backlog of about ''$225 billion'' in projects ."<ref>http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/jun/22/donald-trump/trump-wrong-clintons-refugee-plan-would-cost-more-/</ref> Was his statement true or false?
*:* In a CNN interview in May, Trump "Frankly, doesn't do very well with women." Clinton has consistently being polling at ''historically'' high levels with women during the campaign.<ref>http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/may/02/donald-trump/donald-trump-wrong-hillary-clinton-doesnt-do-very-/</ref> Was his statement true or false?
*:* Just a few days ago, Trump gave a speech in which he said (not for the first time) that the number of illegal immigrants in the US "could be 3 million. It could be 30 million." There are an estimated 11 million illegal immigrants in the US (plus or minus 1 million).<ref>http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/sep/01/donald-trump/donald-trump-repeats-pants-fire-claim-about-30-mil/</ref> I have seen no one make the argument that 20 million illegal immigrants have somehow escaped detection. Was his statement true or false?
*:Just to clarify, those questions are not rhetorical. ] (]) 23:03, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
::::], a lot of this is indeed rhetorical. Fact-checking organizations ''ought'' to fact-check statements that have a clear meaning, but instead they often focus on snippets that have an ambiguous meaning, or they take statements literally that are obviously not meant to be taken literally. I'll just address your first example. In context, Trump said this about David Duke: "id he endorse me, or what's going on? Because I know nothing about David Duke; I know nothing about white supremacists." So, in context, he was saying that he didn't know anything about David Duke ''endorsing him''. You seriously think Trump expected anyone to believe that he did not know what a white supremacist is? Sheesh.] (]) 23:53, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
:::::''"nothing he says in exact words can be proved to false"''. Sorry, CCamp. Sorry, Anythingyouwant. Even if you think Graham's examples are possibly open to interpretation, there are many, many things he says that are simply, objectively false: 1) at least 17 times (and counting) he has insisted he never said something that he documentedly did say. 2) "South Korea doesn't pay the U.S. anything for out troops there." WRONG. 3) "The U.S. is the only country in the world that has birthright citizenship." WRONG. 4) "Illegal immigration is at an all time high." (It's actually the lowest since 2003, and the lowest from Mexico since the 1940s.) There are dozens and dozens of these things that are simply, factually wrong. --] (]) 00:04, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
::::::Yes, he's said a lot of inaccurate stuff. But a huge portion of it has been exaggeration, which he's flatly said he engages in. For example, per our Misplaced Pages article about ], "A study in 2010 found that only 30 of the world's 194 countries grant citizenship at birth to the children of undocumented foreign residents, although definitive information was not available from 19 countries."] (]) 00:19, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
*'''Strong support''' - not much to add to some of the above comments, just to note that there's plenty of sources to support the text.] (]) 00:56, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
{{talk reflist}}


:That's how wikipedia works.
===Objection to closing this RFC after only four days===
.] (]) 23:11, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
:Four days may be too soon, but 30 days would be way too long to wait given that there are 458 editors watching this article and the RfC has been pretty widely publicized.- ]] 23:27, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
::It depends when the discussion peters out, I suppose. BLPN has 2,691 page watchers so publicizing this RFC might well get a lot more participation.] (]) 23:49, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
:::. --] (]) 00:27, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
{{reply to|MrX|DrFleischman}} The currently expected closure date is September 24. --] (]) 04:17, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
:From ]: "The default duration of an RfC is 30 days because the RFC bot automatically delists RfCs after this time. Editors may choose to end them earlier or extend them longer. Deciding how long to leave an RfC open depends on how much interest there is in the issue and whether editors are continuing to comment." - ]] 11:48, 30 August 2016 (UTC)


:And the consensus in the press, by way of wide coverage through reliable sources, is to the extent that they keep reporting him as the first felon to become president. Whether they like it or not is another story, but there is no doubt about the press acknowledging the notoriety of the President being a convicted criminal. So if the press consensus is leading with this information as ] then so should we. There are no sources suggesting that this isn't the big deal that it is. The disagreement in the sources is about whether Trump is deserving of his verdict or being persecuted, and that is not for us to weigh in here with how we present such notable historic information.
The related RSN is now publicized at ]. Here's an of the article; it's somewhat more concise than the current version. --] (]) 08:07, 1 September 2016 (UTC)


:There is too much ]izing going on here in this debate.] (]) 13:48, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
===Notes to closer===
{{cot|{{small|1=Off-topic about IP addresses, ], resolution of a double !vote, etc. Ok to continue within the collapse. &#8213;]&nbsp;] 06:11, 12 January 2025 (UTC)}}}}
It seems to me that an ordinary consensus (based in policy and guidelines) would be needed to insert the word "false" into the lead as proposed. However, if it is then reverted, anyone putting it back would need "firm" consensus per discretionary sanctions ("All editors must obtain firm consensus on the talk page of this article before reinstating any edits that have been challenged (via reversion)"). So, when closing, please include a statement about whether there is "firm" consensus. Thanks.] (]) 18:58, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
::Are you the same IP as above {{ip|2601:282:8903:b3c0:e03b:9d22:3c30:1a19}} that voted support? Because they geolocate to the came place and ISP. ALso looks like {{ip|65.153.22.75}}. ] (]) 17:21, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
:Please see ].- ]] 19:22, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
:::{{ping|PackMecEng}} When the first halves of two IPv6 addresses (2601:282:8903:b3c0) are the same, they are always the same device. The device changes the latter half frequently and that is beyond the user's control. This editor can demonstrate their good faith by striking one of their two bolded !votes; else we have a clear ] situation.{{pb}}As for 65.153.22.75, it's probably a situation of IPv6 for their phone and IPv4 for their computer or other non-phone device. That address has not posted a bolded !vote that I can see, so the only problem is possible ]; seems to me they are consuming significantly more than their share of oxygen in this discussion. &#8213;]&nbsp;] 19:31, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
::I'm trying to follow policy, not thwart it. The word "firm" is worth recognizing, that's all.] (]) 19:46, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
::::@Mandruss Says you, with practically half the comments here coming from you. Pot meet kettle. ] (]) 19:37, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::] is not about comment count, as a lazy read of just its nutshell will reveal to you. I don't think I have repeated essentially the same arguments at great length and ad nauseam. Are you going to strike or not?? &#8213;]&nbsp;] 19:47, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::@] Already did. Changed from a vote to “a comment”. Wasn’t intentional. I’m not trying to double dip. Thought I was voting on a separate vote started below in a different subsection. Also, some of us anons without accounts sometimes text from a home PC. Then use our mobile device when we are out and about. I’m in my 60s and behind the curve when it comes to texts. But not pretending to be anyone other than who I am. And that’s all that needs to be says about it. Verbose or not, you too are strongly opinionated and invested here as well, and commented more than your fair share too. Given the stakes and unprecedented nature of this heated historical moment, it’s reasonable, expected, and par for the course. We are simply just both spirited strong-willed blokes. Have a good one. ] (]) 20:20, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::::{{tq|Wasn’t intentional. I’m not trying to double dip.}} And I gave you the benefit of the doubt, per ]. You'll note that I did not accuse you of anything. (Some editors should take note: we are entitled to our suspicions, but expressing them absent ''clear evidence'' is a violation that should be dealt with more harshly in my view. Regrettably, some editors don't know what "clear evidence" means. You violated that principle at least once, , and then doubled down . That remains unacceptable in my opinion.){{pb}}My view of constructive talk page behavior is shared among many experienced editors: Don't repeat yourself&mdash;we heard you the first time; the more repetition, the longer the thread and the less likely it is that new arrivals will read existing discussion. Comments are never between just two editors, but some editors act as if they are. &#8213;]&nbsp;] 20:54, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
:::@] Thanks for catching this. Thought I was on a different subspace (the one below that started a new vote). I corrected it. Wasn’t trying to double dip. It’s now a comment. Cheers ] (]) 20:07, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
::::Thanks! I appreciate it. ] (]) 20:09, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
{{cob}}
::You can't really cite the coverage in the press as "consensus" as that's heavily subject to ]. — ''']''' <sup>''(])''</sup> 19:04, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
:::@] This is actually the opposite of RECENTISM, as the verdict was many moons ago, been debated to death here, and given the thoughtfulness of the American legal system in its methodological approach (especially in the drawn out fashion under Biden and with all the delays) this has been given MORE than enough time for us to be able to call it. A convicted criminal being sentenced after a serious trial is literally the closure of said dragged out process. This is a dodge, and ] recent, and is ] our job to avoid reporting harsh truths when it becomes necessary to do so. ] (]) 23:38, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
::::This 2601:282:8903:B3C0 IP is engaged in ridiculous Wikilawyering all throughout this section. Sentencing was yesterday, hence RECENTISM. WP:NOT is not at all related to anything here. Nor are the other essays raised, such as SPADE. &ndash;&nbsp;]&nbsp;(]) 00:03, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::@] No, but you are flirting with trying ] the system here by misrepresenting others here. And engaging in a borderline personal attack.
:::::This isn't a game, and the sentencing is the conclusion of Trump's verdict from MONTHS ago. What is "ridiculous" is the suggestion that this is somehow RECENT news. '''Trump was a convicted criminal MONTHS ago, remember??''' And the American legal system doesn't say that a conviction doesn't count UNTIL you are sentenced. The sentence is simply the punishment. The conviction is the important part.
:::::The only reason why sentencing is even relevant now in this 'second-look-of-sorts' at including information about Trump's criminal behavior in the opening is because there was a chance the Judge may have reversed himself and dismissed the case. Between the SCOTUS giving its blessing on Trump's sentencing and the Judge doubling down, this old news about Trump's verdict now has proper closure. And we can easily report on it more directly.
:::::The only ] is see here is you trying to find some fancy way around reporting obvious factual pertinent information for whatever personal agenda you have to bury it in the lead. Re-read ] It clearly says that in the lead, {{tq|"It should identify the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, INCLUDING any prominent controversies.}} There is nothing recent about Trump's verdict, it is literally one of the most controversy and notable things about him, as he is the only American President in all of world history to be a convicted felon. And he's been a convicted felon for a while now, nothing recent about it. ] (]) 01:28, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::{{tq|whatever personal agenda you have to bury it in the lead.}} You did it again. Consider this fair warning: One more and I'll see you at ], unless someone sees fit to do it now. {{small|(To those such as Slatersteven who would scold me for for saying this here instead of your UTP, I would respond that that doesn't work for some IPv4 editors and most IPv6 editors. The UTP disappears into the ether every time the IP address changes, which is quite frequently, so it's rarely worth one's time to post on it. You yourself have posted in this discussion under seven different IP addresses, one IPv4 and six IPv6, each with its own UTP.)}} &#8213;]&nbsp;] 01:48, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::Like I said, Wikilawyering. And yes, also failing to AGF. A closing admin will take it into account. &ndash;&nbsp;]&nbsp;(]) 01:42, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
::::The previous debates resulted in no consensus to include in the lead. It hasn't been persistently a presence in the press or something he's ''primarily'' known for since the initial conviction. It's back in the press now, hence recentism. — ''']''' <sup>''(])''</sup> 08:15, 12 January 2025 (UTC)


Please note, it is already in the lead, the RFC is about the first sentence only, no one has suggested removing it from the lead in this RFC. ] (]) 13:55, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
=== Need an uninvolved admin to look at this situation: Discussion was closed, then unclosed ===
This discussion was closed by ] on September 2 at 08:59. A few hours later, ] decided the close was "improper" so she reverted it, simultaneously expressing an opinion/!vote contrary to the closer's result. Neither Tazerdadog nor DHeyward are admins. Tazerdadog is previously uninvolved at this article; DHeyward has rarely posted here (last edit prior to today was July 3). What is the procedure here? Can we please get an uninvolved admin to come and look at this situation? I am involved at this article and cannot make the call. --] (]) 16:39, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
:Update: while I was posting the above, the close was reinstated by a third editor. Also, it looks as if Closure Review has already been requested; is the link which was accidentally deleted when the close was reinstated. --] (]) 16:44, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
::A clarification, what you are calling an "unclose" was a revert without consensus in apparent violation of relevant policies and guidelines (] and ]). I urge other editors not to follow DHeyward's lead. At this point the appropriate place to discuss this matter is at ]. --] (]) 16:50, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
::The ] is to first appeal to the closer then start a close review at ].- ]] 16:53, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
*'''Bad close''' - This is clearly a bad closure, for reasons which include: 1. It is ridiculously early; there is not sufficient concensus to support a WP:SNOW closure, which would, in any case, need to be in favour of not including the text (we don't WP:S''YES''W); 2. The closing statement explicitly states that it was based on the number of !votes, despite WP:NOTVOTE; 3. The closing statement states that ''oppose'' votes were discounted, but does not explain why; 4. The closing statement fails to discount WP:TRUTH based ''support'' votes; 5. The closure seeks to establish a local consensus in contravention of WP:NPOV@WP:YESPOV and WP:BLP, neither of which are subvertable in this way. The reversion by {{u|DHeyward}} is the clearest case of an appropriate use of WP:IAR that I have seen. <small>NOTE: I am not a US citizen or resident; nor am I particularly interested or affected by the US Presidential election. I consider myself as uninvolved in this matter as it is possible to be.</small> - ] <sup>]</sup> 16:57, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
:::], the most appropriate venue for objecting would apparently be at .] (]) 17:00, 2 September 2016 (UTC)


*'''Oppose''' This is all political. The trials only happened because he ran for office, those responsible for them supporting his rival. ] 14:09, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
===Closure review===
*:] served time in prison, was fined, and lost his law license because of the campaign finance laws violations on behalf of Trump. Cohen wasn't running for office when he was punished. It appears more logical to say that Trump got away because he was running for the presidency. ] (]) 15:47, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
I have requested closure review .], please do not delete this notification again.] (]) 16:47, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
::.] (]) 19:48, 2 September 2016 (UTC)


*'''Strong support''' On Misplaced Pages, I think there are systemic issues with the handling of political articles. It is best that readers be made aware, as soon as possible, that this is not the place to go for balanced coverage of topics involving political ideology. Calling Trump a "criminal" in the very first sentence would telegraph that to readers quite marvelously. By all means, have at it. ] (]) 15:48, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
== Neutrality tag in Campaign section ==
*:The president-elect is a career criminal dating back to 1968 when he falsified medical records to include bone spurs in furtherance of draft dodging felony, before he became businessman and media personality. ] (]) 16:08, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
:::I know he is. It is a good edit. Go at it. ] (]) 16:21, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
::Lol ] (]) 16:24, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' - The body, of course, the lead, absolutely, the first sentence? Not yet, it is not one of the defining characteristics of what makes him notable. I could certainly see that changing, but it is not at that point by RS coverage yet. ] (]) 16:06, 11 January 2025 (UTC)


Please remember this is a BLP, and any accusations must be backed up with sources, and he can't be accused of breaking laws with out there even being an investigation by the authorities. ] (]) 16:12, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
Can someone please point me to the discussion associated with the POV tag ? Thanks] (]) 19:56, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
:The tag was by {{u|Cwobeel}} with the summary: "This section is supposed to be a summary of the related main article." I don't believe there was any discussion. --] (]) 21:34, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
::If no such discussion was initiated by the 'tagger" the tag can, and should, be removed. ]<small>]</small> 22:49, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
:::I agree. It needs discussion first. And, a chance to sort the problem so a tag isn't even needed. ] (]) 15:21, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
::::What problem? Cwobeel never identified what the problem is, and never started a discussion. IMO we should just remove the tag. --] (]) 15:36, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
:::::If there's no discussion, there should be no tag. {{u|Cwobeel}}, any comment? &ndash;&nbsp;]&nbsp;(]) 15:48, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
::::::{{done}} Tag has been removed. ]<small>]</small> 15:55, 27 August 2016 (UTC)


:'''Support''' Outside of playing more golf on the dime of taxpayers than any other President (a little humor), unfortunately the hard truth is that according the consensus of the sources he is known for being America's first convicted felon to be elected to the highest office of the land. He and he alone enjoys that distinction. There has been no other President in the last few hundred years charged with hundreds of crimes, or even a single felony, let alone convicted of one. That alone makes this not only notable but necessary to highlight in the lead.
I am putting it back. The section does not come close to being a summary of the main article. - ] ] 04:14, 28 August 2016 (UTC)


:The biggest disagreement here among the naysayers (and some trolls) seems to be that this "is controversial",
Anybody reading that section may be very surprised to find no mention of the countless controversies of the Trump campaign. For example, there is a sentence referring to the FBI Director's testimony as the reason of a drop in Clinton's poll numbers, but there is no mention of the Khan family debacle or the many other self-inflicted controversies as the reason for his abysmal polling post convention. POV tag needs to remain there until this is addressed. - ] ] 04:22, 28 August 2016 (UTC)


:So let's look at ], shall we? It clearly says, {{tq|"It should identify the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, INCLUDING any prominent controversies.}}
Once we have a good summary of ] in this article, the POV tag can be removed. - ] ] 04:25, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
:Since the biggest disagreement here among the naysayers (and some trolls) seems to be that this "is controversial", many are saying we should NOT highlight it front and center, etc".
:If you feel so strongly about the necessity to paraphrase the "Controversies" section of Trump's campaign in his biography article, why don't you ] and see if it sticks? Adding a tag and expecting other editors to do the job is poor Wikipedian practice. Especially right after 6 different editors questioned the need for such a tag. — ] <sup>]</sup> 05:19, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
::The only reason the tag was removed was because {{ping|User:Cwobeel}}]] was supposed to start a discussion to fix the problem and never did. Is this the discussion? Please clearly state the problem with a bit more specificity than ''Once we have a good summary of ] in this article, the POV tag can be removed.'' so your fellow a editors can know what to fix. ]<small>]</small> 05:51, 28 August 2016 (UTC)


:I want editors to note that ] in fact wants us TO INCLUDE PROMINENT CONTROVERSIES. Either some misguided editors need to refresh their memory and read this, and we all seem to agree Trump's many crimes and convictions need to be included in the article regardless as they are empirically sound, so this should be distilled to what is appropriate for a lead.
::: How hard is it to understand? Per ], sub articles need to be properly summarized in main articles. As it stands, this section is not a NPOV summary of the main article, thus the tag. - ] ] 00:18, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
:::: Again, ] — ] <sup>]</sup> 01:53, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
:::: and Again, ] — ]<small>]</small> 05:41, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
:::::WP:SOFIXIT (which redirects to ]) is a way of encouraging other editors, not a way to ]. It is never an excuse to remove a tag. Cwobeel has belatedly identified an issue, and as no one seems to disagree with them it seems there is a consensus of one that the problem exists and should be fixed. By removing the tag we are sweeping this problem under the rug. I support re-adding the tag. --] (]) 17:53, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
::::::I understand and agree. But, the tagging of articles is easy. The addition of information into an article like this is not. You're right about the rug. It is a lumpy bumpy thing and this should have been handle differently; both by the tagger and those of us responding to the tag. ]<small>]</small> 18:16, 29 August 2016 (UTC)


:-->Is it "notable" per ]? Yes, for the same reason that President Barack Obama being elected the first African American President, as it has been pointed out to death here.
== Working draft of a section about Trump's false statements ==


:-->It is summarized? Yes, this has played out in the public, and with the press, and here and now has found proper closure with sentencing and with the blessing of even the SCOTUS.
Here is a start of working draft to address concerns that we should cover Trump's false statements in the body of the article. I propose that this would be inserted in the '''Presidential campaign, 2016''' section before '''Primaries'''. There seem to be plenty of material to work with, so this could easily be expanded.


:-->Is it prominent? It is at least one of the things Trump is known best for as President since no other President enjoys this exclusive, historic, unique distinction.
Material that would be moved from other sections is shown in {{color|#996600|orange}}. - ]] 16:06, 27 August 2016 (UTC)


:And for those saying that this celebrity or that politician isn't highlighted in the lead as a criminal and yadda, yadda, yadda, then I suggest fixes those articles if they too fit the above criteria.
<div style="background-color:#eef8ff; padding: 0 20px 20px 20px; border: 1px solid #666688">
===False statements===
Trump's campaign received significant media coverage beginning with his announcement that he was running for President. {{color|#996600|Many of the statements Trump has made during his presidential campaign have been controversial, and many are false.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/03/trump-fact-check-errors-exaggerations-falsehoods-213730|title=Trump’s Week of Errors, Exaggerations and Flat-out Falsehoods|publisher=]|date=March 13, 2016|first1=Daniel|last1=Lippman|first2=Darren|last2=Samuelsohn|first3=Isaac|last3=Arnsdorf}}</ref> Fact checking organizations such as ] and ] have noted that, based on the statements they have analyzed, Trump has made more false statements than his opponents.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.factcheck.org/2015/12/the-king-of-whoppers-donald-trump/|title=The ‘King of Whoppers': Donald Trump|publisher=]|date=December 21, 2015}}</ref><ref PolitiFact-2015>{{cite web|url=http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2015/dec/21/2015-lie-year-donald-trump-campaign-misstatements/|title=2015 Lie of the Year: the campaign misstatements of Donald Trump|publisher=]|date=December 21, 2015|first1=Angie Drobnic|last1=Holan|first2=Linda|last2=Qiu}}</ref>}} Trump's made various false claims over several months that President Obama and Secretary Clinton fostered, and even founded ISIS.<ref name=Kessler-160816>{{cite web | url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2016/08/16/fact-checking-donald-trumps-major-speech-on-the-islamic-state/ | title=Fact-checking Donald Trump’s ‘major’ speech on the Islamic State | work=The Washington Post | date=August 16, 2016 | accessdate=August 27, 2016 | author=Kessler, Glenn and Ye Hee Lee, Michelle}}</ref><ref name=Jacobson-160811>{{cite web | url=http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/aug/11/donald-trump/donald-trump-pants-fire-claim-obama-founded-isis-c/ | title=Donald Trump's Pants on Fire claim that Barack Obama 'founded' ISIS, Hillary Clinton was 'cofounder' | work=PolitiFact | date=August 11, 2016 | accessdate=August 27, 2016 | author=Jacobson, Louis and Sherman, Amy}}</ref><ref name=Worland>{{cite web | url=http://time.com/4448218/donald-trump-isis-founder-president-obama-zarqawi/ | title=President Obama Is Not the ‘Founder of ISIS.’ Here’s Who Really Started It | work=Time (magazine) | date=August 11, 2016 | accessdate=August 27, 2016 | author=Worland, Justin}}</ref> After insisting that he meant that Obama literally founded ISIS, Trump eventually capitulated and said he was being sarcastic.<ref name="Kopan">{{cite web | url=http://www.cnn.com/2016/08/12/politics/donald-trump-obama-clinton-isis-founder-sarcasm/ | title=Donald Trump tries to walk back claim Obama founded ISIS: 'Sarcasm' | work=CNN | date=August 12, 2016 | accessdate=August 27, 2016 | author=Kopan, Tal}}</ref> Similarly, Trump has made false statements associating Mexican immigrants with criminal activity,<ref name=Kessler-160322>{{cite web | url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2016/03/22/all-of-donald-trumps-four-pinocchio-ratings-in-one-place/ | title=All of Donald Trump’s Four-Pinocchio ratings, in one place | date=March 22, 2016 | accessdate=August 27, 2016 | author=Kessler, Glenn}}</ref><ref name=Hee-Lee>{{cite web | url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2015/07/08/donald-trumps-false-comments-connecting-mexican-immigrants-and-crime/ | title=Donald Trump’s false comments connecting Mexican immigrants and crime | work=The Washington Post | date=July 8, 2015 | accessdate=August 27, 2016 | author=Hee Lee, Michelle Ye}}</ref> claiming that the U.S. is the "highest taxed nation in the world",<ref name=Carroll>{{cite web | url=http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/05/08/is-the-united-states-really-the-highest-taxed-nation-as-trump-says.html | title=Is the United States Really the ‘Highest Taxed Nation,’ as Trump Says? | work=The Daily beast | date=May 8, 2016 | accessdate=August 27, 2016 | author=Carroll, Lauren and Qiu, Linda}}</ref><ref name=Worstall>{{cite web | url=http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2016/06/23/donald-trump-is-flat-out-wrong-us-is-a-low-tax-society-with-a-highly-progressive-tax-system/#258b77521daf | title=Donald Trump Is Flat Out Wrong - US Is A Low Tax Society With a Highly Progressive Tax System | work=Forbes | date=June 23, 2016 | accessdate=August 27, 2016 | author=Worstall, Tim}}</ref>, and falsely stating that the U.S. unemployment rate "anywhere from 18 to 20 percent", and two months later saying "Our real unemployment rate is 42 percent".<ref name=Kessler-160821>{{cite web | url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2015/08/21/trumps-absurd-claim-the-real-unemployment-rate-is-42-percent/ | title=Trump’s absurd claim that the ‘real’ unemployment rate is 42 percent | work=The Washington Post | date=August 21, 2015 | accessdate=August 27, 2016 | author=Kessler, Glenn}}</ref><ref name=Jacobson-150616>{{cite web | url=http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/jun/16/donald-trump/donald-trump-says-real-unemployment-rate-18-20-per/ | work=PolitiFact | date=June 16, 2015 | accessdate=August 27, 2016 | author=Jacobson, Louis}}</ref>


:For those letting possible political bias interfere with their duties as an editor, my ask is please keep it simple and lets not treat one controversial subject differently than any other. This isn't about whether Trump deserves his conviction. It's about its notoriety, notability and whether the consensus in the press reflects as much. And we must reflect the press per ] otherwise we are basically endorsing a loophole around the ] violation. ] (]) 18:23, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
According to ''The Washington Post'', 65 percent of Trump's statements fact checked as of August 18, 2015 received the newspaper's worst rating for falsity, far exceeding that of most politicians.<ref name=Kessler-160322 /> Trump has been promoted as being a "straight-talker", and more authentic than typical politicians.<ref name=PF-151221>{{cite web | url=http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2015/dec/21/2015-lie-year-donald-trump-campaign-misstatements/ | title=2015 Lie of the Year: the campaign misstatements of Donald Trump | work=PolitiFact | date=December 21, 2015 | accessdate=August 27, 2016 | author=Holan, Angie Drobnic and Qiu, Linda}}</ref> ] Professor Michael LaBossiere commented that Trump "perfected the outrageous untruth as a campaign tool," adding, "He makes a clearly false or even absurdly false claim, which draws the attention of the media. He then rides that wave until it comes time to call up another one." According to PolitiFact, in 2015, of 77 statements checked, 76 percent were rated as Mostly False, False or Pants on Fire.<ref PolitiFact-2015 /><ref name=FN-151222>{{cite web | url=http://latino.foxnews.com/latino/politics/2015/12/22/politifact-hands-trump-lie-year-award/ | title=PolitiFact hands Trump "Lie of the Year" award | work=Fox News Latino | date=December 22, 2015 | accessdate=August 27, 2016}}</ref> In its 2016 mid -year report, PolitiFact found 60 percent of Trump's claims to be false.<ref name=Cillizza>{{cite web | url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/07/01/donald-trump-has-been-wrong-way-more-often-than-all-the-other-2016-candidates-combined/ | title=A fact checker looked into 158 things Donald Trump said. 78 percent were false. | work=The Washington Post | date=July 1, 2016 | accessdate=August 27, 2016 | author=Cillizza, Chris}}</ref><ref name=Sharockman>{{cite web | url=http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2016/jun/29/fact-checking-2016-clinton-trump/ | title=The truth (so far) behind the 2016 campaign | work=PolitiFact | date=June 29, 2016 | accessdate=August 27, 2016 | author=Sharockman, Aaron}}</ref>
::A few things, pretty much no one is saying it should not be in the lead. What they are discussing, and what this RFC is about, is if it should be in the first sentence. So that kind of undercuts all of your points. Next do not accuse people disagreeing with you of being trolls or that it must be political bias. That is not helpful to discussions here. ] (]) 02:34, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
:::From my experience, the editors who complain about other people editing based on their "political bias" are usually the ones whose editing is most influenced by their political biases. &ndash;&nbsp;]&nbsp;(]) 02:16, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
* '''Oppose''', this conviction is nowhere near what Trump is best known for and would be wildly ]. If he'd been convicted in relation to January 6th, then sure, but this is minor at most. Better mentioned later in the lede. ] (]) 18:46, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
*:@] That’s fallacious. There’s nothing minor about 34+ felony convictions. In accordance to American law, the justice system upgraded those minor misdemeanor charges into felonies because the jury found that Trump had been committing multiple misdemeanor crimes as part of a felony criminal to influence and interfere with the 2016 election. Convictions for interfering with a democratic election is the opposite of “minor”. ] (]) 18:50, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
*:{{Ping|Kowal2701}} I agree, Trump best known for this conviction? It sounds like a provocation by users who dislike him (and I don't like him much either, but I'm objective). ] (]) 18:51, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
*::Agreed, frankly it'd be a bit embarrassing if this were to succeed (although nom is clearly good faith) ] (]) 18:53, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
*:::Thank you, I'd add that this is not a fringe RfC, I looked up a similar mid-2024 RfC that was closed as no consensus, and it noted the support side had a majority, which took me by surprise as I would have opposed back then, he was not officially a felon yet. ] (]) 19:24, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
*::@] How is it “provocation” that Trump is a convicted criminal for 30 plus serious felonies involving an election interference scheme? Lol That was the finding by a jury, not a simple allegation. If it’s provocative or even embarrassing then that’s the natural consequence for the one committing a crime. That’s on the convicted, not on us. I challenge your “objectivity”. Liking him or disliking him has nothing to do with this. That saying, you can have your own set of opinions but not your own facts?? The law and the nature of convictions happens to carry some ugly truths. So do we waterdown the Ted Bundy page or the Harvey Weinstein page for fear of personal embarrassment of said subject? Trump is also an adjudicated sexual assault perpetrator. That’s also a first for Presidents. That other saying, if the shoe fits? Objective indeed. ] (]) 19:33, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Comment''' — See the lead sentence of the Misplaced Pages article ]. Regards, ] (]) 02:50, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
*:I think we can safely assume you're an Opposer without a !vote to date. The "other side" has already been , correctly in my opinion. Trump is neither Obama (Supporters) nor Cohen (Opposers). He is a whole new animal, so we should not look to precedents either way (especially cherry-picked precedents). &#8213;]&nbsp;] 03:30, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
*::{{Ping|Mandruss}} why "animal"? ] (]) 03:39, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
*:::, noun sense 5. &#8213;]&nbsp;] 03:42, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
*::::Thank you, it's always nice to learn new things. ] (]) 03:48, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
*::I put it out there so that editors could chew on the lead sentence of an article about someone convicted of crimes and involved in the 34 felony counts of Trump. Another one involved and having a Misplaced Pages article is ]. As far as I'm concerned, either way works: without "criminal" is more appropriate as far as writing a Misplaced Pages article, whereas with "criminal" in the lead sentence it puts up front the tone of the article that follows. Regards, ] (]) 08:11, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
* '''Comment''' Although I voted support, I think calling him a "criminal" is too non-specific and is a loaded term. The fact that ]'s racial identity as "the first African-American president in U.S. history" is worthy enough to be included in the first paragraph of the lead; but Trump's 34 felony convictions and being the first acting and former president in U.S. history to be a convicted felon is not worthy of being included in the first paragraph of the lead, is a double standard. I think a separate RfC to simply debate whether this unique status should be included in the first paragraph of the lead may be warranted, irrespective of the exact wording. ] (]) 22:36, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
*:Have we had a separate discussion about first paragraph as opposed to first sentence? I may have missed it, or my memory may be starting to fail in my somewhat-old age. If so, can someone provide an archive link? If not, we don't go to RfC unless we fail to reach consensus without RfC. Assuming no political motivations per ], there isn't any particular rush to get this resolved in this biography; four months would not be excessive for something so significant. &#8213;]&nbsp;] 23:17, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
*::Separate - no. It came up during about adding "convicted felon" to the first sentence. There was also and two brief ones ( and ) that didn't get much traction. When this discussion has been closed, we should start a separate one about mentioning the felony conviction in the first paragraph. It was major headline news, including Trump's extensive efforts all the way up to the Supreme Court to get the case dismissed. (And now he can't buy or own a gun but next week he'll be able to deploy nuclear missiles {{Oldsmiley|roll}}.) ]] 16:44, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
*:I see you and Bob K31416 believe that "criminal" is too non-specific, loaded, and set the tone for the article that follows. I thought the complete opposite when I started this RfC, and still do. I don't like the term "convicted felon" in previous RfC, and I'm not a fan of an entire sentence for how he is the first convicted president in U.S. history. I intended "criminal" to dispassionately mean he was convicted of a crime without specificity, and that it simply mentions in passing one of his many other titles such as the unspecific politician, businessman, media personality titles, such that no tone is set for the rest of the lede at all. A person who has no idea who he is and stumble upon the four titles would think this is probably interesting, and it gets super interesting when the person reads "who became 45th (and 47th) ...", the same way I found it interesting when I first read "politician and humanitarian" in ]. ] (]) 15:41, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
*::Should this article really be geared towards a hypothetical reader who doesn't know who Trump is? Does such a person even exist? ] (]) 20:25, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
*:::...Yes, since that's the entire long-term point of something like an encyclopedia. We should be writing articles so that people can read them in 100 years and come away feeling like they've been informed in a broad way, not like they've read a contemporary news article about the subject. That's why ] exists. ] (]) 22:05, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
*::::{{Ping|Big Thumpus}} I agree with you, but it's also true that in 100 years there will probably be other virtual encyclopedias, and perhaps Misplaced Pages will be replaced with something even better and much more automated. ] (]) 22:15, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
*:::::Venturing even further off topic, a future Misplaced Pages will be written mostly by AI bots (maybe that's what you meant by "automated"). If done correctly, that will largely eliminate editor bias. &#8213;]&nbsp;] 22:32, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
*::::::{{Ping|Mandruss}} "...will be written mostly by AI bots (maybe that's what you meant by "automated")." Yes. ] (]) 22:40, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
*:::::::Yeah, I spoke in haste. And countless humans will be forced to find new hobbies. &#8213;]&nbsp;] 22:42, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' Being convicted of any offense for which not punishment inflicted doesn't make someone notable. Also, there are plenty of politicians and others who have been convicted of crimes who are not described as criminals and lots of criminals (probably including U.S. presidents) who have never been convicted of anything. Anyway, it would just make the article look absurd and discredit it in the eyes of readers. ] (]) 23:36, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Comment''' — I briefly tried to find sources that describe Trump as a "criminal", i.e. using that word, and I was unsuccessful. Maybe someone else can find such sources. Thanks. ] (]) 16:48, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
*:How about the court? ] (]) 16:58, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
*::{{emoji|1F44D}} ]] 17:24, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
*::Thanks but is that referring to the type of court or the defendant? ] (]) 18:01, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
*::: {{sert|1}} ]] 18:09, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
*:::Not sure what difference it makes as he was convicted in a criminal court. As said below, a convicted felon is by definition a criminal. Nonetheless, I !voted Oppose. ] (]) 18:21, 14 January 2025 (UTC)


A convicted felon is by definition a criminal ] (]) 16:56, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
{{cot|References|bg=#eeeeee}}
:'''Donald John Trump''' (born June 14, 1946) is an American politician, media personality, businessman, criminal, native New Yorker, father, husband, and amateur golfer who served as the 45th ] from 2017 to 2021.{{pb}}All of which is eminently ] and amply supported by RS. That does not mean it should be in the first sentence or even the first paragraph. Please stop with the arguments. &#8213;]&nbsp;] 23:10, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
{{reflist-talk}}
::I totally, completely agree with ]. ] (]) 21:00, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
{{cob}}
::+1 ] (]) 21:01, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
:::It's a statement of fact...if you had to sum him up in one sentence that pretty much covers it..this is exactly what the first sentence is supposed to do ] (]) 23:59, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
::::Which entirely misses my point. Done trying to communicate with you on this issue. &#8213;]&nbsp;] 00:11, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Support'''. His conviction got a huge amount of attention, and sources have pointed out that he is notable as the first US president who is also a convicted criminal. It's at minimum as notable as "media personality". ] (]) 13:32, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
*:I wouldn't mind removing "media personality" TBH. He is notable for being president twice and for being a businessman. He is not notable for his felony convictions. They should be in the lead, but not the first sentence. ] (]) 14:17, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
:::The fact of the matter he is not a media personality he's a former media personality..if being a convicted felon is less significant than that what would be ? It belongs in the first sentence..it is relevant if for no other reason there are a lot of people who look at Misplaced Pages articles and never get past the first sentence...I generally don`t get past the first paragraph..I was taught in school to get to the point in the first sentence..that the first sentence should support the first paragraph and the first paragraph should support the body of the work..I support wording it as convicted felon rather than criminal as it is more descriptive and accurate ] (]) 18:59, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
::::BTW, what's the meaning of the term "media personality"? Thanks, ] (]) 20:36, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::It sounds better than "reality television host". BTW without hosting "The Apprentice", Trump likely never becomes president or charged with any crimes, so note the ] in saying he isn't notable for it. &ndash;&nbsp;]&nbsp;(]) 20:43, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::Do you have a source that explicitly states that Trump wouldn't be a president or convicted criminal without having been a TV host? ] (]) 21:16, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::::Can I prove a negative? Of course not. I said "likely" and that is my opinion. &ndash;&nbsp;]&nbsp;(]) 21:25, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::See ]. He was a media presence (radio and TV talk shows, cameos in movies and on TV shows, source for tabloids and society pages of NY Times and other papers) before, during, and after the Apprentice, not to mention his Twitter activities. See also the first discussion for this consensus which had 10 options to choose from. Examples for definitions: (''Media personalities, encompassing TV hosts, news anchors, and social media celebrities, are individuals known for their presence in various media platforms''), (''A modern term for the carefully formulated and overtly fake publicly displayed personality used by ‘celebrities’ who lack natural presentation talent''). ]] 21:23, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::Do you expect me to take your arguments serious when you are citing Urban Dictionary? ] (]) 08:11, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
*:{{Ping|Cortador}} I don't agree with you at all, because it would probably be the only article in the entire encyclopedia to contain this term in the initial part of the lead; some users are very angry with Donald, but no valid reason has been presented for the inclusion of the (pejorative) term "criminal" only on the Trump page. ] (]) 23:01, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
*::"Other articles don't do X" is not and has never been a valid argument here. Also, I recommend you don't edit based your personal feelings, but on how sources report on the subject of an article. ] (]) 09:59, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Strongly oppose''' He's not known for being a criminal ''qua'' criminal. Trump's crimes are inextricably linked to his career in either business or politics. They were business-related/political in their very nature. It more than suffices to mention the convictions further down the line, but to insert "criminal" in the very first sentence is manifestly undue. ] ] 12:18, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
*:{{+1}}. ] (]) 18:23, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Statistics''': Although this is not a vote, at the present time there are 22 Oppose opinions expressed, and 8 Support opinions being expressed; along with these there are nearly a dozen Comments which have been added sometimes neutral and sometimes of explicit viewpoints. ] (]) 00:38, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
*:Thanks. Despite protestations to the contrary, there is no clear policy basis for either side; it's all "editorial judgment". So a closer would have no reason to override the numbers. If I were on the Support side, I'd concede to save everybody a lot of time, but I know better than to hope for that. &#8213;]&nbsp;] 00:47, 17 January 2025 (UTC)


== "dismissed following his victory in the 2024 election." ==
</div>


{{tq|Two more felony indictments, related to his interference in the 2020 election and his handling of classified documents were dismissed '''following his victory in the 2024 election.'''}}
MrX, thanks for your work on this, but I think this is ]. We had to have a long discussion to even get the current two sentences into the article; I don't think there would ever be consensus for a whole section like this. I for one wouldn't support it. --] (]) 16:22, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
: I think two sentences are not enough to capture the over-riding negative effect that Trump's “truthful hyperbole,” or “innocent exaggeration” have on the whole elective process--primary campaign promises, voting populace, trustworthy-ness. As with so many other issues we as editors face this is one that will certainly grow and expand. Trying to squeeze the impact of falseness into two "easy to swallow" pills is not what the Doctor ordered. Granted, Trump's relationship with the truth is hard to capture in a way that can be understood by our future reader doing a high school term paper in 2025. But let's not mislead her into thinking that it was a momentary lapse. ]<small>]</small> 16:39, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
::OK MelanieN, your opinion is noted. Obviously, I contend that a mere two sentences are ] given the extensive and enduring coverage this has received.- ]] 16:55, 27 August 2016 (UTC)


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


:I can see the confusion. I was referring to the Justice Department's dismissal of the case following his victory. ] (]) 03:31, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
::{{ec}}Trump's numerous falsehoods and his refusal to accept correction have been a major focus of media coverage of his campaign. I don't think that a section like this is undue, although two long paragraphs about it might be overkill. Specifically, I think the examples given don't need to be included, or if they are, they should be trimmed to one (probably long, but still) sentence. Also, I think there needs to be a citation to the statement that he's promoted as being a straight talker. I know it's true, but it should be sourced.
::Here's an example (borrowing the formatting from above), absent citations of what I think would be appropriate.
<div style="background-color:#eef8ff; padding: 0 20px 20px 20px; border: 1px solid #666688; margin-left: 40px;">


== Convicted felon ==
===False statements===
Much of the media attention on Trump's campaign has been focused on allegations that many statements made by Trump during the campaign are misleading or untrue. Various claims include that President Obama and Secretary Clinton are the founders of ISIS, that the majority of Mexican immigrants are violent criminals, that the US is the highest taxed nation on the world and that the unemployment rate is as high as 42%.


should the article not mention that he's a convicted felon by say the second paragraph of the intro? ] (]) 23:50, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
Trump has been promoted as being a "straight-talker", and more authentic than typical politicians. However, according to The Washington Post, 65 percent of Trump's statements fact checked as of August 18, 2015 received the newspaper's worst rating for falsity, far exceeding that of most politicians. According to PolitiFact, in 2015, of 77 statements checked, 76 percent were rated as Mostly False, False or Pants on Fire.
</div>
::<span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em; class=texhtml">] ]</span> 17:04, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
:::I could live with that abridged version.- ]] 17:11, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
::::I just modified the opening sentence of my proposal. It should (slightly) tighten it up a bit, and cut down the focus to the specific subject of the section title. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em; class=texhtml">] ]</span> 17:25, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
:::::That's good also. I think the word "such" should be inserted between 'various' and 'claims', for clarity.- ]] 17:35, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
::::::I Like it! I would suggest changing "during the campaign' to "throughout the campaign" to clarify that it wasn't a few isolated incidents. It implies to the reader that further investigation on their part might be required. ]<small>]</small> 17:43, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
:::::::I like it except for the 'straight talker' bit. That seems more to do with the claim of his going against political correctness. Also, it seems like a bit of ]. But the rest seems fine. ] (]) 17:58, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
::::::::'straight talker' = "He tells it like it is." which is not true. In fact you may have touched on the longest untruth of the last year and a half...that he tells it like it is...which anyone that is listening knows to be "not true". ]<small>]</small> 18:09, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
::::::::: &ndash;&nbsp;]&nbsp;(]) 18:15, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
{{od|::::::::}}{{ec}}I'm not suggesting that he is a straight talker, but he is often claimed to be such by his supporters. It's not contentious that his supporters claim this, and it's very germane to the subject of this proposed section. It should be trivial to find a source. Also, feel free to edit away at my proposal above to change anything you guys want to. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em; class=texhtml">] ]</span> 18:17, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
:This is correct. Trump's supporters think he's a "straight talker". He's not, but they think he is. Sources for his supporters thinking he's a "straight talker" abound. &ndash;&nbsp;]&nbsp;(]) 18:19, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
::I just did a quick search, and so far I've found plenty of sources ''refuting'' the claim that he's a straight talker, but few making it. So there might be a kernel of truth to the statement that it's ] to say so. That being said, Many of the sources refuting it, themselves state that Trump is seen by his supporters as being a straight talker, so we could use one of those. ( ) I've copied a few links here, but I haven't vetted them as reliable sources yet. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em; class=texhtml">] ]</span> 18:23, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
:::"Straight-talker" came from which apparently I neglected to cite. The source says "It’s the trope on Trump: He’s authentic, a straight-talker, less scripted than traditional politicians. That’s because Donald Trump doesn’t let facts slow him down. Bending the truth or being unhampered by accuracy is a strategy he has followed for years." No ] required.- ]] 18:38, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
::::That clears that up. I like it then, thanks. ] (]) 19:46, 27 August 2016 (UTC)


:It's in the third paragraph of the intro, it doesn't really matter where it is just that it's there. ] (]) 00:36, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
* I'm concerned that the proposed content assigns far too much WEIGHT to this subject for Trump's bio. Also, I don't believe the current text regarding Mexican immigrants is supported by sources. Finally as I stated in Talk above, while the fact-checking organizations may be reliable for the specific statements that they analyze, we need to be careful about comparing percentages of False statements between candidates. As far as I'm aware, the fact checking organizations don't use a systematic approach in selecting which and how many of a politician's statements to analyze. Unless there's some indication that the statements are chosen for analysis in a systematic, unbiased manner, percentages can't be considered objective.] (]) 19:48, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
::{{Ping|Akechi The Agent Of Chaos}} exactly! It's largely sufficient that it's present somewhere in the lead, yet some users complain that the term isn't written exactly on the line they want; this, in my opinion, is very disappointing behaviour (of course I'm not judging anyone). ] (]) 17:25, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
::In response, we can remove mention of Mexican immigrants and replace it with something from his acceptance speech. Say, "I will present the facts plainly and honestly". Using sarcasm, hyperbole and humor are not usually the vehicles for "plain and honest" speech. They cause confusion and misunderstanding and, as my wife often tells me, are dishonest ways to communicate. My guess is that the fact checking organizations focus on Trump because they have found him to be a good source for un-truth. Other than the fact checkers, who or what is available, as a reliable source, to verify what we all know? ]<small>]</small> 20:12, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
:::I would rather it be in the first paragraph myself but as long as we have that he's a convicted felon in there it's fine. ] (]) 01:48, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
::I was writing off the top of my head, filling in the blanks between sentences copied from the one above. I may well have mischaracterized his comments about Mexican illegal immigrants. Feel free to correct it. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em; class=texhtml">] ]</span> 20:20, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
:::{{U|CFredkin}} is correct that the Mexican immigrant material is not supported by the source in the revision by MjolnirPants ("the majority of Mexican immigrants are violent criminals"), however, it is verifiable in the original version that I wrote ("associating Mexican immigrants with criminal activity").


:I agree should be in introduction after they mention business man ] (]) 04:32, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
:::I have a question for CFredkin and {{U|MelanieN}}, both of whom raised ] concerns: Are you concerns about the amount of text relative the rest of the bio (282:13,688 (2%) in my version, 138:13,688 (1%) in MjolnirPants' version); too few sources (16 cited); or is there another aspect of the policy that you believe the material would violate?- ]] 20:47, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
:Agreed. ] (]) 06:41, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
:::: Basically the amount of text. I thought the two-paragraph version was too much; I also didn't like it being a whole section. I think the current two-sentence paragraph is fine. And actually I could accept the shorter version offered now. --] (]) 21:55, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
:::: The amount of text is the basis for my WEIGHT-related concern as well.] (]) 23:32, 27 August 2016 (UTC)


Agreed, it should be the in the first sentence of the intro.
{{od}}Consider this proposed language: "65 percent of Trump's statements fact checked as of August 18, 2015 received the newspaper's worst rating for falsity...." Suppose candidate X makes one false statement during a campaign, and it is the ''only'' statement of candidate X that is fact checked by a fact-checker. In contrast, candidate Y makes a hundred false statements during the campaign, and the fact-checker fact-checks 200 statements by candidate Y. So, the fact-checker says that 100% of fact-checked statements by candidate X are false, compared to only 50% for candidate Y. How are such statistics useful for Misplaced Pages?] (]) 21:34, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
:See RFC above. ] (]) 10:44, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
::::I think that's a reasonable point which could be addressed by including the number of statements checked and the number that were determined to be false. Of course that increases the overall length of the text.- ]] 21:46, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
::::: There's no need to speculate, or make up unlikely theoretical situations. For the Washington Post, here are the numbers, which I already cited above: For Trump: '''52 claims''' were rated. 63% were Four Pinocchios (meaning total lies), 21% 3, 10% 2, 2% 1, 4&nbsp;% truthful. For Clinton: '''36 claims''' were rated. 14% were Four Pinocchios, 36% 3, 30.5% 2, 5.5% 1, 14% truthful. For the 2015 Lie of the Year award, PolitiFact evaluated 77 of Trump's statements, of which 76% were lies. I don't think these need to be cited in the text; they are just to answer Anythingyouwant's question. --] (]) 22:14, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
:::::::Sure, but those numbers do not do justice to the issue at hand. Per WaPo, "The Fact Checker responds to reader requests, and many of Trump’s statements were provocative and controversial." If WaPo did not fact check various Clinton statements because their readers were more interested in Trump statements, or the reader requests about Clinton were about statements that readers were inclined to believe but wanted WaPo to verify, then the resulting percentages would be greatly altered from what they would otherwise be. Moreover, were these WaPo percentages widely reported by other news outlets? If not, then please see ].] (]) 22:38, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
:::::::: Exactly. That's one of the points I was trying to make .] (]) 23:34, 27 August 2016 (UTC)


:I do believe that at this point, with a sentence handed down, calling Trump "the first U.S. president to be convicted of a (felony) crime", if not outright "the first U.S. president to be a convicted felon" within the first three paragraphs is neither incorrect nor undue. We may need a new RfC to handle this. ] (]) 16:55, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::Are you saying that the WaPo is not read by non-Trump supporters? Sounds like ] without the research. ] (]) 00:15, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
::It needs to be in the first sentence of the article ] (]) 03:02, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::::::The WaPo fact-checking was based on reader requests, and that is not how reporting is usually done, nor how public opinion polling is usually done, and there is no indication how the statistics would differ if usual reporting or usual polling techniques were used instead of waiting for readers to make inquiries.] (]) 00:28, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
:::::::::::Sorry, what does this have to do with opinion polling? ] (]) 01:28, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
::::::::::::There was no polling to find out what statements the public wanted fact-checked. Instead, WaPo readers made inquiries and the fact-checking was in response to those inquiries.] (]) 01:32, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
{{OD|12}} {{U|Anythingyouwant}} Please decide what your argument is. First, you were concerned about presenting raw percentages. I suggested that we also include the number of facts checked and the number determined to be false. Now your argument is "those numbers do not do justice to the issue at hand." The issue at hand is an independent source checked statements from both candidate and found that most of Trump's were false. That's a simple fact. There is no reason, based on their reputation, to assume that they cooked the figures. As far as The Washington Post is concerned, I think it's great that an independent news organization checks facts on behalf of their readers. Isn't that how free press in a free democracy is supposed to work?- ]] 16:30, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
::I've tried to make very clear both here and at ] that I believe these sources are reliable regarding the truth or falsity of many campaign statements. Not all, but many. They would not be reliable for deciding, for example, whether it's true that Republican presidents are better than Democratic ones, but they don't usually fact check such things, so I'm happy to say that they're almost always reliable for checking truthfulness of a specific statement by a candidate. And they perform a valuable service in that regard. But what they are '''not reliable''' about is assigning a percentage of truthfulness to each candidate based on percentages of fact-checked statements that have checked out as truthful. All these fact checkers would have to do to lower such a percentage for a candidate would be to decline to fact-check statements that seem plausible. Even if the fact checkers use the exact same standards for picking statements to fact-check from all candidates, they are still open to manipulation if statements are selected based upon inquiries from unknown and unreliable members of the public.] (]) 23:27, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
::I should add that Trump is often not a model of clarity, and fact-checkers often give their opinion about his meaning, and then fact-check that presumed meaning. When Trump's meaning is not clear, I would not trust the fact-checkers because what they are fact-checking is their own opinion about his meaning. See Graves, Lucas. , ] (August 10, 2016). This is an audio interview of Graves, author of '''' (Columbia University Press 2016). Note particularly the portion of audio beginning at 50:30.] (]) 05:05, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
I could accept this abridged version. One quibble: I don't like using the "founders of ISIS" example - because he semi-sorta retracted it, and because most people knew he didn't mean it literally - unless Reliable Sources consider it one of the most notable. There are many others to choose from, such as the "I saw New Jersey Muslims cheering 9/11" story which he repeated many times and never retracted. Or "I opposed going into Iraq" or "I am self funding my campaign, I don't take donations". I would also like to add to the final sentence as follows: "According to PolitiFact, in 2015, of 77 statements checked, 76 percent were rated as Mostly False, False or Pants on Fire, so that PolitiFact gave its 2015 Lie of the Year award to "The campaign misstatements of Donald Trump". --] (]) 21:55, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
{{od}}I think is a better source if we have to cite a fact checker. It's got a larger number of statements checked than the WaPo source, and the proportional difference between Trump's total fact checked claims and (231 for Trump and 243 for Clinton) is smaller. Large sample sizes make for more accurate results, and smaller differences in sample sizes make the comparison better. Also, for anyone disputing that Trump is less honest, 70% of his checked statements were rated false in some way, compared to 27% for Clinton. 22% of Clinton's claims were rated entirely true, compared to 4% of Trumps. 18% of Trump's claims were rated "Pants on Fire" (which they define as ), compared to 2% of Clinton's.


== 2nd Term time ==
Regarding the "founders of ISIS" claim, I believe he later doubled-down on it and said he meant it literally, but I'm fine with replacing it. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em; class=texhtml">] ]</span> 04:17, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
:{{ping|MelanieN|label=Melanie}} Do you have a link to where he retracted it? Because from what I recall, I remember him doubling down too, on some right-wing talk show I think. ] (]) 04:25, 28 August 2016 (UTC) <small>cc: {{u|MjolnirPants}}</small>
:… Or I could just learn to use Google instead of asking others. Sure enough, he did double down as I remembered (after being essentially offered a way out by the talk show host), but he later claimed he was being as {{u|MelanieN|Melanie}} said. (Yet another lie – it's almost as though he wants us to be confused…) ] (]) 04:30, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
::I'm having trouble with the word "falsity". It's weak. It makes something serious sound minor. It's lawyer-ly. I'd rather insert "falsification". It speaks more to the act of making false statements. Ii can support if changed. ]<small>]</small> 06:07, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
:::{{U|Buster7}}, there may be a better word than ], but it's not ], which speaks to intent (i.e. lying). Most sources do not directly say that Trump has lied. - ]] 01:25, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
::::Mother Jones in Nov 24, 2015 said: "The man is a serial, pathological liar." That was 9 months and many lies ago and we still skirt around this deceitfulness issue. I'm not one to force things into the article, but using the diminutive "falsity" is an attempt to cover-up and hide what is going on. ]<small>]</small> 13:53, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
:::::I did some googling. I guess it is a more common word than I thought;
::::::*
::::::*
::::::*
:::::Nevermind! ]<small>]</small> 17:18, 30 August 2016 (UTC)


I believe that under the section that says assuming office where it says January 20th, 2025, should have an end date of January 20th, 2029, considering the fact that this is his second term and he will not be eligible to run in the 2028 election, if it cant say that under "assuming office" then it should say that the day he becomes President, thank you. ] (]) 02:04, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
=== Efforts to repair RfC material ===
:No, per ]... who's to say it doesn't end before that date? - ] (]) 02:15, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
{{reply to|MrX|MjolnirPants|Buster7| MelanieN}}
::. {{shrug}} &ndash;&nbsp;]&nbsp;(]) 02:17, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
Thank you for trying to address other editors' concerns by repairing the proposed material. But there is no consensus that PolitiFact is a reputable source for ideologically contentious material about Trump's false statements. And you must respect that lack of consensus.
:::Also, it will not be longer then january 20th 2025, since the 22nd amendment limits presidents to 2 terms, to change that, he needs two thirds of congress, which he wont get. ] (]) 02:33, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
:::Further more, the suggested content is verifiable ] (]) 02:35, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
::If wikipedia "does not predict the future" then there should not be "assuming office" at all, thank you for offering me a contradiction. ] (]) 02:30, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
:::The current treatment is standard for all U.S. presidents, most likely for all politicians. See Joe Biden on and on . See Donald Trump on and on . See Barack Obama on and on . And so on.{{pb}}The end date is added after leaving office; see Barack Obama on and on .{{pb}}This article is not going to deviate from that standard. If you want to propose a change to the standard, this is not the place&mdash;discussion on this page governs only this article.{{pb}}A recent proposal to change "Assuming office" to "Scheduled to assume office" for all officeholders-elect failed at Village Pump, see ]. &#8213;]&nbsp;] 05:25, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
::::Off-topic question: why do the infoboxes for Trump in 2017 and Obama in 2009 show their correct positions (e.g. incumbent) but not the correct age at the time (71 and 48, respectively)? Looks as though the template always uses DOB + difference to current year (Trump 78, Obama 63). ]] 15:29, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::The {{tlx|birth date and age}} template calculates the age based on the current date when the article is rendered, so it wouldn't work when displaying years-old revisions. Similarly, if an image is deleted after the time of the revision, it's redlinked when displaying the revision. Similarly, if a template is modified in a way that changes its output, the change is reflected for all old revisions of articles that use the template. Anything not physically in an article's wikitext is unreliable for old revisions. &#8213;]&nbsp;] 20:14, 13 January 2025 (UTC)


== Proposal for change to second sentence <span class="anchor" id="Proposal to Revise the Introduction Paragraph for Clarity and Consistency and to Align with the Introduction of J.D. Vance's Misplaced Pages Page"></span> <span class="anchor" id="Proposal for change to first paragraph"></span> ==
] policy<br />
{{small|Original heading: "Proposal to Revise the Introduction Paragraph for Clarity and Consistency and to Align with the Introduction of J.D. Vance's Misplaced Pages Page" &#8213;]&nbsp;] 20:42, 15 January 2025 (UTC)}}
Discussions sometimes result in no consensus to take an action. For ideologically ] matters related to ], a lack of consensus results in its removal.


I believe to make the introduction paragraph align with the narrative, it should be changed from:
] policy<br />
'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. Having won the 2024 presidential election as the nominee of the Republican Party, he is the president-elect and will be inaugurated as the 47th president on January 20, 2025.'
Consensus can't be assumed simply because editors stop responding to discussions in which they have already participated. --] (]) 06:12, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
to:
'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. Having won the 2024 presidential election as the nominee of the Republican Party, Trump is the current president-elect of the United States and will be inaugurated as the 47th president on January 20, 2025.'
This change aligns the introduction with the style used in J.D. Vance's Misplaced Pages page. It also eliminates the repetition of the pronoun 'he' and provides a clearer reference to Trump. As you can see, this aligns with J.D. Vance's Misplaced Pages page introduction:
'James David Vance (born James Donald Bowman; August 2, 1984) is an American politician, attorney, author, and Marine Corps veteran who is the vice president-elect of the United States with President-elect Donald Trump.' ] (]) 17:40, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
:Speaking of "clarity". Current text:{{tq2|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. Having won the 2024 presidential election as the nominee of the Republican Party, he is the president-elect and will be inaugurated as the 47th president on January 20, 2025.}} Proposed text: {{tq2|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. Having won the 2024 presidential election as the nominee of the Republican Party, Trump is the current president-elect of the United States and will be inaugurated as the 47th president on January 20, 2025.}} &#8213;]&nbsp;] 20:45, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
:Oppose. You are adding three things:
:*"Trump" is unnecessary surname repetition.
:*"current" is redundant with "is".
:*"of the United States" is redundant with "American" and "of the United States" in first sentence.
:No improvement. And I fail to see the claimed consistency with ]. In any case, Trump is not Vance, who has not had a previous term. That's why we have ]. &#8213;]&nbsp;] 21:12, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
::Why discuss this five days before the inauguration? The first sentence will be changed to {{tq|serves as the 47th}}, and we'll have to have a whole 'nother discussion about the second one. ]] 21:28, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
:::That too. But it was either ignore, respond, or close. It was unlikely it would be universally ignored, and we don't close merely because something is pointless. In my view. So I responded. &#8213;]&nbsp;] 21:38, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
::::{{emoji|1F44D}} ]] 21:43, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
:@]
:'''Oppose''' Nope. Too soon. ].] (]) 02:02, 16 January 2025 (UTC)


== New Trump-produced portrait <span class="anchor" id="Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 15 January 2025 (2)"></span> ==
:Please clarify what you consider the consensus to be. The RfC made no mention of using PolitiFact as the only reputable source. The RfC was about Trumps statements being false. Period. The RfC wandered around the subject as RfC's are want to do. And, the supports and opposes can get confusing with all the suggested changes and the like. Where do you evaluate the consensus to be? Anyway, I find the list you pinged interesting. ]<small>]</small> 06:32, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
{{edit extended-protected|Donald Trump|answered=y}}
Change Trumps official portrait to the 2025 portrait ] (]) 23:59, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
:] '''Not done for now''': please establish a ] for this alteration ''']''' using the {{Tlx|Edit extended-protected}} template.<!-- Template:EEp --> &mdash; In any case, what 2025 portrait? There should be a new one available after he takes office. It might be a month or two, so be patient. Don't worry, we have this covered. &#8213;]&nbsp;] 00:10, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
::https://www.timesnownews.com/world/us/us-news/donald-trumps-inauguration-portrait-sparks-mugshot-comparisons-on-social-media-bad-article-117280859 - this is what I believe they where talking about, Trump today had a unofficial portrait taken of him for his inauguration. I think that is what they where talking about. I personally think we should wait until after he takes official, but it is a recent photo and honesty would be more appropriate to use then the current portrait taken in 2017, which is over 8 years old. ] (]) 03:13, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
:::{{Agree}} I think so too! https://commons.wikimedia.org/File:TrumpPortrait.jpg ] (]) 03:52, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
::::Should be noted on the page that this is his ''inauguration'' portrait, not his official portrait (at least not yet). Biden and Harris (and Trump and Pence) had different inauguration portraits than official presidential portraits. ] (]) 04:02, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::Were they included in Misplaced Pages articles without being deleted by the WP copyright police? &#8213;]&nbsp;] 04:14, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::Bidens page used his official portriat as Vice President until April 9th, 2021 when his official portrait was released by the White House. Just double checked way back machine ] (]) 06:59, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
:::Thanks for the explanation. It baffles me how often people expect us to read minds, remotely over the internet. I'm converting this to a discussion thread: Edit request is for things that don't require discussion, such as typo corrections, grammar corrections, reverts of clear violations of consensus, and so on. &#8213;]&nbsp;] 03:55, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
:Oppose. All other factors aside, the reason we can use the White House-produced portraits is because they are produced by the U.S. Government and not subject to copyright issues. That is not the case for this photo. Looks like a non-starter to me. &#8213;]&nbsp;] 04:01, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
::That's my concern too. I was trying to figure out any more information, but I can find no evidence whatsoever that this was created by an employee of the government acting in their official duties. does not suggest that he is working for the government - but for Trump directly. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez &#124; ] &#124; ] 04:05, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
:::Special Case for Presidential Transition Teams. The presidential transition team is federally funded and operates in coordination with government agencies. This would fall under PD. ] (]) 04:19, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
::::We'll see. Anyway, we need a new consensus to supersede consensus 1, as stated elsewhere. Everyone needs to leave the infobox image alone pending that new consensus. &#8213;]&nbsp;] 04:23, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
::And since Consensus 1 references potential copyright issues on the inauguration image from 2017, I've now reverted this change in image until a new consensus forms and any copyright issues are resolved. I've also asked at ] for more opinions regarding the copyright status. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez &#124; ] &#124; ] 04:17, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
:::Ah, thanks. It didn't occur to me that someone would be so WP:BOLD, so I wasn't even watching the article. &#8213;]&nbsp;] 04:20, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
::::Consensus 1 references {{tq|temporarily suspended by #19 following copyright issues on the inauguration portrait}} - any idea where these issues were brought up, especially any related deletion requests on Commons that may be able to be referenced? -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez &#124; ] &#124; ] 04:24, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::The author... Daniel Torok...said the following in my inquiry to him: "Should be public domain on the 20th but with the exception that it can’t be used for commercial purposes without WH approval" From the source himself. Looks like the author intends PD for the photo. No issue to publish. ] (]) 04:34, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::That is not public domain then. Images uploaded to Commons must be '''free to use for any use, with only attribution allowed to be required'''. See ]. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez &#124; ] &#124; ] 04:37, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::::All presidential portraits have the same terms as the 2025 author mentioned. ] (]) 04:39, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::::No they do not. Official portraits created on behalf of the US Government by an employee of the US Government are explicitly public domain. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez &#124; ] &#124; ] 04:40, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::In this case, the official portrait will be this image. They will not retake it. The author is going to PD the image for the National Archives. ] (]) 04:43, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::::::Of course they'll retake it. The White House would never let that be the "official" portrait. &#8213;]&nbsp;] 04:48, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::::::Misplaced Pages does not operate on "the author is going to PD " at some undetermined point in the future. Until it is public domain, it is not public domain. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez &#124; ] &#124; ] 04:46, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::::Nope! The author took it on behalf of the federally funded transition team. The author said he is not enforcing the copyright and that it will be full PD on Jan 20. Additionally, the "can’t be used for commercial purposes without White House approval" portion is not enforceable because the WH cant take action on behalf of the author nor should any NC restriction apply to such from the WH. ] (]) 04:50, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::::::::The image cannot be used until it is explicitly released under a free license by the author or when it is entered into the public domain on the 20th, as has already been explained. The author simply stating that he does not intend to enforce the copyright is not sufficient. See ] ] (]) 05:46, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::::::Misplaced Pages copyright policy is an arcane science not meant for mere mortals. After all, a local consensus to include would not mean squat to the copyright police. Wait for Commons feedback. If they sign off on it, we can discuss other factors. I would still oppose, but it would be premature to say why. &#8213;]&nbsp;] 05:49, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
:Made an account just to change this. Yes! ] (]) 04:25, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
::@], it would just get deleted. Wait until the official portrait is released by the White House itself. ]<sup>]</sup> 19:12, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
:* '''Wait''' - Until ] has the second term portrait. https://www.loc.gov/free-to-use/presidential-portraits/
:] (]) 04:31, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
::'''Wait/Oppose''' based on above arguments (particularly in regards to copyright). ]<sup>]</sup> 19:11, 16 January 2025 (UTC)


'''Comment'''. It's a photo the Trump transition team published on their X account, i.e., it's not in the public domain. is the deletion request on Wikimedia Commons. We'll replace the 2017 official portrait if and when the new administration releases an updated official portrait. <small>What was TeamTrump, whoever they are, thinking when they published the pictures, Trump with a droopy eyelid and Vance looking like a tired, bearded hamster.</small> ]] 15:08, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
:: {{reply to|Buster7}} ] followed the instructions at the ]. As any interested editor can see, he demonstrated good faith by making an effort to thoroughly discuss the ]:
:::: "You're citing unreliable opinion sources about other sources by PolitiFact to say that PolitiFact isn't reliable in general, and saying that the cited PolitiFact and FactCheck.org sources are opinion sources... We're not getting anywhere here. I'm going to start an RFC."
:: He was clearly replying to this comment in particular:
:::: ''Time'' and the ''Wall Street Journal'' have characterized PolitiFact as "''spreading false impressions''"<ref name="poniewozik">{{cite news |last=Poniewozik |first=James |date=August 8, 2012 |title=PolitiFact, Harry Reid's Pants, and the Limits of Fact-Checking |url=http://entertainment.time.com/2012/08/08/politifact-harry-reids-pants-and-the-limits-of-fact-checking/ |magazine=Time |quote=If their rating system is sending false messages ... they’re doing exactly what they were founded to stop: using language to spread false impressions. }}</ref> and as "''fundamentally dishonest''" for calling their opinion pieces 'fact checks'<ref name="taranto">{{cite news |last=Taranto |first=James |date=December 13, 2013 |title=PolitiFact's Forked Tongue: The Site Once Vouched for Its 'Lie of the Year' |url=http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052702303932504579256300070093302 |newspaper=Wall Street Journal |quote=PolitiFact.com ... is out with its ‘Lie of the Year’... In the past ... PolitiFact vouched for Lie... Exposing it conclusively as such would have required a degree of expertise few journalists have... Its past evaluations of the statement were ... merely opinion pieces... Selling opinion pieces by labeling them ‘fact checks’ is fundamentally dishonest. }}</ref>.
{{reflist}}
:: And to this comment in general:
:::: Don't use either source to support contentious material anywhere in a BLP.
:: He then spelled out the same dispute at the ] noticeboard:
:::: You are invited to participate in ]. Prior discussion involved the reliability of the proposed sources.
:: Finally, he proposed these same two sources at the Talk page RfC section.
:: There now appears to be a lack of consensus that the sources have the proposed reliability. --] (]) 09:57, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
:::{{ping|Dervorguilla}} Since you are questioning the reliability of PolitiFact, I think we need to get broader input at ]. - ]] 12:18, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
{{ping|Dervorguilla}} I am an interested editor and I don't see the developement of the RfC the same way you do. True, DR F said "You're citing unreliable opinion sources about other sources by PolitiFact to say that PolitiFact isn't reliable in general, and saying that the cited PolitiFact and FactCheck.org sources are opinion sources... We're not getting anywhere here. I'm going to start an RFC." But when he initiated the RfC he asked
Should the lead section, which currently says:
"His statements in interviews, on Twitter, and at campaign rallies have often been controversial, ..."
be changed to read (changes in bold):
"Many of his statements in interviews, on Twitter, and at campaign rallies have been controversial or false, ..."
and provided references from FactCheck and Politfact. To me the RfC was about the addition of "many" and "false" and this, and only this question, is what I (and I believe other editors) gave comment and support or oppose to. To me (and I believe others) the RfC was not about the References. The discussion drifted that way and the comments and ivotes became muddled to the point of losing clarity as to what was being judged and responded to; "many and false" or FactCheck and PolitiFact. You say above...''He was clearly replying to this comment in particular...''. I may have been clear to you, but that is in '''no way''' what was clear to me. To me the RfC drifted off target and any concensus it reached is tainted by lack of clarity as to what editors were Ivoting on. I see support for "many and false". You see responses to the side issue of References. To me, while the RfC discussion was lively and informative, it is not a reliable answer to the question; ''should we change to, "Many of his statements in interviews, on Twitter, and at campaign rallies have been controversial or false"....?'' ]<small>]</small> 13:32, 28 August 2016 (UTC)Added clarification: I am one of those that accept that PolitiFact is a reliable source. ]<small>]</small> 20:56, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
::A television critic complaining that a fact checking site said something he disagreed with. Not even that they rated the claim in question false, but that they rated it ''as'' false as they did. That's your evidence that they're unreliable? I'm gonna go write a blog piece saying that they ''are'' reliable, because my blog and your TV critic opinion piece are at the same level of reliability themselves. Then we'll be in a quagmire. Furthermore, your WSJ piece is an opinion piece, an editorial. It's not an investigation. It's another conservative railing against the fact checking sites that so often make conservative politicians look bad. Finally, it's going to take a lot of evidence to prove them wrong. The various fact checking sites in operations now (factcheck.org, politifact.org, snopes.com and various fact checking divisions of major and minor news outlets across the country) exist for the ''express purpose of being as accurate as humanly possible.'' Two opinion pieces is not enough to undermine that. Hell, a hundred opinion pieces is not enough to undermine that. If you go out and find just one work of investigative journalism published in a reliable source that uncovers a systemic bias or regular dishonesty by a fact checking site, then we can conclude that that particular fact checking site is unreliable. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em; class=texhtml">] ]</span> 15:53, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
::: The second ''Journal'' piece is speaking for the newspaper's editorial board. The editorial board "directs or supervises" the "writing, compilation, and revision of content" for the ''Journal''. The ''Journal'' is the '''''' in America. And the ''Journal'' says "PolitiFact ... has marketed itself to ... news organizations on the pretense of impartiality." ("".) --] (]) 18:00, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
], I have sometimes seen you claim that something "does not have consensus" when you are the sole dissenter. Please remember that ] does not have to be unanimous. In this case, most people here seemed to accept that PolitiFact is a reliable source. It has won a Pulitzer Prize), and it is produced by the Miami Herald which is a reliable source. I believe we did have consensus on that point, even if you argued against it. --] (]) 19:46, 28 August 2016 (UTC)


:I challenge you to take an actually good photo of Trump. --] (]) (]) 15:55, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
::: {{reply to|MelanieN}} Please consider these points from Lunsford, "Fallacies of Argument":
::Our current one is a good photo, if one is able to perceive it objectively. Good composition, lighting, and color balance, there's a somewhat-genuine-looking smile, and there's no ]. &#8213;]&nbsp;] 01:32, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
:::: "''Ad Hominem Arguments''. The theory is simple: Destroy the credibility of your opponents, and either you destroy their ability to present reasonable appeals or you distract from the successful arguments they may be offering."<br />
:{{tq|Trump with a droopy eyelid}}, the "fuck with me and I'll bury you" scowl, and almost comical dramatic film-noir lighting. &#8213;]&nbsp;] 01:45, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
:::: "''Begging the Question''. Begging the question — that is, assuming as true the very claim that’s disputed — is a form of circular argument."
::]'s character ] from the film '']'' comes to mind when you describe the portrait like so. <span style="text-shadow: #E9967A 0em 0em 1em;">]]</span> 01:51, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
::: There doesn't appear to be anywhere near a majority of editors supporting the proposal.
:::Maybe the scowl is just me. At minimum, he's trying to look like ] or something. He's trying to project an image or persona, which is not encyclopedic. It belongs on his personal website, not Misplaced Pages. (Again, this is cart-before-horse pending resolution of the copyright question. Sorry.) &#8213;]&nbsp;] 02:24, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
::: And no one is arguing that PolitiFact and the ''Tampa Bay Times'' didn't win two Pullet Surprises (one apiece). Rather I'm arguing that <u>a columnist at</u> ''Time'' and <u>members of</u> the ''Wall Street Journal'' <u>editorial board</u> have characterized PolitiFact as "spreading false impressions", <s>and</s> as "fundamentally dishonest" for calling its opinion pieces Fact Checks, <u>and as having "marketed itself ... on the pretense of impartiality"</u>. --] (]) 21:31, 28 August 2016 (UTC) 10:11, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
:TeamDrumpf , so that's what they're thinking. Incoming prez's resembles image at ]. I'm assuming you meant {{tq|Vance looking like a tired, bearded hamster}} as a complement to his work ethic, and as hamsters are cute. Def no BLPVIO there. <span style="text-shadow: #E9967A 0em 0em 1em;">]]</span> 22:05, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
:::: A fact check on this statement would reveal that it is false. ''Time'' and the ''Wall Street Journal'' did not say those things in their own voice: at those publications said them. Please stop repeating this false characterization of the criticisms. As for whether PolitiFact is a reliable source or not, we will soon have a opinion from the RS noticeboard on that subject. --] (]) 21:52, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
===Duplicate edit requests/discussions===
::::: {{reply to|MelanieN}} Thank you for questioning my statement. I've corrected the attributions and added new material that would have had the correct attribution if I'd used it instead. --] (]) 10:23, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
I'd like to start a discussion here on duplicate discussions. At this point, they are going to keep coming in, likely multiple per day. Does anyone disagree that, after leaving them up for a reasonable amount of time for the user to see a response (I suggest 12 hours), they can simply be removed from the talk page so they don't get archived and clog up the archive?


Alternatively, if people prefer letting them get archived still, would anyone disagree with archiving them 12 hours after answered so the talk page does not get cluttered up? I am open to shorter timescales as well in either case, but would recommend a couple hours at least. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez &#124; ] &#124; ] 02:26, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
I do not think RSN is the appropriate route when a single editor (out of what, 20?) claims that PolitiFact--PolitFact!--isn't reliable. The appropriate avenue when there is a good faith dispute as to whether there's consensus is ]. --] (]) 05:02, 29 August 2016 (UTC)


:@] make an request to ] to semi-protect the talk page. It's mostly IP editors doing this. <span style="text-shadow: #E9967A 0em 0em 1em;">]]</span> 02:28, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
: {{reply to|DrFleischman}} I count ''four'' editors, not "''a single''" editor.
::Talk pages are generally not protected if it can be avoided... but if an administrator agrees that is viable here (for at least the next week or so), then I would support waiting on this to see if they die down (and letting auto archiver take over the ones that are already here for now) with that. Going to make that request now, thanks. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez &#124; ] &#124; ] 02:31, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
: 1. ''Oppose''... It is also my impression that it would be false to say that... ]
:::And requested: {{slink|WP:Requests for page protection/Increase|Talk:Donald Trump}}. Comments there are welcome, and if another solution is thought up here, please feel free to go contest that request. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez &#124; ] &#124; ] 02:39, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
: 2. ''Oppose'' per ]. ]
:They're gone after 24 hours per consensus 13. It's not like we have to live with them for the standard seven days. And it's a temporary problem that doesn't come up very often. I don't think they "clog up" the archive, as nobody browses archive pages top to bottom, and they don't create a lot of false positives in archive searches (in my experience). &#8213;]&nbsp;] 02:57, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
: 3. ''Strong oppose'' per ] policy, which cautions against basing large passages on opinion pieces... --]
::Ah, I missed consensus 13's allowance for manually archiving after 24 hours. I agree that the "clogging" of the archives is the ''least'' significant issue. The clogging of ''this page'' however.. hopefully if an admin agrees temporary semi protection is warranted that will suffice, but if not (or if it's still a problem) I still think 24 hours may be too long if they continue increasing. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez &#124; ] &#124; ] 03:02, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
: 4. ''Oppose''. It's a simple ''not'' factual statement that is ''not'' well-proven and ''not'' easily verifiable... --]
:::I wouldn't oppose semi, but some competent IPs might. In my view, avoidance of that is just one of the benefits of registration. &#8213;]&nbsp;] 03:07, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
: Also, thirteen editors support adding the material and twelve editors oppose. Does ''any'' of the editors have a reason to believe there's a consensus? --] (]) 09:56, 29 August 2016 (UTC)


== Add the new inagural portrait as you did with JD. ==
::::: {{reply to|MelanieN}} No, Taranto's an editorial-board member, not an "''opinion writer''". "James Taranto is … a member of The Wall Street Journal's editorial board." <small>(.)</small>
{{atop
::::: In this particular piece, he's using the editorial ''we'', and "''we'' is sometimes used by an individual who is speaking for a group {the magazine’s editor wrote, ‘In our last issue, we covered...’}" <small>('']''.)</small> He's most likely speaking as a editorial-board member.
| result = See conversation above. — ''']''' <sup>''(])''</sup> 17:41, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
::::: Ten days later the board itself clearly spoke out.
}}
::::::: '''PolitiFiction: True 'lies' about ObamaCare'''
::::::: &nbsp; &nbsp; So the watchdog news outfit called PolitiFact has decided that its “lie of the year” is the phrase “a government takeover of health care”...
::::::: &nbsp; &nbsp; PolitiFact wants to define for everyone else what qualifies as a “fact”...
::::::: &nbsp; &nbsp; In fact ... at the heart of ObamaCare is a vast expansion of federal control... Sounds like a government takeover to us.
::::::: &nbsp; &nbsp; ... In reality PolitiFact’s curators also have political views and values that influence their judgments about facts...
::::: <small>''Wall Street Journal''. "". December 23, 2010.</small>
::::: The ''Journal'' itself is saying that the alleged "lies" were true. It offers evidence and reasons. And it supports Taranto's claim that PolitiFact does "function as a state propaganda agency".
::::: The ''Journal'' can reasonably be said to have spoken out against PolitiFact not once but twice:
::::: (a) for portentously marketing its qualitative judgments to other news organizations on the pretense of impartiality; and
::::: (b) for equivocation; for "shilling"; for ''functioning'' as a propaganda agency; and for selling opinion pieces by labeling them "Fact Checks". --] (]) 06:07, 29 August 2016 (UTC)


Add new inagural portrait that was just released ] (]) 17:40, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::: An editorial-board member ''is'' an "opinion writer," and the WSJ editorial page is well-known as biased. If they used the word "shilling," that's an example. Further, the ACA is not a gov't takeover of health care, or anything like it. ] (]) 11:00, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
{{abot}}


== Can someone change the Official Potrait with the New One? ==
::::::An ] is, by definition, an opinion piece. The same with statements from the editorial board which take a stand on some issue outside the operations of the news outlet in question. The WSJ's stance on anything related to politics is also well known. They are highly conservative, and their opinion on politics is not well regarded outside of their readership. Also, as I've pointed out already, the Times piece is a clearly labeled opinion piece ''written by a television critic.'' These two complaints do not constitute evidence of the untrustworthiness of fact checking outlets. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em; class=texhtml">] ]</span> 13:35, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
{{atop
::::::: {{reply to|Objective3000}} "Editorial-board member" means editor, not "''opinion writer''". "ed·i·to·ri·al 1. being an editor or consisting of editors <an ''editorial'' staff>." (''Unabridged''.) --] (]) 06:26, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
| result = See above. — ''']''' <sup>''(])''</sup> 18:51, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::::Yes, I know what the word "editorial" means. However, the "editorial board" at a newspaper writes the editorials, which are opinion pieces. ] (]) 11:54, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
}}
::::::::: {{reply to|Objective3000}} "''' '''. an official group of persons who direct or supervise activity," not "''write editorials''". --] (]) 17:20, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
:::::::::: That is not the what a newspaper editorial-board is. ] (]) 18:08, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
::::::::::: {{reply to|Objective3000}} The ''']''' oversees the '']'s'' editorial page and represents the newspaper publicly. --] (]) 05:22, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
::::::::::::They're opinions, not news. These days, Rupert Murdoch's opinions. ] (]) 12:28, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
::::::: {{reply to|MjolnirPants}} See Pew Research Center, :
:::::::::
::::::::: <u>News Sources: Ratio of trust to distrust (among total web respondents)</u>
::::::::: BBC 5.1; PBS 3.2; '''WSJ 3.1''' (higher among liberals, lower among conservatives); ABC 2.9; CBS 2.7; NBC 2.7; CNN 2.7; USAToday 2.5; NYTimes 2.0; WaPo 1.9; NewYorker 1.4; Fox 1.2; HuffPo 1.1; Limbaugh 0.3.
::::::: More at '''' (2014). --] (]) 07:09, 30 August 2016 (UTC) 07:12, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
::::::::That study specifically refers to news. We are talking about editorials, which are opinion pieces. Many people read the WSJ for news but disdain its editorial page. ] (]) 12:04, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
::::::::: {{reply to|Objective3000}} See Pew Research Center, "": "The Economist, BBC, NPR, PBS and The '''Wall Street Journal''' are among those with the '''highest ratio''' of '''trust to distrust''' ."
::::::::: And see Pew, '''' (2014): "The average consumer of the ''Wall Street Journal'' sits very close to the typical survey respondent, but the range of ''Journal'' readers is '''far broader''' because it appeals to people on both the left and the right."
::::::::: Some of its invited editorials are conservative; some are liberal. But the Journal's managerial board itself would appear to be less "liberal or conservative" than the average board -- and thus more trustworthy.
::::::::: The Journal's managerial board doesn't stand behind the any of its invited editorials. But it most likely does stand behind newspaper's that PolitFact has been portentously "marketing itself to other news organizations" on the "pretense of impartiality". --] (]) 08:13, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
::::::::::The WSJ editorial-board has been known as extremely conservative for decades. I am a WSJ subscriber for the business news. I wouldn't touch the editorial page for their reactionary opinions. And, once again, they are opinion writers. The editorial page is not news. ] (]) 12:24, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
::::::::{{ping|Dervorguilla}} I want to direct your attention to ] on whether fact checkers are reliable sources for fact checking and leave it at that. You are arguing against an '''overwhelming''' consensus. You have refused to address the point brought up by several other editors that your 'evidence' of fact checking unreliability consists of some of the least compelling evidence one could find. The question of the fact checker's reliability has been answered. Anything beyond this is just your refusal to ]. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em; class=texhtml">] ]</span> 13:00, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
::::::::: The appears to show a '''lack of consensus''' on question 2. --] (]) 18:16, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
:* '''Still Oppose''' - so the RFC was tangled, but making up a section like this just seems going ] and no better. Look, just put the notable topics (fence, etcetera) and the positions -- don't try to invent a theme or make broad statements that there isn't strong ] for. ] (]) 00:56, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
::*What specifically in the proposed text do you believe violates ]? Trump's false statements as a general subject has been discussed in numerous sources as evidenced in the citations above. - ]] 01:11, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
:::I'm sorry {{u|Markbassett}}, I don't understand how the proposed content isn't verifiable. We have a variety of highly reliable sources that support it, and if you don't like them we can probably find more. --] (]) 17:43, 31 August 2016 (UTC)


new one is has now been released so can somebody change it? ] (]) 18:00, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
::::--] -- the start of this thread that said there was source concerns at the level of a single line, and my remark above is adding note that this is made worse by the SYNTH and BLP concerns involved as well as it's now a whole section. This section appears to be a not fitting to bio article as it's not an event or period. It also sems to be ] as collecting up materials and making a topic out of them, and '''that''' brings on additional levels of ]. Skip over that it seems part of trying to advance a lead line and focus on the SYNTH issue here for the moment. To show it isn't SYNTH, wide sources on both sides should be available on it as a topic in and of itself to best comply with "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources." and the ] emphasis on BALANCE.
:See above. ] (]) 18:01, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
:::: Ultimately I think '''this is the wrong article''' to be discussing the campaign at length as there are specific articles covering that, '''and this is a BLP article which has special guidelines.''' From ], sections emphasize to try for BALANCE, the ] and ] that say any contentious material should be removed and "the three-revert rule does not apply to such removals", and ] that calls for multiple third party sources rather than the usual RSS. On a side note of style and OFFTOPIC, this is a bio page -- so should be 'briefly' giving notable periods and actual events, and the pointing to the other articles for more. Cheers ] (]) 01:13, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
{{abot}}


== Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 16 January 2025 ==
==Discussion at ]==
{{atop
]You are invited to join the discussion at ]. - ]] 16:03, 28 August 2016 (UTC){{Z48}}<!-- ] -->
| result = See above. ''']''' <sup>(] - ])</sup> 19:40, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
:I'm psychic. This is exactly what I predicted. lol <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em; class=texhtml">] ]</span> 20:01, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
}}


{{edit extended-protected|Donald Trump|answered=yes}}
: This RSN is now publicized at ].
Change his image to the new 2025 one ] (]) 19:34, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
: I rephrased the questions per core policies and for accuracy and readability.
{{abot}}
::: "1. Is the ] subsidiary of the '']'' a reliable third-party source for material about the truthfulness of statements made by a candidate?"
::: "2. Is it a reliable third-party source for material about the ratio of ''false'' statements made by a candidate and checked by PolitiFact to ''true'' statements made by the candidate and checked by PolitiFact?"
: Here's an of the PolitiFact.com article; it's somewhat more concise than the current version. --] (]) 08:26, 1 September 2016 (UTC)


== Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 16 January 2025 (2) ==
== Race discrimination suits ==
{{atop

| result = See above. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez &#124; ] &#124; ] 22:29, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
Why, in the legal issues section, is there no mention of the various suits for racial discrimination in the 60s and 70s? Most notable are the ones filed by the Federal Government. ] (]) 19:57, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
}}
:Good question. The article would benefit if you added some information. ]<small>]</small> 20:52, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
{{edit extended-protected|Donald Trump|answered=yes}}
: It looks like the issue was thoroughly discussed:
The official portrait needs to be updated to reflect the new term ] (]) 22:28, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
:::
:{{notdone}} see above. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez &#124; ] &#124; ] 22:29, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
:::
{{abot}}
:::
:::
: A well-informed compromise text resulted:
::: He and his father ] when the ] alleged that they were discriminating against blacks who wanted to rent apartments, rather than merely screening out people based on low income as the Trumps stated. Ultimately the Trumps' company and federal officials signed an agreement under which the Trumps made no admission of wrongdoing, and under which qualified minority applicants would be presented by the Urban League.<ref name="LookingBack">{{cite news |last=Dunlap |first=David |date=July 30, 2015 |title=1973: Meet Donald Trump |url=http://www.nytimes.com/times-insider/2015/07/30/1973-meet-donald-trump/ |dead-url=no |newspaper=] |archive-url=http://web.archive.org/web/20150731123300/http://www.nytimes.com/times-insider/2015/07/30/1973-meet-donald-trump/ |archive-date=July 3, 2015 }}</ref><ref name="kranish">{{cite news |last1=Kranish |first1=Michael |last2=O'Harrow |first2=Robert |date=January 23, 2016 |title=Inside the government's racial bias case against Donald Trump's company, and how he fought it |url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/inside-the-governments-racial-bias-case-against-donald-trumps-company-and-how-he-fought-it/2016/01/23/fb90163e-bfbe-11e5-bcda-62a36b394160_story.html |newspaper=] |quote=Civil rights groups in the city viewed the Trump company as just one example of a nationwide problem of housing discrimination. But targeting the Trumps provided a chance to have an impact, said Eleanor Holmes Norton, who was then chairwoman of the city's human rights commission. 'They were big names.'}}</ref>
{{reflist}}
: And most of the editors felt their legitimate concerns had been addressed, per ]. --] (]) 03:42, 30 August 2016 (UTC)


== "]" listed at ] ==
<!-- COMMENT ABOVE THIS LINE-->{{reflist}}
]
The redirect <span class="plainlinks"></span> has been listed at ] to determine whether its use and function meets the ]. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at '''{{slink|Misplaced Pages:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 January 16#America's Hitler}}''' until a consensus is reached. <!-- Template:RFDNote --> <span style="text-shadow: #E9967A 0em 0em 1em;">]]</span> 22:34, 16 January 2025 (UTC)


== Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 17 January 2025 ==
==Expansion of 2016 campaign section==
{{atop}}
The following was inserted recently, reverted, and re-inserted:
{{edit extended-protected|Donald Trump|answered=yes}}
{{cquote|Trump's platform has frequently changed throughout his campaign trail. Trump's disdain for what he considers to be political correctness has been a staple theme of his campaign. Mainstream commentators and some prominent Republicans have viewed him as appealing to racism. Trump's most polarizing and widely reported statements have been about issues of immigration and border security, especially his proposed deportation of all illegal immigrants, the proposed construction of a substantial wall on the Mexico–United States border at Mexican expense, and his characterizations of many illegal immigrants traveling over the Mexican border into the U.S. as "criminals, drug dealers, rapists, etc.".}}
https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/hard-trump-vance-release-official-portraits/story?id=117760860
This BLP had a tag on it earlier this month for being too long, so it was substantially shortened. If it is substantially lengthened again, I think the added material ought to be clearly useful and clearly written, which this quoted material is not. And, as stated atop this talk page, "All editors must obtain firm consensus on the talk page of this article before reinstating any edits that have been challenged (via reversion)." So, it's puzzling to me why this was jammed back into this article without any attempt to gain consensus. Anyway, the sentence "Trump's platform has frequently changed throughout his campaign trail" is a weirdly-written sentence, as "his campaign" does not need the added word "trail". The content of this sentence is also completely redundant to the intro of the political positions section ("He has described his political positions in various and often contradictory ways over time. Trump himself says 'Ihave evolved on many issues. There are some issues that are very much the same, I've been constant on many issues. But I have evolved on certain issues.' PolitiFact wrote that it is difficult to determine Trump's stance on issues, given his frequent changes in position and 'his penchant for using confusing, vague and even contradictory language'"). The sentence "Trump's disdain for what he considers to be political correctness has been a staple theme of his campaign." is likewise very redundant to material already in the BLP (e.g. "His campaign emphasizes American patriotism, with a disdain for what he refers to as political correctness. "). I could go on and on, but the bottom line is that there is no consensus for this new material in the BLP, so I will revert.] (]) 01:12, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
Edit photo to reflect new, official portrait. Proof of new portraits in link above. I can't upload the portrait myself. ] (]) 00:01, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
:When CFredkin removed that paragraph - with the edit summary ''"Rm recently added content - much of the content is already mentioned in the body of the article and the reference to "racism" is undue for this BLP. Per discretionary sanctions, pls seek firm consensus before restoring."'' - he did more than revert the recent changes. He also removed a pre-existing paragraph which summarized Trump's major positions. I was about to restore that pre-existing paragraph, but then I saw that most of the information is repeated in more detail in the "Political positions" section. So I agree it is redundant to have it in the "2016 campaign" section and I support its removal. --] (]) 20:37, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
:{{declined}} - as per original request above. ] (]) 00:05, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
{{abot}}


== Update his portrait ==
==RFC: Should the lead say "have been controversial or hyperbolic"?==
{{atop|reason=See above -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez &#124; ] &#124; ] 00:06, 17 January 2025 (UTC)}}
{{rfc|bio|pol}}
He got a new one 🙏🙏 ] (]) 00:04, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
Should the lead say "have been controversial or hyperbolic" instead of "have been controversial"?] (]) 16:44, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
:{{notdone}} Please review the talk page and contribute to ongoing discussions before making new threads. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez &#124; ] &#124; ] 00:06, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
{{Abot}}


== Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 17 January 2025 (2) ==
===Survey and discussion===
{{atop|See above. -- ] <sup>]</sup> 01:06, 17 January 2025 (UTC)}}
*'''Yes'''. This RFC proposal would change the lead as follows (emphasis added):
{{cquote|Many of his statements in interviews, on ], and at campaign rallies ] '''''or ]''''', and some of the rallies have been accompanied by ] from both sides of the political spectrum.}}
{{collapse top|What the body of this article says about this subject, as of August 31, 2016}}
{{cquote|Many of the statements Trump has made during his presidential campaign have been controversial or false.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/03/trump-fact-check-errors-exaggerations-falsehoods-213730|title=Trump’s Week of Errors, Exaggerations and Flat-out Falsehoods|publisher=]|date=March 13, 2016|first1=Daniel|last1=Lippman|first2=Darren|last2=Samuelsohn|first3=Isaac|last3=Arnsdorf}}</ref> Fact checking organizations such as ] and ] have singled him out as having made record numbers of false statements during his campaign compared to other candidates, based on the statements they have analyzed.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.factcheck.org/2015/12/the-king-of-whoppers-donald-trump/|title=The ‘King of Whoppers': Donald Trump|publisher=]|date=December 21, 2015}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2015/dec/21/2015-lie-year-donald-trump-campaign-misstatements/|title=2015 Lie of the Year: the campaign misstatements of Donald Trump|publisher=]|date=December 21, 2015|first1=Angie Drobnic|last1=Holan|first2=Linda|last2=Qiu}}</ref> Trump's penchant for exaggerating to voters has roots in the world of New York real estate where he made his fortune, and where hyperbole is a way of life.<ref>Flitter, Emily and Oliphant, James. , ] (August 28, 2015): "Trump's penchant for exaggeration could backfire - he risks promising voters more than he can deliver....Optimistic exaggeration...is a hallmark of the cutthroat New York real estate world where many developers, accustomed to ramming their way into deals, puff up their portfolios. 'A little hyperbole never hurts,' he wrote....For Trump, exaggerating has always been a frequent impulse, especially when the value of his Trump brand is disputed."</ref><ref>, '']'' via ']'' (August 16, 2016).</ref>}}{{talkref}}
{{collapse bottom}}
Instead of inserting "or hyperbolic", we could hypothetically insert "or false" or "or dishonest", et cetera. I think "hyperbolic" is much better because the words "false" and "dishonest" lack nuance, because hyperbole is a major (if not ''the'' major) form of Trump's falsities, because a bare assertion of "falseness" or "dishonesty" sounds too much like a partisan attack, and because the discretionary sanctions applicable to this BLP require not merely consensus but "firm consensus on the talk page of this article before reinstating any edits that have been challenged (via reversion)."] (]) 16:44, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
*'''No'''. "Controversial" covers it. Whether to add "false" is a separate discussion (or is this a suggestion to bypass that discussion by substituting "hyperbolic" for "false"?<s> If so maybe you should make it at that RfC discussion.</s>) IMO "false" is much better documented; either that or nothing. Anyhow, I don't think "hyperbolic" adds anything except verbiage. If the consensus is to add it, I recommend splitting the sentence into two sentences. In fact I'm going to do that anyhow, since the two points (controversial statements and violence at rallies) are not closely related. --] (]) 17:35, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
::There is no way to make this proposal in the previous RFC in a manner that would be noticed. I already did mention it deep in the discussion, which garnered only one response.] (]) 17:45, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
:::(Edit conflict) Yes, I just saw that and was in the process of striking that from my comment above. IMO starting a whole separate RfC is likely to be confusing if not disruptive. How is a closer supposed to deal with the first RfC when there is a second one that might override it? --] (]) 17:48, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
::::Seriatim. There is already a survey above about the same issue in the body of the article, so we already have overlap. I don't think it's disruptive to give editors a choice (i.e. an alternative) about what to say in the lead, instead of either "false" or nothing.] (]) 18:11, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
*'''No'''. This RfC disrupts the pending RfC which asks if we should use the word "false" instead of "hyperbolic." Hyperbolic ignores the various uncontradicted, extremely reliable sources, some of which are currently cited in the article, with a that acknowledges that the term "hyperbole" comes from Trump's book ''The Art of the Deal'', whose own ghostwriter now was a euphemism for lying. As a result, using the term "hyperbolic" violates our ] and ] guidelines. --] (]) 17:50, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
*'''Yes'''. Actually, "hyperbolic" is all we need. Remove "controversial"; that's judgemental criticism, and Misplaced Pages is not an opinion piece. "Hyperbolic" is NPOV--that's what we should say.] (]) 17:51, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
::There is nothing judgmental about "controversial"; it is an unmistakable fact (not an opinion) that widespread, highly publicized controversy has arisen in response to many of his statements, and many reliable sources have pointed this out. Anyhow this RfC is not about removing "controversial", it is about adding "and hyperbolic". --] (]) 17:55, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
:::"Controversial" has a negative connotation. "Hyperbolic" is neutral.] (]) 18:17, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
*'''Procedurally close''' this RfC until the previous one runs its course. On the merits, I agree with ] that "hyperbolic" is a euphemism that shouldn't be used. An overwhelming array of high-quality, straight-news sources say that Trump has become known for his frequent, sustained falsehoods, misstatements, and conspiracy theories on the campaign trail. To omit that would not give the full story to our readers. ]<sup>]</sup> 18:05, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
::], suppose for the sake of argument that every single one of Mr. Trump's falsities is the type of falsity known as an exaggeration. You think saying "exaggeration" would be a euphemism? To me, it would seem far more precise than the word "false", no? I also see nothing proceduraly wrong with giving editors a choice beyond "false" or nothing.] (]) 18:15, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
::: In that hypothetical, alternate-universe scenario, then yes of course we could use the word "exaggeration." But that is not the reality. The sources clearly reflect that many of Mr. Trump's misstatements are not merely exaggerations or hyperbole, but false statements made up out of whole cloth. ]<sup>]</sup> 18:25, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
::::Do we have percentages?] (]) 18:27, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
:::::"Suppose for the sake of argument" is pointless. We are talking about reality here. Many of his false statements, the ones that caused Reliable Sources to say they have never seen anything like it, are NOT "hyperbole" (which would normally get rated "partly false" or "false"), They are flatly, factually false ("False" or "Pants on Fire"), such as when he denies having said something that he indisputably said (17 times and counting), or when he claims he saw television coverage of American Muslims celebrating 9/11 when in fact no such coverage ever existed, or when he said he had met Putin when they were both on 60 minutes when in fact they were never in the same place at the same time, or when he claimed his campaign was "100% self funded" at a time when more than 50% of his campaign funds had come from outside contributors, or when he said no other country besides America has birthright citizenship. These are not hyperbole, they are outright falsehoods. "Percentages" don't matter; the actual count of his lies is what matters and it is way beyond anything the fact checkers have ever seen. --] (]) 18:33, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
::::::The lead should summarize the body of the article. At present, the body of the article does not break down his false statements by the number that are exaggerations versus the number that are not. Nor does it break down the false statements into those that he has repeated after being debunked, versus those he has not repeated after being debunked. Anyway, I don't think anyone disagrees that he has a propensity for exaggeration, regardless of whether he also has a propensity to lie like ]: "I'm the most terrific liar you ever saw in your life. It's awful. If I'm on my way to the store to buy a magazine, even, and somebody asks me where I'm going, I'm liable to say I'm going to the opera. It's terrible." If he's dishonest like Holden Caulfield, then "false" is a euphemism.] (]) 19:23, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
*'''No''' Terms such as "Hyperbolic" are subjective interpretations, which are even questionable from reliable sources. Terms such as "falsity" and "controversial" are in principle verifiable and reportable by reliable sources.--] (]) 18:12, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
*'''No'''. Hyperbolic could suggest that Trump's false statements were not intenteneded to be taken literally. ] (]) 18:13, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
*'''No''', not in the lead, because "hyperbolic" is a judgment or characterization in Misplaced Pages's voice, something that would require very strong sourcing. A neutral, careful analysis in the body might mention that some of the statements are untrue, some provocative, and some exaggerations to the point of hyperbole, or that Trump or commentators have made some of these observations. By contrast, "controversial" is not Misplaced Pages opining about the speech itself, but observing that the speech has caused controversies. Two points of order. First, it is not a good thing that the political articles have gone RfC happy on minor, temporary, and overlapping issues. Second, even if this is ever well sourced enough to be in a lede, this is the wrong place, because it is a point about the campaign, not his biography. It would belong in his campaign article. - ] (]) 18:23, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
::The BLP subject self-identifies as a person who exaggerates: "A little hyperbole never hurts"] (]) 18:26, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
:::Yes, he does exaggerate. He also lies. The two are not the same. --] (]) 18:33, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
::::But that's a tautology. All politicians lie. Google "Hillary pinocchio"--lots of matches come up. It's part of their job description. No need to mention it here.] (]) 18:36, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
*'''No''' - "Hyperbolic" is a euphemism used primarily by those whose job it is to try to get Trump elected. He does sometimes make hyperbolic statements, but those are overshadowed by the many false statements that he has made during his campaign, all of which are well-documented. Some sources even say that most of his public statements are false, and some go as far as to say that Trump lies. As others have mentioned, this RfC should not have been started until the previous one was closed.- ]] 19:08, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
* I agree with others here; the elephant in the room is that many reliable sources have found Trump to be uniquely untruthful (even for a politician), and to be untruthful in unique ways (for instance, repeating the same falsehoods after they've been repeatedly discredited). Our site policies (including ]) say that we need to convey that, clearly and accurately, but for whatever reason we have a couple of editors who are ''extremely'' resistant to following where the sources lead in this particular case. This blizzard of overlapping RfC's, silly euphemisms, and bowdlerization is becoming disruptive and needs to stop; it has taken on the appearance of a lawyerly campaign of vexatious wiki-process and wiki-litigation aimed at obscuring, rather than improving, the article. ''']'''&nbsp;<sup>]</sup> 19:23, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
::Two RFCs is hardly a blizzard, so maybe Trump isn't the only one with a hyperbole issue. Falsehoods come in many flavors, from exaggeration, to sarcasm, to blatant fabrication. The only kind mentioned in the article body right now is exaggeration, and the lead should summarize the article body. The word "hyperbolic" is no euphemism, but rather a perfectly valid description (supported by impeccable secondary sourcing plus self-identification) of at least one kind of falsehood that Trumo often engages in.] (]) 19:32, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
:::Yet it is not the kind of falsehood that has received the most attention from reliable sources. Therefore it might have a place in the article body along side other kinds of falsehoods, but it would be non-neutral to include in the lead to the exclusion of the others. Of course listing in the lead all of the different kinds of falsehoods Trump has uttered during the campaign would be terribly undue. --] (]) 20:16, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
*'''Yes''' - A number of reliable sources reference the fact that Trump characterizes at least some of his own rhetoric as "truthful hyperbole". I don't see the 2 RFC's as necessarily being mutually exclusive. If the consensus is ultimately to include both, I think it would be possible to combine them. One possible solution: "...have been controversial or false, while Trump characterizes his rhetoric as "truthful hyperbole".] (]) 19:25, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
::Trump isn't a reliable source. --] (]) 20:09, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
::: I believe is a reliable source.] (]) 20:27, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
::::For saying that ''Trump says'' he engages in hyperbole. But not for saying that he ''does'' engage in hyperbole. --] (]) 20:35, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
::::: Sorry, I don't think I was clear with my initial post. My point is that, on a standalone basis, the proposed content is supported by the sources provided by Anythingyouwant as part of the RFC. If both RFC's pass, I think the content from both can effectively be combined.] (]) 02:56, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
*'''No''' - Hyperbole would convey that Trump just exaggerates, that he stretches the truth "just a little". I looked up the word "lie" in the best synonym finder I could find and searched thru the 125 or so synonyms for lie and did not find "hyperbole". Same with "false", "falsehood" and "falsity". Hyperbole was no where to be found. ]<small>]</small> 19:33, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
::This attempt to wrangle <small>((to herd horses or other livestock))</small> the word hyperbole into the article makes me think of an analogy. Lets say we have two stallions in a pen. One is rambunctious, snorting and wild-eyed. Lets call him "LYE". The other is also a stallion but is calm as the daisy that hangs from its mane. Lets call him HYPurrBOLE. Some here are trying to present LYE and HYPurrBOLE as two peas in a pod. But....one will always be wild and untamed. The other could be a horse in the "ride a pony" show. Our reader is entitled to know which horse they are buying. ]<small>]</small> 19:55, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
*'''Procedurally Close''' as recommended above. Don't light another fire when you're still fighting one. Hyperbolic is the wrong word for Trump and for Misplaced Pages. False or lies are better one word candidates. ~ ] (]) 19:36, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
*'''No''' The word "hyperbolic" implies anything from simple figures of speech (e.g. using 'literally' in a sentence such as "Literally no-one likes the Star Wars prequels!") to outright lies (e.g. "Inner city crime is reaching record levels."). It's ambiguous, and frankly, it's expected of politicians to use frequent hyperbole. It thus doesn't accurately convey the information. A word like "false" or "untrue" is far more accurate, and equally easy (if not far easier) to source properly. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em; class=texhtml">] ]</span> 20:12, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
* '''Yes''' – Let's say it all in just a few words: "Many of his statements have been controversial, hyperbolic or fabricated." That would close two RFCs with a single edit! {{p}} — ] <sup>]</sup> 20:29, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
::Do we have reliable sources for "fabricated?" --] (]) 21:27, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
:::No question there are fabrications. The active verb fabricated tends to imply intentional acts. Although his books lend credence to his belief that hyperbole to the level of fabrication is a part of his 'art of the deal,' care must be taken. Words must come from RS analyzing a pattern. ] (]) 22:12, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
* Probably '''No''' – I think such wording would in itself be hyperbolic! This or similar wording would present what are opinions, even if widely held and accepted and most likely true, as indisputable facts. Is in not enough to just present sources that have said his speeches have generated controversy, or have contained crude hyperbole, or suchlike, summarize what such commentators have said, but use wording that makes it clear that it is those commentators' opinions? ] (]) 22:05, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
* '''Comment'''. I'm kind of confused about all the choices...if the previous RFC is still extant, if it was closed, etc. But to me "hyperbolic" is somewhat of a WP:Peacock term. I am still concerned if the subject matter is covered extensively enough in the main body of the article to warrant such prominent mention in the lede. ] (]) 22:29, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
* '''Comment''';''' suggested revision'''; '''non-negotiable policy objections'''. When reputable mainstream sources have expressed significant opinions about the subject, you must attribute these opinions to particular sources or describe them as widespread views or the like. You may say, "Genocide has been described by John X as the epitome of human evil". You may not say, "Genocide is an evil action". (''']'''.)
: In particular, avoid stating seriously contested assertions as facts. If reputable sources make conflicting assertions about a topic, you must treat these assertions as opinions, not facts. Don't present them as direct statements. This policy is non-negotiable. (''']'''.)
: You must represent fairly and proportionately ''all'' significant views that have been published by reputable sources on the topic. (''']'''.)
: Suggested wording:
::: "According to , , and , very many of Trump's campaign statements been false; according to and , very many have been true. An extraordinary number have been controversial."
: (<u>Does need work, I'd have to say</u>.) --] (]) 23:09, 31 August 2016 (UTC) 08:42, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
*'''No'''. I think we should just keep "controversial" without adding any other descriptors, as I think it best describes Trump's statements. Also, ] might apply, as it might create a false impression that the statements that were not controversial were instead hyperbolic. However, I would much prefer "hyperbolic" to "false", so if the decision comes down to either two words, I would '''support''' it per Anythingyouwant. --] (]) 23:28, 31 August 2016 (UTC)


{{edit extended-protected|Donald Trump|answered=yes}}
* '''Weak no'''- I think the themes 'controversial' is far more dominant, nearly universal and un-objected to by both sides. For "hyperbolic" I think the specific word use out there is "hyperbole", and that at a much lower level so UNDUE to put here. I actually suspect 'criticized by critics as crazy' (keeping the 'by critics' clear) would actually be of higher prominence. (e.g. Dolly Parton on Hillary and Trump 'theyre both nuts' ] (]) 01:23, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
Update the 2017 portrait for the new 2024 portrait (can be found online, around various social media posts and official donald trump posts) ] (]) 00:51, 17 January 2025 (UTC)


:It's a seriously horrible image. But probably should be used if it is indeed the official photo. ] (]) 01:01, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
== Recent changes in the lede ==
:<span class="nowrap">]&nbsp;'''Not done'''</span><!--template:not done--> We can't use non-free images. -- ] <sup>]</sup> 01:03, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
{{abot}}


== Challenge consensus item 44 ==
This has been a longstanding sentence in the lede:
:Many of his statements in interviews, on Twitter, and at campaign rallies have been controversial, and some of the rallies have been accompanied by protests or riots.<br>
Recently that sentence was modified to read:
:Many of his statements in interviews, on Twitter, and at campaign rallies have been controversial, and some of the rallies have been accompanied by protests or riots from both sides of the political spectrum.<br>
I split it into two sentences because I thought the two halves of the sentence were not really related to each other:
:Many of his statements in interviews, on Twitter, and at campaign rallies have been controversial. Some of his rallies have been accompanied by protests or riots from both sides of the political spectrum.<br>
Just now someone recombined them, in a way that seems to me to imply a causal connection between "controversial statements" and "protests and riots" that I don't think is justified:
:Many of his statements in interviews, on Twitter, and at campaign rallies have been controversial, with his rallies sometimes being accompanied by protests or riots.<br>
I would like to see this combined version of the sentence reverted, and any one of the three previous versions restored. I don't know that we need to have a huge discussion/consensus over the matter, but I would not be comfortable reverting it myself, per Discretionary Sanctions. Thoughts, anyone? --] (]) 22:52, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
:I agree, that edit bothers me too. "... with his rallies..." is poor grammar. Someone who hasn't used their daily revert, please revert to MelanieN's version.- ]] 23:07, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
::{{Done}}. I added that he escaped an assassination attempt by a protester, as covered in the ] section. This looks significant enough to be mentioned in the lead, but revert me if you disagree… — ] <sup>]</sup> 17:40, 1 September 2016 (UTC)


I would like to '''challenge''' consensus at ], item 44.
== Middle initial in infobox title? ==
:The lead section should mention North Korea, focusing on Trump's meetings with Kim and some degree of clarification that they haven't produced clear results. (])
I do not believe that Trump and ] having talks about denuclearisation is necessary to impart general knowledge of Trump to the reader. It is not notable to try to "convince the ] not to ], and the fox then ] with you about it". Trump has done things far more directly notable than try to convince Kim to get rid of nukes, and those subjects will need to be expressed in the lede more than this, per ]. Things have been historically crowded at the lede, and I figure this ought to be discussed. <span style="text-shadow: #E9967A 0em 0em 1em;">]]</span> 01:19, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
:This made worldwide news at the time and was part of Trump's agenda for months, including several meetings with Kim and other stakeholders. It was a distinct break with the policy of other sitting presidents. It should be featured in the intro.--] (]) 01:53, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
:Meeting with Kim Jong Un was a major bullet point in his presidency with regard to foreign policy. I do not believe the progress—or lack thereof—on denuclearisation is worth noting in the lead, however. Especially given North Korea ]. To me, the unclear results are considerably less notable than the summits themselves. ''']]''' 02:38, 17 January 2025 (UTC)


== Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 17 January 2025 (3) ==
From memory, it seems that the infobox used to be titled "Donald J. Trump", a frequently-used name including by Trump's own web site. Any clue why this is now only "Donald Trump"? Can we restore the middle initial without triggering a fight? — ] <sup>]</sup> 17:44, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
{{atop|See above. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez &#124; ] &#124; ] 02:24, 17 January 2025 (UTC)}}
:I think it should be kept without the middle initial. He does use his middle initial often, but he's still perhaps ] without it. &ndash;&nbsp;]&nbsp;(]) 17:53, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
{{edit extended-protected|Donald Trump|answered=yes}}
Change the portrait pictures to 2025 presidential picture ] (]) 02:20, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
:{{notdone}} We cannot use images that are copyrighted. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez &#124; ] &#124; ] 02:24, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
{{abot}}


== Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 17 January 2025 (4) ==
== Unexplained revert ==


{{edit extended-protected|Donald Trump|answered=y}}
Having been reverted by {{u|Awilley}}, I'm bringing the discussion to the talk page. I'm wondering why I was reverted. ] (]) 02:17, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
Update portrait to be Donald Trumps official 2025 portrait pre inauguration day. ] (]) 02:48, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
:I assume that he clicked rollback by accident. I'm sure he'll fix it momentarily.- ]] 03:06, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
:] '''Not done for now''': please establish a ] for this alteration ''']''' using the {{Tlx|Edit extended-protected}} template.<!-- Template:EEp --> - And see existing discussion above. &#8213;]&nbsp;] 02:49, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
::So sorry about that, I have no idea how that happened. I was navigating a bunch of diffs from the history and I must have accidentally rolled back along the way. <span style="font-family:times; text-shadow: 0 0 .2em #7af">~] <small>(])</small></span> 03:45, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
:::No problem, {{u|Awilley}}! ] (]) 03:46, 2 September 2016 (UTC)


== New Trump portrait copyright resolved ==
==New pics==
{{atop|Duplicate. See existing discussion above. Eligible for manual archival after this time tomorrow. &#8213;]&nbsp;] 05:20, 17 January 2025 (UTC)}}
]Gage Skidmore has kindly donated some new pics dated yesterday, including the one at right. You can see some more . I like the one at right best. The flag is tiny, but it's there.] (]) 04:35, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
] This portrait has been uploaded into public domain on official ] account of ] ]. ] (]) 04:42, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
:Not the one you posted; he's squinting. Maybe .] (]) 04:39, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
::So he's squinting a little bit. <s>Is that a sin? Lust, gluttony, greed, sloth, wrath, envy, pride, and squinting?</s> Anyway, there are more on Flickr from this event, so feel free to upload any you like.] (]) 04:52, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
::: is the best one you've uploaded. Anyway, I'm currently discouraged (see your talkpage), so I won't look at Flickr, etc.] (]) 05:06, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
:::There's currently another similar discussion ongoing over at the 2016 Presidential election article, if more people could weigh in there: https://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:United_States_presidential_election,_2016#New_Trump_photos ] (]) 05:44, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
::::I like better : it could actually replace the current one in the infobox. ] (]) 10:42, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
::::: Agreed it should be updated. <sup>] ]</sup> 19:19, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
] Any objection if I install the one at right for the time being? It's clearly better than the present top image. Putting at the top now won't block consideration of other pictures.] (]) 20:00, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
:The picture to the right is pretty blurry, isn't it? ] (]) 20:02, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
::I don't think we should use either of these pictures. Can't we find one where his eyes are open? The one currently in the article infobox is better than either of these. --] (]) 20:08, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
] (]) 20:17, 2 September 2016 (UTC)]]
:::Of the 3, I prefer "How about this one?" by Ayw. ]<small>]</small> 20:45, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
::::Yes, this one is pretty good. --] (]) 22:26, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
:::::::::::::The existing photo is better than any of these. In (1) he looks like he has a stick up his ass, in (2) you can’t see his eyes and there’s too much emphasis on the bouffant comb-over, and in (3) much as I like the clarity of the pigginess of the eyes, and also the sticky-out ear that gives the overall impression, together with the hairdo, of a hamster sitting a wingnut, the fact is he’s smirking, and a smirk is inappropriate in a photograph of someone running for president. ] (]) 22:29, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
I agree that this third photo is by far the best one, and leagues better than the current photo. ] (]) 00:12, 3 September 2016 (UTC)


:It has not been resolved. Just like how Trump cannot steal the copyright from a private photographer, a congressperson cannot steal the copyright either. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez &#124; ] &#124; ] 05:01, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
==The ]==
{{abot}}
Our article makes no mention that the ] franchise was originally owned by Donald Trump. I first remember becoming aware of Trump when the team signed Heisman Trophy winner ], who was an underclassmen. Not sure but I think he (Walker) may have been the first underclassman to sign with a professional team and forego his college career. Shouldn't that be mentioned? 22:21, 2 September 2016‎ ]
::This Misplaced Pages article says: "In 1983, Trump purchased the New Jersey Generals for the inaugural season of the United States Football League (USFL). Before the inaugural season began, Trump sold the franchise to Oklahoma oil magnate J. Walter Duncan. Then, prior to the 1984 season, Duncan sold the team back to Trump. The USFL played its first 1983, 1984, and 1985 seasons during the summer. Trump convinced the majority of the owners of other USFL teams to move the USFL 1986 schedule to the fall, directly opposite the National Football League (NFL), arguing that it would eventually force a merger with the NFL; owners of any USFL teams included in a merger would see their investment increase significantly. After the Houston Gamblers merged into the Generals in 1985, Trump retained a 50 percent interest in the merged team. The 1986 season was cancelled after the USFL won a minimal verdict (of less than four dollars) in an antitrust lawsuit against the NFL; the USFL folded soon afterward."] (]) 22:47, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 05:20, 17 January 2025

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

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

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

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

Warning: active arbitration remedies

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

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

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

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

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

If you are unsure if your edit is appropriate, discuss it here on this talk page first. Remember: When in doubt, don't revert!
Want to add new information about Donald Trump?
Please consider choosing the most appropriate article, for example: ... or dozens of other places, as listed in {{Donald Trump series}}. Thanks!
? view · edit Frequently asked questions Q1: This page is biased towards/against Trump because it mentions/doesn't mention x. Why won't you fix it? A1: Having a neutral point of view does not mean giving equal weight to all viewpoints. Rather, it refers to Misplaced Pages's effort to discuss topics and viewpoints in a roughly equal proportion to the degree that they are discussed in reliable sources, which in political articles is mostly mainstream media, although academic works are also sometimes used. For further information, please read Talk:Donald Trump/Response to claims of bias. Q2: A recent request for comment had X votes for support and Y votes for oppose. Why was it closed as no consensus when one position had more support than the other? A2: Misplaced Pages is built on consensus, which means that editors and contributors here debate the merits of adding, subtracting, or rearranging the information. Consensus is not a vote, rather it is a discussion among community members over how best to interpret and apply information within the bounds of our policy and guideline infrastructure. Often, but not always, the community finds itself unable to obtain consensus for changes or inclusions to the article. In other cases, the community may decide that consensus exists to add or modify material based on the strength of the arguments made by members citing relevant policy and guideline related material here. This can create confusion for new comers or those unfamiliar with Misplaced Pages's consensus building processes, especial since consensus can change. While all are welcome to participate in consensus building, keep in mind that the best positions for or against including material are based on policy and guideline pages, so it may be in your best interest to read up on Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines before diving into the debates.
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.This page is about a politician who is running for office or has recently run for office, is in office and campaigning for re-election, or is involved in some current political conflict or controversy. For that reason, this article is at increased risk of biased editing, talk-page trolling, and simple vandalism.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.
This  level-4 vital article is rated B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.
WikiProject iconBiography: Arts and Entertainment / Politics and Government
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the arts and entertainment work group (assessed as Mid-importance).
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the politics and government work group (assessed as Top-importance).
WikiProject iconBusiness Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Business, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of business articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BusinessWikipedia:WikiProject BusinessTemplate:WikiProject BusinessWikiProject Business
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconClimate change High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Climate change, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Climate change on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Climate changeWikipedia:WikiProject Climate changeTemplate:WikiProject Climate changeClimate change
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
If you are looking for ways to improve this article, we recommend checking out our recommended sources and our style guide
WikiProject iconConservatism High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Conservatism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of conservatism on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ConservatismWikipedia:WikiProject ConservatismTemplate:WikiProject ConservatismConservatism
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconCrime and Criminal Biography Top‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Crime and Criminal Biography articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Crime and Criminal BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyCrime-related
TopThis article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconNew York City High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject New York City, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of New York City-related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.New York CityWikipedia:WikiProject New York CityTemplate:WikiProject New York CityNew York City
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconPolitics: American / Political parties High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by American politics task force (assessed as Top-importance).
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by Political parties task force (assessed as High-importance).
WikiProject iconTelevision: American Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to develop and improve Misplaced Pages articles about television programs. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join the discussion. To improve this article, please refer to the style guidelines for the type of work.TelevisionWikipedia:WikiProject TelevisionTemplate:WikiProject Televisiontelevision
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the American television task force.
WikiProject iconUnited States: Television / Presidential elections / Government Top‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States
TopThis article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by American television task force (assessed as Mid-importance).
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. presidential elections (assessed as Top-importance).
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. Government (assessed as High-importance).
WikiProject iconUnited States Presidents: Donald Trump Top‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject United States Presidents, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of United States Presidents on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.United States PresidentsWikipedia:WikiProject United States PresidentsTemplate:WikiProject United States PresidentsUnited States Presidents
TopThis article has been rated as Top-importance on the importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Donald Trump task force.
WikiProject iconUniversity of Pennsylvania Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject University of Pennsylvania, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of University of Pennsylvania on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.University of PennsylvaniaWikipedia:WikiProject University of PennsylvaniaTemplate:WikiProject University of PennsylvaniaUniversity of Pennsylvania
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject icon2010s Top‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject 2010s, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of 2010s on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.2010sWikipedia:WikiProject 2010sTemplate:WikiProject 2010s2010s
TopThis article has been rated as Top-importance on the importance scale.
          Page history
Former good article nomineeDonald Trump was a Social sciences and society good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
June 2, 2006Good article nomineeNot listed
February 12, 2007Good article nomineeNot listed
September 17, 2016Good article nomineeNot listed
May 25, 2017Good article nomineeNot listed
December 2, 2018Good article nomineeNot listed
July 15, 2019Good article nomineeNot listed
August 31, 2019Featured article candidateNot promoted
April 29, 2020Peer reviewReviewed
Current status: Former good article nominee
Health of Donald Trump was nominated for deletion. The discussion was closed on 13 June 2019 with a consensus to merge. Its contents were merged into Donald Trump. The original page is now a redirect to this page. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected article, please see its history; for its talk page, see here.
Media mentionThis article has been mentioned by multiple media organizations:
This article has been viewed enough times to make it onto the all-time Top 100 list. It has had 233 million views since December 2007.
This article has been viewed enough times in a single year to make it into the Top 50 Report annual list. This happened in 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020, 2021, 2023, and 2024.
This article has been viewed enough times in a single week to appear in the Top 25 Report 137 times. The weeks in which this happened:
Skip to table of contents
              Other talk page banners
    Section sizes
    Section size for Donald Trump (88 sections)
    Section name Byte
    count    		 Section
    total
    (Top) 9,338 9,338
    Early life and education 3,038 3,038
    Business career 149 35,704
    Real estate 4,555 15,954
    Manhattan and Chicago developments 6,168 6,168
    Atlantic City casinos 3,610 3,610
    Clubs 1,621 1,621
    Licensing the Trump name 1,364 1,364
    Side ventures 7,257 7,257
    Foundation 5,025 5,025
    Legal affairs and bankruptcies 2,315 2,315
    Wealth 3,640 3,640
    Media career 3,447 5,110
    The Apprentice and The Celebrity Apprentice 1,663 1,663
    Early political aspirations 4,690 4,690
    2016 presidential election 18,351 18,351
    First presidency (2017–2021) 632 176,844
    Early actions 2,743 2,743
    Conflicts of interest 3,372 3,372
    Domestic policy 20,692 20,692
    Race relations 6,411 6,411
    Pardons and commutations 2,574 2,574
    Immigration 3,112 20,420
    Travel ban 4,347 4,347
    Family separation at the border 6,269 6,269
    Mexico–United States border wall and government shutdown 6,692 6,692
    Foreign policy 2,859 35,970
    Trade 2,517 2,517
    Russia 4,226 4,226
    East Asia 21 10,653
    China, Hong Kong, Taiwan 4,914 4,914
    North Korea 5,718 5,718
    Middle East 23 15,715
    Afghanistan 3,042 3,042
    Israel 2,637 2,637
    Saudi Arabia 2,229 2,229
    Syria 3,797 3,797
    Iran 3,987 3,987
    Personnel 8,705 8,705
    Judiciary 4,174 4,174
    COVID-19 pandemic 291 31,456
    Initial response 7,681 7,681
    White House Coronavirus Task Force 5,253 5,253
    World Health Organization 2,673 2,673
    Pressure to abandon pandemic mitigation measures 7,799 7,799
    Political pressure on health agencies 2,690 2,690
    Outbreak at the White House 2,666 2,666
    Effects on the 2020 presidential campaign 2,403 2,403
    Investigations 1,079 26,089
    Financial 3,111 3,111
    Russian election interference 6,491 6,491
    FBI Crossfire Hurricane and 2017 counterintelligence investigations 2,573 2,573
    Mueller investigation 12,835 12,835
    First impeachment 10,208 10,208
    Second impeachment 3,398 3,398
    2020 presidential election 34 23,711
    Loss to Biden 6,907 15,674
    Rejection of results 8,767 8,767
    January 6 Capitol attack 8,003 8,003
    First post-presidency (2021–2025) 5,019 36,343
    Business activities 2,382 2,382
    Investigations, criminal indictments and convictions, civil lawsuits 551 28,942
    FBI investigations 5,703 5,703
    Criminal referral by the House January 6 Committee 693 693
    State criminal indictments 2,969 2,969
    Federal criminal indictments 5,948 5,948
    Criminal conviction in the 2016 campaign fraud case 6,623 6,623
    Civil lawsuits and judgments 6,455 6,455
    2024 presidential election 14,635 14,635
    Political practice and rhetoric 7,990 46,257
    Racial and gender views 9,364 9,364
    Link to hate crimes 3,793 3,793
    Conspiracy theories 3,318 3,318
    Truthfulness 10,483 10,483
    Social media 5,810 5,810
    Relationship with the press 5,499 5,499
    Personal life 19 5,044
    Family 1,340 1,340
    Health 3,685 3,685
    Assessments 18 6,969
    Public image 4,525 4,525
    Scholarly 2,426 2,426
    Notes 136 136
    References 30 30
    Works cited 18 11,257
    Books 3,217 3,217
    Journals 8,022 8,022
    External links 5,516 5,516
    Total 402,973 402,973

    Current consensus

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


    Racially charged

    This section is pinned and will not be automatically archived.

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

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

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

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

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

    Tracking lead size

    Word counts by paragraph and total.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    31 Dec 2024 — 465 = 87 + 60 + 154 + 164 07 Jan 2025 — 438 = 58 + 60 + 156 + 164 14 Jan 2025 — 432 = 58 + 60 + 145 + 169

    Tracking article size

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    31 Dec 2024 — 14,989 – 409,188 – 180 07 Jan 2025 — 14,681 – 404,773 – 187 14 Jan 2025 — 14,756 – 403,398 – 191

    RfC on describing Trumpism in lead

    This section is pinned and will not be automatically archived.

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

    Support with changes It seems odd to not include his major political positions in the lead. I would move those categorisations into a separate sentence explaining his political views, rather than about 'Trumpism' itself. Too much focus on words, not on policy and stances that will bear historical weight. MB2437 02:48, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
    Previous discussion at Talk:Donald Trump/Archive 185#Proposal to add brief description of Trumpism in lead. — Goszei (talk) 04:51, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
    Support. The statement "Trump created Trumpism" without further description is meaningless. If there is any single piece of information which a reader should take away from the lead, it is that Trump is America's leading proponent of right-wing populism, and the person who has done to most to reshape the Republican Party along these lines. It was argued by some in the previous discussion that details should be saved for the Trumpism article, but I believe that these words briefly and simply introduce what much of the rest of the lead and article are seeking to explain. Just as FDR's lead describes in broad terms what "New Deal"ism is and Reagan's describes what "Reaganomics" is, so too should Trump's lead briefly describe Trumpism. This is especially relevant after the recent election, as Trump and Trumpism's importance in U.S. political history only continues to grow. — Goszei (talk) 04:51, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
    Suppport: we need to know what Trumpism is about.--Jack Upland (talk) 04:55, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
    Oppose as I believe it is unnecessarily adding to an already excessively large article. The article is not about Trumpism - which is linked in the text for the purpose of providing a shortcut should people wish to know more about what constitutes such, without contributing further to the word count. Artem... 05:05, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
    Comment Further explanation of Trumpism seems relative in the lead, or at least, it likely will be within the next four years. DN (talk) 06:13, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
    Oppose a, this article is already too long, and 2, it might need a lot more explanation then we can give it in the lead, what is Trumpism? Slatersteven (talk) 14:50, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
    Support but it should be limited to one sentence after a more detailed yet brief description is provided in the body. I agree that anyone with a political movement named after them should have some more description about it other than "they created it". I don't have exact wording but something along the lines of its impact on the Republican Party or American politics would be warranted as per Goszei. Any statement would need to be sourced in the body first, however, to avoid OR. Agreeing on a description in the political practice and rhetoric section would be helpful first before adding it to the lead. BootsED (talk) 14:57, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
    • Support since Trumpism is mentioned, then it should be explained what it is. A single sentence in the lede, and a brief elaboration somewhere else in the article. The wording in the lede could be as proposed above, or something a bit different. Ktrimi991 (talk) 19:18, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
    @Artem P75, Slatersteven, Nikkimaria, and Nemov: To those opposing the proposed text based on concerns about length, would you support a shorter addition such as led to Trumpism, a right-wing populist movement.? — Goszei (talk) 04:03, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
    • Oppose We don't have room for this, and this isn't the Trumpism article, it is the Trump article. Also, this would need to be added to the body first, since the lead follows the body. QuicoleJR (talk) 15:00, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
    • Oppose per Anythingyouwant. I've never heard of Trumpism before. Neither has Britannica, which instead has an article for MAGA movement. -SusanLesch (talk) 18:48, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
      What the Britannica article describes is exactly what our article at Trumpism describes. The term MAGA movement should probably be added to that article's lead as a synonym. — Goszei (talk) 18:59, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
      It's a redirect. The BBC said, But is there such a thing as Trumpism? Well that might be stretching it. -SusanLesch (talk) 23:12, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
      This article doesn't mention MAGA. Maybe somebody wanted to make something of Trumpism? -SusanLesch (talk) 16:33, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
    • Oppose mainly as it is unnecessarily adding to an already excessively large article per Artem, also because Trumpism isn't a "a thought-through philosophy, a carefully mapped world view" inextricably linked to the man in the way that Marxism or Leninism are. Trumpism is more of a term descibing a series of populist instincts which are not very often used to characterise reactions/policies etc. When/if Trumpism itself becomes more elaborated, and the term more used, WEIGHT might then dictate a brief definition. At present it would be at least unnecessary and potentially confusing.Pincrete (talk) 07:57, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
    • Support Very much WP:Due to summarise the key tenets of his political ideology, much more so than discussing specific policies as in the status quo. I’m very confused about the opposes, however the leads of Margaret Thatcher and Juan Peron only mention their ideologies rather than describe them
    Kowal2701 (talk) 10:17, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
    • Weak oppose, while it's only a few extra words it's still more to an already-too-big article, and the link to the Trumpism article is there for a reason. — Czello 10:37, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
    • Weak Oppose, Agree with same sentiment as @Czello 's comment above. Seems like redundancy when we have a link that lets readers click on it if they don't understand a concept or definition. This also sets bad precedence to have to define every single political descriptor.
    MaximusEditor (talk) 16:39, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Oppose: Trump's lead is already "huuuge." And considering that WP:TTD (which discusses the use of "technical terms or terms of art and jargon specific to the subject matter") asks the question, "On the other hand, do not treat every “scientific” word as a technical term. Ask the question: Is this the only article or one of a very few where the term might be encountered in Misplaced Pages?", and seeing as there is another page entirely dedicated to discussing the topic, and where we're already pushing WP:LEAD best practices with the length and depth of Trump's BLP, let's move on.
    As a side note, WP:TTD has some handy recommendations for handling formatting of the word "Trumpism" for those interested. Pistongrinder (talk) 17:13, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Support : For me this is almost a mandatory addition for a very simple reason, the lead has zero words used to describe Trump's rise to power. Zero. This is not acceptable. These three very simple and short words describe it very well and are widely sourced. The description should take its place at the end of the second paragraph, in a chronological order, to either describe Trumpism or even more directly his first election campaign. The objection that the lead is not convincing. Other things can go. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cinemaandpolitics (talk • contribs) 14:41, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Oppose. Misplaced jargon in the leading section of the article leads to unnecessary confusion. Onikaburgers (talk) 19:46, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
    Support since this is a pretty major part of what Trump has done,
    And because just ¨Trump started Trumpism¨ isn't a very good description of that, let alone anything. Tenebre_Rosso_Sangue, ULTRAKILLing Vandals! Call for Medic! My Stats! 21:34, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

    Edit War

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    You know, that sounds like a good idea.
    Any objections? 2601:483:400:1CD0:382D:166E:CC23:2B80 (talk) 17:04, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
    Works for me. QuicoleJR (talk) 17:07, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
    Solution in search of a problem, but meh as long as you wait until after the inauguration — just in case lightning strikes or an Acme anvil falls. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 18:14, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
    Thanks. As far as I'm concerned, anyone can make the change after the inauguration on 1-20-2025. Regards, Bob K31416 (talk) 22:38, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
    Well, sounds good to me.
    Ok, what should the next steps be?
    Also, just curious, who pinned this? 2601:483:400:1CD0:45C3:C5FA:5FD8:FA51 (talk) 15:32, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
    who pinned this? ―Mandruss ☎ 16:11, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
    Huh — looks as though BoB K tried to (because I said "meh"??) and then you did? Can't figure out what happened. My suggestion: unpin. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 19:32, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
    I care about how it's pinned. Apathetic on whether it should be pinned. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:13, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
    As I mentioned in my edit summary, "added template to prevent archiving of this thread until a week after inauguration". I did that because this discussion was about taking an action after the inauguration. Mandruss changed the time from a week after the inauguration to 10 years and made an announcement in a box at the top of the section. Whatever you want to do is fine with me. Regards, Bob K31416 (talk) 15:10, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
    Well it seems all set. 2601:483:400:1CD0:A1A4:FD62:9508:F4EB (talk) 02:06, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
    Looks like you made this change re archiving . Bob K31416 (talk) 07:19, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
    "Whatever you want to do is fine with me." 2601:483:400:1CD0:324A:DECE:5253:C8FB (talk) 17:06, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

    Talk archive

    "Individual 1" listed at Redirects for discussion

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

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

    Are you kidding with the bias in the introduction?

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

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

    New official portrait

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

    I think it makes sense to replace it to the new one once it becomes available. Current official picture should be then moved to the section about his first presidency. Onikaburgers (talk) 21:11, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
    Yes I also think it's reasonable to replace the current portrait with the 2025 version once it's available. 2A02:1406:10:ED6A:0:0:369E:4EDF (talk) 00:19, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
    The 2025 portrait is now available. Hopefully someone can update it. 2600:6C4A:4B7F:DBC0:81AF:2AD8:9DD7:F170 (talk) 17:41, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
    No, it is not. That is a photograph taken by a private individual, not a government portrait. There is no evidence that the photographer of this photograph has or ever will release it under an acceptable free license. It does not suddenly become public domain just because Trump wants to use it. Nobody other than the photographer or someone they sign rights away to, not even the President, can release copyright on an image they did not take. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 18:28, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

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

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

    Making this article fully protected

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

    Pages are not protected preemptively... - Adolphus79 (talk) 17:32, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
    It's called Freedom of speech Anonymous8206 (talk) 21:13, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
    i know, but i think there will be a large vandalism wave, maybe one we cant actually control. over the next 4 years we will definitely see vandalism, which will be extremely annoying and tedious to defend against. thekingpachy (talk) 21:15, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
    is there anything that actually is fully protected? thekingpachy (talk) 21:16, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
    Not in this life...I would prefer to see the page taken down completely for 24 hours than it freezing due to edit conflict but that`s censorship as well Anonymous8206 (talk) 22:03, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
    ok thekingpachy (talk) 10:27, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
    I couldn't really find any actual pages that are full protected but there are some portals I've seen that get full protection such as the current events portal. Though while looking I found it funny that for the Israel-Hamas war page it is on such tight lockdown even the talk page has extended-protection which I honestly find pretty dumb considering the talk page is a place for editors to discuss changes and thus doesn't really need protection but I don't make the rules. For this page in particular I think the level of protection is enough though to deter all but the most determined who attempt to sabotage it so making it full protected seems like overkill. Plugshirt (talk) 02:07, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
    ok, but trump supporters are really dedicated (january 6th attacks)
    maybe some people might spread misinformation?
    im just worried that some dedicated supporters might try to change information on here thekingpachy (talk) 12:32, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
    We can take care of that through the normal means. Full protection would make it impossible for us regulars to update and improve the article without calling in an admin for help. QuicoleJR (talk) 13:58, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
    It is likely there will be some people with enough dedication to try and still vandalize the page even with the level of protection it has now. The best way to counter this though is to remain vigilant ourselves in making sure the article stays as objective and non-biased as possible. The edit history makes it clear what changes are made so it isn't extremely difficult to monitor and with how prevalent this page is I doubt there will be a shortage of people willing to keep checked in on it to make sure no misinformation is allowed to stay here. With his upcoming presidency there is a need for people capable of editing the article as a great amount of new information will undoubtedly need to be added as it progresses so it wouldn't really be feasible right now to lock it down completely. The only real solution left for us is to simply monitor the page constantly and make sure nothing slips through the cracks. Plugshirt (talk) 02:01, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
    all right. still, we can't be constantly vigilant. could we make a backup article, just in case something goes really wrong? thekingpachy (talk) 22:29, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
    Self-quote from below: In the absolute worst case, we could always restore a days-old revision. Every edit creates a new revision, and every revision is a "backup article". I could revert the article to January 15, 2015 with a few clicks. Very little is not easily reversible at Misplaced Pages. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:40, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
    ok, then it wont be necessary to make it fully protected thekingpachy (talk) 09:54, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
    The article survived the election with the current protection. It will likewise survive the inauguration. In the absolute worst case, we could always restore a days-old revision. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:09, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

    Donald trump is now president.

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

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

    Personal life section: The late president's article

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

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

    Space4Time3Continuum2x: I'm going to suggest after looking at the set of responses that all of them but yours is for moving the section to the bottom of the table of contents. If you have some comment to keep part of it higher in the table of contents and to move the other part towards the bottom of the table of contents, then you might add your comments here. ErnestKrause (talk) 16:02, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

    Of the six editors who commented in this section only two supported your suggestion, one with I don't see why not and one with three random articles also have personal life/health at the end of the article. As to the latter, quoting another editor: Article content is generally determined on an ad hoc basis and so the existence of other articles where (or is not) is not a good argument for adding or excluding content. BTW, there are other articles (e.g., Obama, Lincoln, Franklin D. Roosevelt) where early life, personal life, education are at the top. How many watchers of this Talk page even realized that a discussion entitled The late president's article proposed moving two sections? IMO, this isn't sufficient to form a new consensus. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 17:10, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
    We aren't adding or excluding content. My point was that other personalist politicians have their section at the bottom. Unfortunately, there's no style guide for politicians. The actual title of this section is Personal life section: The late president's article. Kowal2701 (talk) 17:27, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
    Personal life section was added after I posted my comment, and "adding or excluding content" was just an example for WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. My point: I got that, and my point was that other politicians don't. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 19:23, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
    Agreement with Riposte97, MaximusEditor, and Kowal12701, and others. The Personal life section looks misplaced at the top of the article and should be moved toward the bottom of the Table of Contents. It looks as if your claim is that this information in the Personal life section is of very high importance to the Trump article, and that it must he placed at the top of the article where it currently stands. These other editors do not seem to agree with your position. If its not of high importance, then it should be moved towards the bottom the table of contents. Following the Jimmy Carter example makes sense. Agreement with the other editors on this. ErnestKrause (talk) 15:20, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
    I think you may have misunderstood Maximus and the "others". Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 17:27, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
    Their comments look explicit:
    "I don't see why not (to move Personal life to the bottom of the article)." Riposte97
    "Actually, Erdogan’s, Orban’s, and Chavez’s articles have Personal life at the bottom, so I’ll support following those." Kowal2701
    My own comments that his golf life does not look important, and the section should be at the bottom of the TOC. ErnestKrause (talk) 19:58, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
    If this needs to be placed as a Proposal on this Talk page, then possibly that's your (Space4Time) preference? I'm not sure anyone here has agreed with your standpoint. ErnestKrause (talk) 19:58, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
    I see consensus to move it. Perhaps we wait another 24 hours before doing so. Riposte97 (talk) 20:12, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

    Proposal to supersede consensus #50

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

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

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

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

    • Support His sentencing today has met WP:BLPCRIME requirement that a conviction has been secured for that crime, support adding and criminal in the lede sentence per consistency with other WP:CRIMINAL articles.Kenneth Kho (talk) 16:39, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
      • As in: "Mark Robert Michael Wahlberg (born June 5, 1971), formerly known by his stage name Marky Mark, is an American actor, former rapper, and criminal"?
      —Alalch E. 16:55, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
      • Or: "Marshall Bruce Mathers III (born October 17, 1972), known professionally as Eminem (stylized as EMINƎM), is an American rapper, songwriter, record producer, and criminal.—Alalch E. 16:58, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
        Eminem "criminal"? Is this a joke? JacktheBrown (talk) 20:53, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
        He pleaded guilty to weapons charges for two incidents in 2000, got probation both times. It's mentioned in Eminem#Legal issues. He wasn't running for president at the time . Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 21:08, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
        @Space4Time3Continuum2x: in the sense: almost all American rappers who started rapping between the early 90s and early 2000s committed criminal actions, so Eminem (like many other rappers) isn't a correct example for this talk page. JacktheBrown (talk) 21:30, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
        I think Alalch was just referring to the OP's consistency claim by pointing out that the article on Eminem, who had pleaded guilty to a felony, also doesn't call him a felon or criminal in the first sentence (or anywhere else, AFAIK — I just skimmed the article). WP says we should avoid labels and, instead, describe what happened. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 12:59, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
        @Space4Time3Continuum2x: exactly, it would be a big problem for Misplaced Pages if the community decided to add "criminal" only to the Donald Trump page; since no other page in the encyclopedia would contain the word "criminal" in the first lines of the lead, a huge avalanche of users would probably protest (very, very rightly) on this talk page. JacktheBrown (talk) 20:10, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
        That would be undue, his criminal characterization has not received sustained widespread coverage, unlike the president-elect. Kenneth Kho (talk) 17:00, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
        Criminal characterization? What does that mean? —Alalch E. 17:04, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
        @Alalch E. Ridiculous and fallacious, as in the slippery slope fallacy, or a WP:FALSEBALANCE as you are creating here.
        How many celebrities or even gangster rappers do you know that have been convicted of crimes? More than I can count. So, not notable.
        But what if the crimes themselves are so notable they outweigh the other WP:NOTABLE aspects of a public person, as in the case of Harvey Weinstein? Yes, notable.
        Now, how many Presidents in US history can YOU COUNT that have been convicted of multiple felonies, ones that are related to election interference? Only one. And just like it is notable to objectively state as notable fact that Barack Obama is the first black President elected in US history, it is more than relevant to mention (in the opening sentence) that Trump is the first convicted felon/criminal elected to become President of the United States, especially considering that American democracy has as its bedrock the rule of law as enforced by convictions of juries of their peers, with even Trump himself making it his legacy to publicly argue that he is literally (and should be) above the law as President. So there is no other way around this. It is WP:NOTABLE on all counts as prescribed by etiquette surrounding WP:LEAD. 2601:282:8903:B3C0:E03B:9D22:3C30:1A19 (talk) 21:59, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
        The Obama article doesn't even include "African American" in the first sentence, that's only in the second sentence. —Alalch E. 22:30, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
        @Alalch E. So then include it in the second sentence. That's a good compromise. But you are against that as well it would seem, so why bother with that WP:POINT? 65.153.22.75 (talk) 22:45, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
        This request for comment (please read Misplaced Pages:Writing requests for comment) is not about the second sentence, it's about the first sentence, as worded in the proposal. This isn't a negotiation for us to come to a compromise. What is being responded to is the proposal, as stated in the question. Editors are, each individually, to the best of their ability, giving arguments for why the proposal should be implemented or not. And, in any case, what would that second sentence be like while reusing the exact language from the proposal: "And, in addition, he is a criminal"? —Alalch E. 22:51, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
        @Alalch E. I'm sure that as long as it is included in the first of second sentence as either "the first convicted felon" or "the first convicted criminal" to be elected to the office of Presidency, then that is well within the ballpark here.
        The larger debate is that now that the highest law in the land from the SCOTUS doesn't think Donald Trump is exceptional here, and now that sentencing has concluded, he is a convicted criminal/felon as a matter of empirical verifiable fact. This isn't about the time he shoplifted a DVD player as 21 year old (joking) about 30+ serious felonies.
        I can buy that argument that this is more than relevant and necessary to place this objective factual information as front and center as possible given its newsworthiness and historic importance. Misplaced Pages is first and foremost about both.
        I maintain neutrality only because the RFC won't be decided on a vote count, or our arguments here, but arbitrarily by an admin coming in to decide on a whim or which way the wind is blowing it would seem. Fair point on both sides as there is no mechanism for this unprecedented moment. 65.153.22.75 (talk) 23:00, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
        You're in no position to be sure of anything as someone who clearly hasn't dealt with these things for long enough on Misplaced Pages and don't understand how decisions are made. You need to be less sure about what you're telling yourself, and more sure about what people who know what they are talking about are telling you. They are telling you things such as: This request for comment (please read Misplaced Pages:Writing requests for comment) is not about the second sentence, it's about the first sentence, as worded in the proposal. This isn't a negotiation for us to come to a compromise. What is being responded to is the proposal, as stated in the question. Editors are, each individually, to the best of their ability, giving arguments for why the proposal should be implemented or not. What you claim to be the debate is not the debate here and now in this talk section. The "debate" question is as follows: Do you support or oppose the lede sentence to now read: Donald John Trump (born June 14, 1946) is an American politician, media personality, businessman, and criminal who served as the 45th president of the United States from 2017 to 2021.? —Alalch E. 23:28, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
      The conviction was secured in May 2024. January 10th was sentencing, which has no bearing on conviction. 2604:CA00:1C0:4422:0:0:860:27B (talk) 17:56, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
      BLPCRIME says nothing about placement of content. It allows inclusion of content, and the article already does that. Your policy claim is invalid. ―Mandruss ☎ 18:17, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
      Support. Factual, verifiable, and most importantly widespread coverage. Satisfies WP:BLPCRIME. Onikaburgers (talk) 21:08, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Oppose for the same reasons as the last time we discussed this. I don't see why a no-penalty sentence would make it more likely we add it in the opening sentence. It's already mentioned later in the lead, so this is WP:UNDUE. — Czello 16:49, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
      We don't get to determine whether a no-penalty sentence is due or not, it has received wide coverage in reliable sources to the extent that they keep reporting him as the first felon to become president. Kenneth Kho (talk) 16:59, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
      We do get to decide if it's due in the first sentence, and WP:RECENTISM arguments make it undue. — Czello 22:01, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Oppose. Not first-sentence material.—Alalch E. 16:49, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Oppose Per the last time. Slatersteven (talk) 16:50, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Support It is a factual verifiable statement..he is a convicted felon...it`s spelled lead Anonymous8206 (talk) 17:28, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
      So is Mark Wahlberg. —Alalch E. 17:31, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
      It's spelled lede, as in bury the lede, or the most important and relevant part of a story. Which, trump being the first convicted felon elected as president of the US, is very relevant. 2604:CA00:1C0:4422:0:0:860:27B (talk) 18:00, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
      This isn’t a question of whether it's true. Lots of things about Trump are true, and they can't all go in the first sentence. — Czello 22:02, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

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

    So it's correct to spell it either way. -SusanLesch (talk)
    The article is not about him it`s about trump Anonymous8206 (talk) 17:34, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
    Oh right, thanks, I forgot —Alalch E. 17:38, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Oppose putting it in the first sentence like that. It needs context that can happen later in the lead, but not the first sentence. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:42, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
      It's first sentence material, as he is now the first convicted felon in US history to be elected president, which in and of itself is noteworthy. 2604:CA00:1C0:4422:0:0:860:27B (talk) 17:54, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
      Being sentenced to an "unconditional discharge", i.e. literally nothing, is not "first sentence material". – Muboshgu (talk) 17:59, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
      As the first convicted felon to be elected president, it is first sentence material. 2604:CA00:1C0:4422:0:0:860:27B (talk) 18:01, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
      Is not. John Adams was the first president not to own slaves. Not in the first sentence. —Alalch E. 18:31, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
      Andrew Johnson was the first to be impeached. Not in the first sentence. —Alalch E. 18:41, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
      Thanks for the counter-examples, but I think it's sufficient to say that As the first convicted felon to be elected president, it is first sentence material. lacks policy basis. ―Mandruss ☎ 18:45, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
      I think being the first convicted felon to be elected president does not mean much, but being extensively covered as such by reliable sources does mean much, especially when he is portrayed as a career criminal with hundreds of felony charges. Kenneth Kho (talk) 19:07, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
      Thanks for the feedback. The examples serve as illustration of editorial practices, for those unaware of what they look like in reality. —Alalch E. 21:55, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
      How about the second? 2601:282:8903:B3C0:6D3E:8CEC:1108:F7A (talk) 03:53, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Oppose per Czello, Muboshgu, etc. ―Mandruss ☎ 17:57, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Oppose The felony conviction is a minor aspect of his career, not important enough for the first sentence. It is already mentioned later in the lead. QuicoleJR (talk) 19:09, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
      The first ever president of the United States receiving a felony is a minor aspect of his career? BootsED (talk) 19:45, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
      Yes. He is famous for being a controversial president, making inflammatory remarks and having divisive policies. The felony convictions are not the reason he is notable, his presidencies and business career are. The conviction should be mentioned in the lead, but not the first sentence. QuicoleJR (talk) 14:21, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Support Passes WP:BLPCRIME as stated earlier. However, I would change criminal to "convicted felon". A lot of former discussion against this suggested we wait until his sentence was official. It now is. BootsED (talk) 19:40, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
      ―Mandruss ☎ 19:49, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Comment - Can we please let people have their say, without telling them they are wrong, the closer will judge that, it is not for us to say. Slatersteven (talk) 18:04, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
      I guess it depends on the relevance of morality .. he`s a convicted criminal,,it's got nothing to do with Andrew Johnson or anyone else's impeachment..at least Nixon was smart enough to not get caught...trump is by definition a criminal but you think it's irrelevant...what can a moral or ethical person say to that ? Anonymous8206 (talk) 19:13, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
      It is not moral or ethical to put words in others' mouths during content discussions. Nobody has said it's irrelevant. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:35, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Oppose placing it in the first sentence (in the stress position). Please mention in the lead at a later spot. -SusanLesch (talk) 19:24, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Oppose the first sentence. Later in the lead I think is merited as it is a first and very heavily covered by RS. (Likely to stay that way as it is reported he's fund raising on it.) O3000, Ret. (talk) 19:35, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Oppose in the opening sentence as this is not reflected across wikipedia for other politicians who are convicted criminals. One key example being Silvio Berlusconi who was Italian PM convicted of multiple crimes including a 4 year sentence for tax fraud which is mentioned in his 4th opening paragraph not the opening sentence. IrishReader1996 (talk) 19:55, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Oppose The proposal is for a "crime label" for which there is an essay: Misplaced Pages: Crime labels. As listed by the essay, Misplaced Pages has had vast and lengthy arguments over crime labels, where in countless RFC's such labels are nearly universally unsuccessful. Or at least there has to be an obvious rationale for it. Basically, they are misleading, vague, and poor writing. In the present case, it smacks of simple name calling. Far better to just include a brief description of the criminal instance in the lead. I would, however, be in favor of a new section in the article bringing together all of Trump's sundry criminal and civil episodes; such a section may well then suggest an appropriate label. Bdushaw (talk) 20:52, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Comment - It's beyond relevant..it's the only thing he will be remembered for in the end...a rich criminal who bought his way into power at the bequest of those more sinister than him Anonymous8206 (talk) 21:02, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Oppose for the time being. I doubt this is what he'll be consistently noted as, but could be proven wrong. Riposte97 (talk) 21:09, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Strong Support This is absolutely first sentence material and possibly one of the most textbook WP:NOTABLE pieces of information in wikipedia history as far as the WP:LEAD goes, according our rules governing it.FACT- Trump was now officially sentenced for multiple felony crimes. That makes him the FIRST convicted felon (by a jury of his peers) to be elected President. Just like in the Obama wikipedia article, it mentions "Obama being the first African-American elected", this is equally notable. This is a first. And even the American Supreme Court allowed for Trump to be sentenced, so there is no question legally of where this stands.Of course, there are politically biased editors making ridiculous arguments against this in violation of etiquette and rules of wikipedia. And many examples listed AGAINST THIS are fueled by fallacious reasoning, or use petty examples that simply don't match here. The only reason to exclude this is because Trump is not only above the law in this country but above our rules apparently for ideological reasoning here.Again, no convicted felon in history was EVER elected President. And this is for multiple notable felony crimes involving a scheme to interfere in the democratic election, which is WHY NY law was able to amplify misdemeanor crimes into a felony crime scheme verdict/finding. Perhaps if the American SCOTUS down the road overturns this we can revisit this.And to be clear, if Biden was ever convicted of a crime or any democratic President then I too would strong support mention of that in the first sentence.However, the idea that if enough biased editors come here to OPPOSE THIS that we will allow for mob rule to override rules of what is WP:NOTABLE is a sad day for wikipedia, and proof that our community fails in upholding journalistic standards that we claim we uphold. If enough biased editors set up an RFC vote for a pro flat-earth position or a Holocaust denial position, would be both sides that?! Of course not, as wikipedia is clear on WP:FRINGE thinking, which is what is driving a delay on including this very important notable information per the standards of WP:LEAD.That it is buried in the article is a lame fallacious way around what is at heart here. That we treat all people and biographies the same regardless of political power. A President being convicted of serious crimes is every bit as notable (if not more so) than race or gender as it makes wikipedia come off as more concerned about notability about the color of one's skin that one's choices and behavior. No, this is a test of whether we can truly be objective about the facts and the mission of wikipedia, or if we simply cower in the face of fear of being unpopular. 2601:282:8903:B3C0:E03B:9D22:3C30:1A19 (talk) 21:06, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
      See WP:AGF and WP:NPA. State your case without accusing others of incompetence or bad faith, even if unnamed. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:19, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
      @Mandruss No, the "unnamed" part is actually important here for it to be WP:NPA, as there are exceptions to the rule when I'm in the right to call a WP:SPADE a spade given the stakes and clear violation of WP:NOTABILITY in an effort (albeit intentional or otherwise) to carve out an exception for a convicted criminal here who is now leading a democratic country.
      This also happens to be that great rare example of WP:AAGF. The AGF guideline recognizes that one can easily misjudge another's intentions or motives, and thus urges caution in that area. Ironically, the very act of citing AGF can suggest an assumption of bad faith, since one is assuming that the other is not also assuming good faith.
      Some disputes are exceptional, whether it is climate-change denial, holocaust denialism, arguing for a flat-earth, or in this case a plain and simple case of being in denial of stating WP:NOTABLE facts in a way that our rules surrounding WP:LEAD demands. The aforementioned reasons I've stated are the only honest empirical reasons for WP:CENSORing this content in the way we are doing now (by burying it and treating a powerful figure like Trump as some exception to the rules). Otherwise, matters of lesser importance (like mentioning Kamala Harris as the first female Vice President, or Obama as the first black President, in the first sentence of an article) should also be removed as we are making a statement as a community (intention or otherwise) about where our priorities lie insofar as what is WP:NOTABLE and what is not.
      Precedence should decide, not the emotion of the moment, and the process regarding Trump's convicted guilt has been allowed to play out long enough here that it is time to do right by the community, and follow our own precedents and rules. 2601:282:8903:B3C0:E03B:9D22:3C30:1A19 (talk) 21:36, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
      Unlike you, I have years-long experience with many of the Opposing editors here, including myself. Unlike you, I happen to know that we are anything but biased in favor of Trump. That kills your whole argument, and clearly shows the need for adherence to WP:AGF. You need to cease this line of argument or risk admin action. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:54, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
      @Mandruss Disagreeing with you as forcibly as you are disagreeing with me is not worthy of an WP:ANI, but if you must please go right ahead. As for the record, when reviewing your own history, your "many years of experience" are not spotless when it comes to your own behavior. And you are literally going around this thread making it a point to comment on many others with whom you don't agree (who did not consent to your opinion on the matter, with multiple arguments), trying to convince made-up minds that clearly won't change based upon your emotionally-reasoned attempts. So, what of your bulverism here?!
      At best, we agree to disagree, so nothing is "killed" here. And there is no truly unbiased person politically-speaking in any walks of life. There are countless examples of it on wikipedia, as you already know.
      As for this RFC vote, I've spoken my mind, and made my case, voted, so I plan to move on, and I'm done here. Are you? 2601:282:8903:B3C0:E03B:9D22:3C30:1A19 (talk) 22:05, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
      Disagreeing with you as forcibly as you are disagreeing with me See False equivalence. I am not the one persistently violating accepted principles of talk page behavior here. not spotless when it comes to your own behavior Laughable. Congratulations on ferreting out my one block in 11 years, from 9+1⁄2 years ago. Great detective work. I plan to move on Good call. I'm done here. Are you? I'm done if you are. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:14, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
      The content isn't being censored at all, that's a very silly suggestion. It's still included, just not in the literal first sentence.
      And yes, implying people are voting no because of "political bias" is an assumption of bad faith, so cool it. — Czello 22:07, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
      @Czello I stand by my vote, and my reasoning behind it. 2601:282:8903:B3C0:E03B:9D22:3C30:1A19 (talk) 22:11, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
      @Czello P.S. And I'm not talking about whether it should belong in the article or not. I'm talking about whether this is WP:CENSORSHIP by way of suppressing it in the opening sentence insofar as precedence, and etiquette surrounding WP:LEAD and WP:NOTABILITY are concerned. If we are to find Barack Obama's skin color notable enough to mention in the opening sentence of his biography as a first for Presidents, then mentioning "the first convicted criminal/felon to be elected President" is certainly more than notable for the same empirical reasons and as a matter of wikipedia precedence. 2601:282:8903:B3C0:E03B:9D22:3C30:1A19 (talk) 22:15, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
      I know, I'm saying it not being in the first sentence is not censorship. Additionally, what other articles do is not particularly relevant to this article. Other stuff, whataboutism, etc. — Czello 22:21, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
      @Czello Not to butt in, BUT (no pun intended) you did mention to the OP that it was "included in the body" as YOUR retort about an RFC literally about whether it is worthy to include this pertinent information front and center, not whether or not it should be included period. So that much was clear from the OP and those taking his/her/their position on this.
      And that retort is a popular dodge/red-herring in this debate and the one before it, as fallacies have been mentioned.
      I'm neutral on this row.
      But it does appear you are not IMO. 65.153.22.75 (talk) 22:49, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
      Sorry but I'm not quite following your point. My position has always been that it shouldn't be in the opening sentence, but is acceptable later in the lede (as it is currently). So no, I'm not neutral on this.
      The retort I made isn't a dodge - consensus is decided locally; what's is Obama's lede is apples and oranges. — Czello 23:11, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
      @Czello How so? lol It IS significant in a country like America where after hundreds of years of elections of white 'lawabiding' men a black man is elected President for the same reason that a convicted criminal with 34+ felony convictions is elected. It is historic, newsworthy, and very much a defining part of his legacy. He literally ran on that distinction.
      And consensus isn't god when it comes to undeniable history or empirical fact as far as a certain bottom goes even by wikipedia standards. If a local consensus suddenly decided the world was flat, an admin could overrule that as you know consensus be damned. You are not providing a compelling reason not to include it front and center other than you think it somehow is unfair and even disparaging against the subject, and outside the norms. Well, so is a democratic country like America electing its first convicted criminal in its hundreds of years as lawful democracy.
      Misplaced Pages is not beyond its own flaws, and editors are within their rights to call it out when they they have compelling case to do so. Do with that what you will, but it's not a violation of good faith given the exceptional circumstances here for some to challenge your thinking. That's my neutral point of view in this. Food for thought. 65.153.22.75 (talk) 23:24, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
      If a local consensus suddenly decided the world was flat, an admin could overrule that as you know consensus be damned. That's actually false. A closer can override the numbers if the minority has a stronger policy basis. There is no Misplaced Pages policy that the world is spherical. But this point is academic since flat-earth arguments would never have a majority and could never have a stronger policy basis. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:03, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
      It's significant enough to go into the lead, which it already is. It's not defining enough to be in the first sentence.
      I never said it shouldn't be included because it's disparaging against the subject. There seems to be an odd trend among some voting 'support' to believe those of us opposing it are sympathetic to Trump (I mean, take a look at this article and try to argue it's pro-Trump, lol). This is what's a violation of good faith.
      As for your views on consensus, Mandruss has very effectively addressed that. — Czello 09:04, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
      @Czello Mandruss has not. And neither of you are admins. So your opinions count as much as anyone other users. Your are flirting with WP:OWN language, so respect the POVs of others, and that includes the OP you are addressing. 2601:282:8903:B3C0:2863:9A38:BE25:70E6 (talk) 13:37, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
      Whether we are admins is irrelevant; their opinion doesn't count for more than ours anyway. Nor do we need to be admins to highlight issues of AGF. — Czello 15:58, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
      Czello is correct. You have a distorted view of what admins do, and of the division of responsibility between admins and non-admins. I wish behavior issues were handled solely by admins, but that is not the reality. One of en-wiki's greatest flaws is the requirement for ordinary editors to police the very people they are expected to collaborate with. I don't know how many other wikis have the same flaw. ―Mandruss ☎ 17:35, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Support Forget about conviction. We've never had a POTUS who was even criminally indicted.Arbeiten8 (talk) 22:43, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
      You are talking about "We" on a global site here. This site is not meant to be America centric or an American encylopida. Worldwide leaders have been convicted of crimes and it is not in their lead sentence and this shouldn't be any different see Silvio Berlusconi IrishReader1996 (talk) 23:06, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
      @IrishReader1996 That's a bad example.
      It is a first for an American President, leader of the world's only remaining superpower and long-standing democracy.
      The notability between a little known Italian leader and the President of a nuclear superpower could not be any more difference in what is WP:NOTABLE.
      According to WP:CRIME "For perpetrators, the victim of the crime is a renowned national or international figure, including, but not limited to, politicians or celebrities; or the motivation for the crime or the execution of the crime is unusual—or has otherwise been considered noteworthy—such that it is a well-documented historic event. Generally, historic significance is indicated by sustained coverage of the event in reliable secondary sources which persists beyond contemporaneous news coverage and devotes significant attention to the individual's role." That is beyond question here. The argument of the supporters is that Donald Trump should not be an exception to that simply because of the heat of the moment. It's a valid POV. 65.153.22.75 (talk) 23:15, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
      This response is amazingly biased. " leader of the world's only remaining superpower and long-standing democracy." this is nothing more than opinion from you nothing factual here.
      Your point of Berlusconi being little known is also your own personal view he is one of the most notable Italian politicians post Mussolini and one of the most notable European politicians in the last number of decades due to his multiple scandals and convictions which are all documented in his article.
      On your last point " including, but not limited to, politicians or celebrities; or the motivation for the crime or the execution of the crime is unusual—or has otherwise been considered noteworthy—such that it is a well-documented historic event." this all applies to Berlusconi and other politicians worldwide who have been convicted of crimes who are not labeled criminals in their opening sentence.
      But for purposes of points and notability in an American context the article for Spiro Agnewdoes not label him a criminal in the opening sentence either. He was the first and only sitting vice president of the USA convicted of a crime. IrishReader1996 (talk) 23:32, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
      Berlusconi "a little known Italian leader"? Is this a joke? The fact that he wasn't American doesn't mean that he's and has been little known; the world isn't, and never will be, US-centric. JacktheBrown (talk) 04:42, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
    Oppose per Czello, Muboshgu, Mandruss and others. This addition is not WP:DUE as Trump is certainly not most notable for an unconditional discharge sentencing. Big Thumpus (talk) 00:59, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
    Why isn't a CONVICTED FELON text on the intro? 189.179.128.219 (talk) 04:07, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
    Because we had an extensive discussion on it some months ago and there was no consensus to include that. It exists later in the lead. — Czello 09:05, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
    Oppose - not notable enough yet to warrant mention in the first sentence. Of course if that changes in the future, so should the lede. 2003:CD:EF49:C700:DD80:5A19:2283:EFDA (talk) 19:53, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
    Oppose - it is true, but doesn't warrant first sentence status as it's not at all what he is most notable for. I would support adding something about his being the first president to be convicted of a felony somewhere in the first paragraph. Being a felon isn't notable enough, but being the first president/felon is arguable noteworthy enough for first paragraph status. Separate from that I'd oppose calling him a criminal even if we did include his conviction in the first sentence as 'criminal' is too generic a term that could be interpreted in many ways. "Convicted Felon" seems more specific and more in keeping with other articles that referencing well known criminals 144.51.12.162 (talk) 20:00, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

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

    • Comment As President, there is really nothing else that Trump is known for more than his criminal behavior, convictions and evasion of serious penalties for said crimes. JFK was known for the Cuban Missile Crisis. Lincoln for his role in winning the civil war. In Trump's case, what is he most known for as President is his hundred plus indictments. And his criminal conviction. Making him the first ever convicted criminal felon to be elected to the office of the Presidency. It's absurd to suggest that historic first, and his criminal behavior (most of which he has been able to avoid consequences because of his re-election), is not on the top of list of what he is presently known for. It would be like burying Neil Armstrong's moon landing achievement, being the first man to set foot on the moon, deep in the body of an article. If you remove emotion from this, and simply view this through an historic lens, then this is a no brainer. Of the 45 white men that have served the office of Presidency, only one was a black man. Only one was a convicted felon. "It is said on wikipedia that JFK was the youngest person elected president at 43 years." Please put your bias aside, or your dogma about these exceptional circumstances, and let history and newsworthiness decide, not your egos. 2601:282:8903:B3C0:6D3E:8CEC:1108:F7A (talk) 04:04, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
      In the first lines of the lead of the articles of well-known criminals (Hitler, Mussolini, Mao, Stalin, etc.) the term isn't present. Trump isn't remotely comparable to them, yet you (and not only you) would like to add "criminal" to this page; it's very strange. JacktheBrown (talk) 05:05, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
      They were not convicted of a crime, for those convicted see Hermann Göring, Jeffrey Epstein, Harvey Weinstein. Kenneth Kho (talk) 05:42, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
      For relevant political examples see Spiro Agnew and Silvio Berlusconi IrishReader1996 (talk) 12:53, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
      I'd say Trump is most famous for his inflammatory rhetoric, immigration policies, and January 6. The hush money conviction is not in the top 5. QuicoleJR (talk) 20:03, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Oppose having criminal/felon in first sentence. Donald Trump is not primarily known for his criminal convictions. The coverage in the lead is sufficient weight as it is now. There was already no consensus to add this last year, and nearly nothing has changed since then. The formality of the judge sentencing him, to literally no punishment I may add, is not a good reason for rehashing this matter. R. G. Checkers 07:13, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Comment This is a textbook example of information that has WP:DUEweight in the WP:LEAD. As others have pointed out, we don't get to determine whether a no-penalty sentence is due or not, the press does.
    That's how wikipedia works.
    And the consensus in the press, by way of wide coverage through reliable sources, is to the extent that they keep reporting him as the first felon to become president. Whether they like it or not is another story, but there is no doubt about the press acknowledging the notoriety of the President being a convicted criminal. So if the press consensus is leading with this information as WP:NOTABLE then so should we. There are no sources suggesting that this isn't the big deal that it is. The disagreement in the sources is about whether Trump is deserving of his verdict or being persecuted, and that is not for us to weigh in here with how we present such notable historic information.
    There is too much WP:EDITORIALizing going on here in this debate.2601:282:8903:B3C0:2863:9A38:BE25:70E6 (talk) 13:48, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
    Off-topic about IP addresses, WP:AGF, resolution of a double !vote, etc. Ok to continue within the collapse. ―Mandruss ☎ 06:11, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
    Are you the same IP as above 2601:282:8903:b3c0:e03b:9d22:3c30:1a19 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) that voted support? Because they geolocate to the came place and ISP. ALso looks like 65.153.22.75 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). PackMecEng (talk) 17:21, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
    @PackMecEng: When the first halves of two IPv6 addresses (2601:282:8903:b3c0) are the same, they are always the same device. The device changes the latter half frequently and that is beyond the user's control. This editor can demonstrate their good faith by striking one of their two bolded !votes; else we have a clear socking situation.As for 65.153.22.75, it's probably a situation of IPv6 for their phone and IPv4 for their computer or other non-phone device. That address has not posted a bolded !vote that I can see, so the only problem is possible bludgeoning; seems to me they are consuming significantly more than their share of oxygen in this discussion. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:31, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
    @Mandruss Says you, with practically half the comments here coming from you. Pot meet kettle. 65.153.22.75 (talk) 19:37, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
    WP:BLUDGEON is not about comment count, as a lazy read of just its nutshell will reveal to you. I don't think I have repeated essentially the same arguments at great length and ad nauseam. Are you going to strike or not?? ―Mandruss ☎ 19:47, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
    @Mandruss Already did. Changed from a vote to “a comment”. Wasn’t intentional. I’m not trying to double dip. Thought I was voting on a separate vote started below in a different subsection. Also, some of us anons without accounts sometimes text from a home PC. Then use our mobile device when we are out and about. I’m in my 60s and behind the curve when it comes to texts. But not pretending to be anyone other than who I am. And that’s all that needs to be says about it. Verbose or not, you too are strongly opinionated and invested here as well, and commented more than your fair share too. Given the stakes and unprecedented nature of this heated historical moment, it’s reasonable, expected, and par for the course. We are simply just both spirited strong-willed blokes. Have a good one. 2601:282:8903:B3C0:4989:2E9B:F75E:3173 (talk) 20:20, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
    Wasn’t intentional. I’m not trying to double dip. And I gave you the benefit of the doubt, per WP:AGF. You'll note that I did not accuse you of anything. (Some editors should take note: we are entitled to our suspicions, but expressing them absent clear evidence is a violation that should be dealt with more harshly in my view. Regrettably, some editors don't know what "clear evidence" means. You violated that principle at least once, here, and then doubled down here. That remains unacceptable in my opinion.)My view of constructive talk page behavior is shared among many experienced editors: Don't repeat yourself—we heard you the first time; the more repetition, the longer the thread and the less likely it is that new arrivals will read existing discussion. Comments are never between just two editors, but some editors act as if they are. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:54, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
    @PackMecEng Thanks for catching this. Thought I was on a different subspace (the one below that started a new vote). I corrected it. Wasn’t trying to double dip. It’s now a comment. Cheers 2601:282:8903:B3C0:E4AF:EA9E:F67C:C0C (talk) 20:07, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
    Thanks! I appreciate it. PackMecEng (talk) 20:09, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
    You can't really cite the coverage in the press as "consensus" as that's heavily subject to WP:RECENTISM. — Czello 19:04, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
    @Czello This is actually the opposite of RECENTISM, as the verdict was many moons ago, been debated to death here, and given the thoughtfulness of the American legal system in its methodological approach (especially in the drawn out fashion under Biden and with all the delays) this has been given MORE than enough time for us to be able to call it. A convicted criminal being sentenced after a serious trial is literally the closure of said dragged out process. This is a dodge, and WP:NOT recent, and is WP:NOT our job to avoid reporting harsh truths when it becomes necessary to do so. 2601:282:8903:B3C0:C071:CE5B:4487:3425 (talk) 23:38, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
    This 2601:282:8903:B3C0 IP is engaged in ridiculous Wikilawyering all throughout this section. Sentencing was yesterday, hence RECENTISM. WP:NOT is not at all related to anything here. Nor are the other essays raised, such as SPADE. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:03, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
    @Muboshgu No, but you are flirting with trying WP:GAMING the system here by misrepresenting others here. And engaging in a borderline personal attack.
    This isn't a game, and the sentencing is the conclusion of Trump's verdict from MONTHS ago. What is "ridiculous" is the suggestion that this is somehow RECENT news. Trump was a convicted criminal MONTHS ago, remember?? And the American legal system doesn't say that a conviction doesn't count UNTIL you are sentenced. The sentence is simply the punishment. The conviction is the important part.
    The only reason why sentencing is even relevant now in this 'second-look-of-sorts' at including information about Trump's criminal behavior in the opening is because there was a chance the Judge may have reversed himself and dismissed the case. Between the SCOTUS giving its blessing on Trump's sentencing and the Judge doubling down, this old news about Trump's verdict now has proper closure. And we can easily report on it more directly.
    The only WP:SPADE is see here is you trying to find some fancy way around reporting obvious factual pertinent information for whatever personal agenda you have to bury it in the lead. Re-read WP:LEAD It clearly says that in the lead, "It should identify the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, INCLUDING any prominent controversies. There is nothing recent about Trump's verdict, it is literally one of the most controversy and notable things about him, as he is the only American President in all of world history to be a convicted felon. And he's been a convicted felon for a while now, nothing recent about it. 2601:282:8903:B3C0:C071:CE5B:4487:3425 (talk) 01:28, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
    whatever personal agenda you have to bury it in the lead. You did it again. Consider this fair warning: One more and I'll see you at WP:ANI, unless someone sees fit to do it now. (To those such as Slatersteven who would scold me for for saying this here instead of your UTP, I would respond that that doesn't work for some IPv4 editors and most IPv6 editors. The UTP disappears into the ether every time the IP address changes, which is quite frequently, so it's rarely worth one's time to post on it. You yourself have posted in this discussion under seven different IP addresses, one IPv4 and six IPv6, each with its own UTP.) ―Mandruss ☎ 01:48, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
    Like I said, Wikilawyering. And yes, also failing to AGF. A closing admin will take it into account. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:42, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
    The previous debates resulted in no consensus to include in the lead. It hasn't been persistently a presence in the press or something he's primarily known for since the initial conviction. It's back in the press now, hence recentism. — Czello 08:15, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

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

    • Oppose This is all political. The trials only happened because he ran for office, those responsible for them supporting his rival. Dream Focus 14:09, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
      Michael Cohen (lawyer) served time in prison, was fined, and lost his law license because of the campaign finance laws violations on behalf of Trump. Cohen wasn't running for office when he was punished. It appears more logical to say that Trump got away because he was running for the presidency. Arbeiten8 (talk) 15:47, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Strong support On Misplaced Pages, I think there are systemic issues with the handling of political articles. It is best that readers be made aware, as soon as possible, that this is not the place to go for balanced coverage of topics involving political ideology. Calling Trump a "criminal" in the very first sentence would telegraph that to readers quite marvelously. By all means, have at it. Marcus Markup (talk) 15:48, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
      The president-elect is a career criminal dating back to 1968 when he falsified medical records to include bone spurs in furtherance of draft dodging felony, before he became businessman and media personality. Kenneth Kho (talk) 16:08, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
    I know he is. It is a good edit. Go at it. Marcus Markup (talk) 16:21, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
    Lol Big Thumpus (talk) 16:24, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Oppose - The body, of course, the lead, absolutely, the first sentence? Not yet, it is not one of the defining characteristics of what makes him notable. I could certainly see that changing, but it is not at that point by RS coverage yet. PackMecEng (talk) 16:06, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

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

    Support Outside of playing more golf on the dime of taxpayers than any other President (a little humor), unfortunately the hard truth is that according the consensus of the sources he is known for being America's first convicted felon to be elected to the highest office of the land. He and he alone enjoys that distinction. There has been no other President in the last few hundred years charged with hundreds of crimes, or even a single felony, let alone convicted of one. That alone makes this not only notable but necessary to highlight in the lead.
    The biggest disagreement here among the naysayers (and some trolls) seems to be that this "is controversial",
    So let's look at WP:LEAD, shall we? It clearly says, "It should identify the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, INCLUDING any prominent controversies.
    Since the biggest disagreement here among the naysayers (and some trolls) seems to be that this "is controversial", many are saying we should NOT highlight it front and center, etc".
    I want editors to note that WP:LEAD in fact wants us TO INCLUDE PROMINENT CONTROVERSIES. Either some misguided editors need to refresh their memory and read this, and we all seem to agree Trump's many crimes and convictions need to be included in the article regardless as they are empirically sound, so this should be distilled to what is appropriate for a lead.
    -->Is it "notable" per WP:LEAD? Yes, for the same reason that President Barack Obama being elected the first African American President, as it has been pointed out to death here.
    -->It is summarized? Yes, this has played out in the public, and with the press, and here and now has found proper closure with sentencing and with the blessing of even the SCOTUS.
    -->Is it prominent? It is at least one of the things Trump is known best for as President since no other President enjoys this exclusive, historic, unique distinction.
    And for those saying that this celebrity or that politician isn't highlighted in the lead as a criminal and yadda, yadda, yadda, then I suggest fixes those articles if they too fit the above criteria.
    For those letting possible political bias interfere with their duties as an editor, my ask is please keep it simple and lets not treat one controversial subject differently than any other. This isn't about whether Trump deserves his conviction. It's about its notoriety, notability and whether the consensus in the press reflects as much. And we must reflect the press per WP:V otherwise we are basically endorsing a loophole around the WP:NPOV violation. EmmaRoydes (talk) 18:23, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
    A few things, pretty much no one is saying it should not be in the lead. What they are discussing, and what this RFC is about, is if it should be in the first sentence. So that kind of undercuts all of your points. Next do not accuse people disagreeing with you of being trolls or that it must be political bias. That is not helpful to discussions here. PackMecEng (talk) 02:34, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
    From my experience, the editors who complain about other people editing based on their "political bias" are usually the ones whose editing is most influenced by their political biases. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:16, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Oppose, this conviction is nowhere near what Trump is best known for and would be wildly WP:Undue. If he'd been convicted in relation to January 6th, then sure, but this is minor at most. Better mentioned later in the lede. Kowal2701 (talk) 18:46, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
      @Kowal2701 That’s fallacious. There’s nothing minor about 34+ felony convictions. In accordance to American law, the justice system upgraded those minor misdemeanor charges into felonies because the jury found that Trump had been committing multiple misdemeanor crimes as part of a felony criminal to influence and interfere with the 2016 election. Convictions for interfering with a democratic election is the opposite of “minor”. 65.153.22.75 (talk) 18:50, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
      @Kowal2701: I agree, Trump best known for this conviction? It sounds like a provocation by users who dislike him (and I don't like him much either, but I'm objective). JacktheBrown (talk) 18:51, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
      Agreed, frankly it'd be a bit embarrassing if this were to succeed (although nom is clearly good faith) Kowal2701 (talk) 18:53, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
      Thank you, I'd add that this is not a fringe RfC, I looked up a similar mid-2024 RfC that was closed as no consensus, and it noted the support side had a majority, which took me by surprise as I would have opposed back then, he was not officially a felon yet. Kenneth Kho (talk) 19:24, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
      @JacktheBrown How is it “provocation” that Trump is a convicted criminal for 30 plus serious felonies involving an election interference scheme? Lol That was the finding by a jury, not a simple allegation. If it’s provocative or even embarrassing then that’s the natural consequence for the one committing a crime. That’s on the convicted, not on us. I challenge your “objectivity”. Liking him or disliking him has nothing to do with this. That saying, you can have your own set of opinions but not your own facts?? The law and the nature of convictions happens to carry some ugly truths. So do we waterdown the Ted Bundy page or the Harvey Weinstein page for fear of personal embarrassment of said subject? Trump is also an adjudicated sexual assault perpetrator. That’s also a first for Presidents. That other saying, if the shoe fits? Objective indeed. 65.153.22.75 (talk) 19:33, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Comment — See the lead sentence of the Misplaced Pages article Michael Cohen (lawyer). Regards, Bob K31416 (talk) 02:50, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
      I think we can safely assume you're an Opposer without a !vote to date. The "other side" has already been advised against other stuff and whataboutism, correctly in my opinion. Trump is neither Obama (Supporters) nor Cohen (Opposers). He is a whole new animal, so we should not look to precedents either way (especially cherry-picked precedents). ―Mandruss ☎ 03:30, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
      @Mandruss: why "animal"? JacktheBrown (talk) 03:39, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
      Animal, noun sense 5. ―Mandruss ☎ 03:42, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
      Thank you, it's always nice to learn new things. JacktheBrown (talk) 03:48, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
      I put it out there so that editors could chew on the lead sentence of an article about someone convicted of crimes and involved in the 34 felony counts of Trump. Another one involved and having a Misplaced Pages article is Allen Weisselberg. As far as I'm concerned, either way works: without "criminal" is more appropriate as far as writing a Misplaced Pages article, whereas with "criminal" in the lead sentence it puts up front the tone of the article that follows. Regards, Bob K31416 (talk) 08:11, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Comment Although I voted support, I think calling him a "criminal" is too non-specific and is a loaded term. The fact that Barack Obama's racial identity as "the first African-American president in U.S. history" is worthy enough to be included in the first paragraph of the lead; but Trump's 34 felony convictions and being the first acting and former president in U.S. history to be a convicted felon is not worthy of being included in the first paragraph of the lead, is a double standard. I think a separate RfC to simply debate whether this unique status should be included in the first paragraph of the lead may be warranted, irrespective of the exact wording. BootsED (talk) 22:36, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
      Have we had a separate discussion about first paragraph as opposed to first sentence? I may have missed it, or my memory may be starting to fail in my somewhat-old age. If so, can someone provide an archive link? If not, we don't go to RfC unless we fail to reach consensus without RfC. Assuming no political motivations per WP:AGF, there isn't any particular rush to get this resolved in this biography; four months would not be excessive for something so significant. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:17, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
      Separate - no. It came up during this RfC about adding "convicted felon" to the first sentence. There was also this discussion and two brief ones (here and here) that didn't get much traction. When this discussion has been closed, we should start a separate one about mentioning the felony conviction in the first paragraph. It was major headline news, including Trump's extensive efforts all the way up to the Supreme Court to get the case dismissed. (And now he can't buy or own a gun but next week he'll be able to deploy nuclear missiles .) Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 16:44, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
      I see you and Bob K31416 believe that "criminal" is too non-specific, loaded, and set the tone for the article that follows. I thought the complete opposite when I started this RfC, and still do. I don't like the term "convicted felon" in previous RfC, and I'm not a fan of an entire sentence for how he is the first convicted president in U.S. history. I intended "criminal" to dispassionately mean he was convicted of a crime without specificity, and that it simply mentions in passing one of his many other titles such as the unspecific politician, businessman, media personality titles, such that no tone is set for the rest of the lede at all. A person who has no idea who he is and stumble upon the four titles would think this is probably interesting, and it gets super interesting when the person reads "who became 45th (and 47th) ...", the same way I found it interesting when I first read "politician and humanitarian" in Jimmy Carter. Kenneth Kho (talk) 15:41, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
      Should this article really be geared towards a hypothetical reader who doesn't know who Trump is? Does such a person even exist? Riposte97 (talk) 20:25, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
      ...Yes, since that's the entire long-term point of something like an encyclopedia. We should be writing articles so that people can read them in 100 years and come away feeling like they've been informed in a broad way, not like they've read a contemporary news article about the subject. That's why WP:RECENT exists. Big Thumpus (talk) 22:05, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
      @Big Thumpus: I agree with you, but it's also true that in 100 years there will probably be other virtual encyclopedias, and perhaps Misplaced Pages will be replaced with something even better and much more automated. JacktheBrown (talk) 22:15, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
      Venturing even further off topic, a future Misplaced Pages will be written mostly by AI bots (maybe that's what you meant by "automated"). If done correctly, that will largely eliminate editor bias. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:32, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
      @Mandruss: "...will be written mostly by AI bots (maybe that's what you meant by "automated")." Yes. JacktheBrown (talk) 22:40, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
      Yeah, I spoke in haste. And countless humans will be forced to find new hobbies. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:42, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Oppose Being convicted of any offense for which not punishment inflicted doesn't make someone notable. Also, there are plenty of politicians and others who have been convicted of crimes who are not described as criminals and lots of criminals (probably including U.S. presidents) who have never been convicted of anything. Anyway, it would just make the article look absurd and discredit it in the eyes of readers. TFD (talk) 23:36, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Comment — I briefly tried to find sources that describe Trump as a "criminal", i.e. using that word, and I was unsuccessful. Maybe someone else can find such sources. Thanks. Bob K31416 (talk) 16:48, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
      How about the court? O3000, Ret. (talk) 16:58, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
      👍 Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 17:24, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
      Thanks but is that referring to the type of court or the defendant? Bob K31416 (talk) 18:01, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
      Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 18:09, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
      Not sure what difference it makes as he was convicted in a criminal court. As said below, a convicted felon is by definition a criminal. Nonetheless, I !voted Oppose. O3000, Ret. (talk) 18:21, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

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

    Donald John Trump (born June 14, 1946) is an American politician, media personality, businessman, criminal, native New Yorker, father, husband, and amateur golfer who served as the 45th president of the United States from 2017 to 2021.All of which is eminently verifiable and amply supported by RS. That does not mean it should be in the first sentence or even the first paragraph. Please stop with the simplistic arguments. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:10, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
    I totally, completely agree with Mandruss. JacktheBrown (talk) 21:00, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
    +1 Maxeto0910 (talk) 21:01, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
    It's a statement of fact...if you had to sum him up in one sentence that pretty much covers it..this is exactly what the first sentence is supposed to do Anonymous8206 (talk) 23:59, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
    Which entirely misses my point. Done trying to communicate with you on this issue. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:11, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Support. His conviction got a huge amount of attention, and sources have pointed out that he is notable as the first US president who is also a convicted criminal. It's at minimum as notable as "media personality". Cortador (talk) 13:32, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
      I wouldn't mind removing "media personality" TBH. He is notable for being president twice and for being a businessman. He is not notable for his felony convictions. They should be in the lead, but not the first sentence. QuicoleJR (talk) 14:17, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
    The fact of the matter he is not a media personality he's a former media personality..if being a convicted felon is less significant than that what would be ? It belongs in the first sentence..it is relevant if for no other reason there are a lot of people who look at Misplaced Pages articles and never get past the first sentence...I generally don`t get past the first paragraph..I was taught in school to get to the point in the first sentence..that the first sentence should support the first paragraph and the first paragraph should support the body of the work..I support wording it as convicted felon rather than criminal as it is more descriptive and accurate Anonymous8206 (talk) 18:59, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
    BTW, what's the meaning of the term "media personality"? Thanks, Bob K31416 (talk) 20:36, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
    It sounds better than "reality television host". BTW without hosting "The Apprentice", Trump likely never becomes president or charged with any crimes, so note the WP:RECENTISM in saying he isn't notable for it. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:43, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
    Do you have a source that explicitly states that Trump wouldn't be a president or convicted criminal without having been a TV host? Cortador (talk) 21:16, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
    Can I prove a negative? Of course not. I said "likely" and that is my opinion. Read this. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:25, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
    See Donald Trump#Media career. He was a media presence (radio and TV talk shows, cameos in movies and on TV shows, source for tabloids and society pages of NY Times and other papers) before, during, and after the Apprentice, not to mention his Twitter activities. See also the first discussion for this consensus which had 10 options to choose from. Examples for definitions: Dimensions (Media personalities, encompassing TV hosts, news anchors, and social media celebrities, are individuals known for their presence in various media platforms), Urban Dictionary (A modern term for the carefully formulated and overtly fake publicly displayed personality used by ‘celebrities’ who lack natural presentation talent). Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 21:23, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
    Do you expect me to take your arguments serious when you are citing Urban Dictionary? Cortador (talk) 08:11, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
    • @Cortador: I don't agree with you at all, because it would probably be the only article in the entire encyclopedia to contain this term in the initial part of the lead; some users are very angry with Donald, but no valid reason has been presented for the inclusion of the (pejorative) term "criminal" only on the Trump page. JacktheBrown (talk) 23:01, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
      "Other articles don't do X" is not and has never been a valid argument here. Also, I recommend you don't edit based your personal feelings, but on how sources report on the subject of an article. Cortador (talk) 09:59, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Strongly oppose He's not known for being a criminal qua criminal. Trump's crimes are inextricably linked to his career in either business or politics. They were business-related/political in their very nature. It more than suffices to mention the convictions further down the line, but to insert "criminal" in the very first sentence is manifestly undue. KINGofLETTUCE 👑 🥬 12:18, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
      +1. JacktheBrown (talk) 18:23, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Statistics: Although this is not a vote, at the present time there are 22 Oppose opinions expressed, and 8 Support opinions being expressed; along with these there are nearly a dozen Comments which have been added sometimes neutral and sometimes of explicit viewpoints. ErnestKrause (talk) 00:38, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
      Thanks. Despite protestations to the contrary, there is no clear policy basis for either side; it's all "editorial judgment". So a closer would have no reason to override the numbers. If I were on the Support side, I'd concede to save everybody a lot of time, but I know better than to hope for that. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:47, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

    "dismissed following his victory in the 2024 election."

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

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

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

    Convicted felon

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

    It's in the third paragraph of the intro, it doesn't really matter where it is just that it's there. Akechi The Agent Of Chaos (talk) 00:36, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
    @Akechi The Agent Of Chaos: exactly! It's largely sufficient that it's present somewhere in the lead, yet some users complain that the term isn't written exactly on the line they want; this, in my opinion, is very disappointing behaviour (of course I'm not judging anyone). JacktheBrown (talk) 17:25, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
    I would rather it be in the first paragraph myself but as long as we have that he's a convicted felon in there it's fine. Akechi The Agent Of Chaos (talk) 01:48, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
    I agree should be in introduction after they mention business man 38.95.21.27 (talk) 04:32, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
    Agreed. 2600:1700:5CC0:3060:F899:671:20F3:5EB3 (talk) 06:41, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

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

    See RFC above. Slatersteven (talk) 10:44, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
    I do believe that at this point, with a sentence handed down, calling Trump "the first U.S. president to be convicted of a (felony) crime", if not outright "the first U.S. president to be a convicted felon" within the first three paragraphs is neither incorrect nor undue. We may need a new RfC to handle this. DemocracyDeprivationDisorder (talk) 16:55, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
    It needs to be in the first sentence of the article Anonymous8206 (talk) 03:02, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

    2nd Term time

    I believe that under the section that says assuming office where it says January 20th, 2025, should have an end date of January 20th, 2029, considering the fact that this is his second term and he will not be eligible to run in the 2028 election, if it cant say that under "assuming office" then it should say that the day he becomes President, thank you. Communism-socialism-is-part-of-my-past (talk) 02:04, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

    No, per WP:CRYSTALBALL... who's to say it doesn't end before that date? - Adolphus79 (talk) 02:15, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
    Or after that date. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ – Muboshgu (talk) 02:17, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
    Also, it will not be longer then january 20th 2025, since the 22nd amendment limits presidents to 2 terms, to change that, he needs two thirds of congress, which he wont get. Communism-socialism-is-part-of-my-past (talk) 02:33, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
    Further more, the suggested content is verifiable Communism-socialism-is-part-of-my-past (talk) 02:35, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
    If wikipedia "does not predict the future" then there should not be "assuming office" at all, thank you for offering me a contradiction. Communism-socialism-is-part-of-my-past (talk) 02:30, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
    The current treatment is standard for all U.S. presidents, most likely for all politicians. See Joe Biden on January 1, 2021 and on February 1, 2021. See Donald Trump on January 1, 2017 and on February 1, 2017. See Barack Obama on January 1, 2009 and on February 1, 2009. And so on.The end date is added after leaving office; see Barack Obama on January 1, 2017 and on February 1, 2017.This article is not going to deviate from that standard. If you want to propose a change to the standard, this is not the place—discussion on this page governs only this article.A recent proposal to change "Assuming office" to "Scheduled to assume office" for all officeholders-elect failed at Village Pump, see Misplaced Pages:Village pump (policy)/Archive 198#WP:CRYSTAL in officeholder articles and infoboxes. ―Mandruss ☎ 05:25, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
    Off-topic question: why do the infoboxes for Trump in 2017 and Obama in 2009 show their correct positions (e.g. incumbent) but not the correct age at the time (71 and 48, respectively)? Looks as though the template always uses DOB + difference to current year (Trump 78, Obama 63). Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 15:29, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
    The {{birth date and age}} template calculates the age based on the current date when the article is rendered, so it wouldn't work when displaying years-old revisions. Similarly, if an image is deleted after the time of the revision, it's redlinked when displaying the revision. Similarly, if a template is modified in a way that changes its output, the change is reflected for all old revisions of articles that use the template. Anything not physically in an article's wikitext is unreliable for old revisions. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:14, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

    Proposal for change to second sentence

    Original heading: "Proposal to Revise the Introduction Paragraph for Clarity and Consistency and to Align with the Introduction of J.D. Vance's Misplaced Pages Page" ―Mandruss ☎ 20:42, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

    I believe to make the introduction paragraph align with the narrative, it should be changed from: '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. Having won the 2024 presidential election as the nominee of the Republican Party, he is the president-elect and will be inaugurated as the 47th president on January 20, 2025.' to: '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. Having won the 2024 presidential election as the nominee of the Republican Party, Trump is the current president-elect of the United States and will be inaugurated as the 47th president on January 20, 2025.' This change aligns the introduction with the style used in J.D. Vance's Misplaced Pages page. It also eliminates the repetition of the pronoun 'he' and provides a clearer reference to Trump. As you can see, this aligns with J.D. Vance's Misplaced Pages page introduction: 'James David Vance (born James Donald Bowman; August 2, 1984) is an American politician, attorney, author, and Marine Corps veteran who is the vice president-elect of the United States with President-elect Donald Trump.' Matthew4100002 (talk) 17:40, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

    Speaking of "clarity". Current text:

    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. Having won the 2024 presidential election as the nominee of the Republican Party, he is the president-elect and will be inaugurated as the 47th president on January 20, 2025.

    Proposed text:

    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. Having won the 2024 presidential election as the nominee of the Republican Party, Trump is the current president-elect of the United States and will be inaugurated as the 47th president on January 20, 2025.

    ―Mandruss ☎ 20:45, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
    Oppose. You are adding three things:
    • "Trump" is unnecessary surname repetition.
    • "current" is redundant with "is".
    • "of the United States" is redundant with "American" and "of the United States" in first sentence.
    No improvement. And I fail to see the claimed consistency with JD Vance. In any case, Trump is not Vance, who has not had a previous term. That's why we have WP:OTHERSTUFF. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:12, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
    Why discuss this five days before the inauguration? The first sentence will be changed to serves as the 47th, and we'll have to have a whole 'nother discussion about the second one. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 21:28, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
    That too. But it was either ignore, respond, or close. It was unlikely it would be universally ignored, and we don't close merely because something is pointless. In my view. So I responded. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:38, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
    👍 Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 21:43, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
    @Mandruss
    Oppose Nope. Too soon. WP:RECENTISM.73.243.171.103 (talk) 02:02, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

    New Trump-produced portrait

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

    Change Trumps official portrait to the 2025 portrait 2601:300:4B81:9C70:B848:8708:D29D:D129 (talk) 23:59, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

     Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit extended-protected}} template. — In any case, what 2025 portrait? There should be a new one available after he takes office. It might be a month or two, so be patient. Don't worry, we have this covered. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:10, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
    https://www.timesnownews.com/world/us/us-news/donald-trumps-inauguration-portrait-sparks-mugshot-comparisons-on-social-media-bad-article-117280859 - this is what I believe they where talking about, Trump today had a unofficial portrait taken of him for his inauguration. I think that is what they where talking about. I personally think we should wait until after he takes official, but it is a recent photo and honesty would be more appropriate to use then the current portrait taken in 2017, which is over 8 years old. Jimco1945 (talk) 03:13, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
    Agree I think so too! https://commons.wikimedia.org/File:TrumpPortrait.jpg MediaGuy768 (talk) 03:52, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
    Should be noted on the page that this is his inauguration portrait, not his official portrait (at least not yet). Biden and Harris (and Trump and Pence) had different inauguration portraits than official presidential portraits. Dingers5Days (talk) 04:02, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
    Were they included in Misplaced Pages articles without being deleted by the WP copyright police? ―Mandruss ☎ 04:14, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
    Bidens page used his official portriat as Vice President until April 9th, 2021 when his official portrait was released by the White House. Just double checked way back machine Are Jay Morrison (talk) 06:59, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
    Thanks for the explanation. It baffles me how often people expect us to read minds, remotely over the internet. I'm converting this to a discussion thread: Edit request is for things that don't require discussion, such as typo corrections, grammar corrections, reverts of clear violations of consensus, and so on. ―Mandruss ☎ 03:55, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
    Oppose. All other factors aside, the reason we can use the White House-produced portraits is because they are produced by the U.S. Government and not subject to copyright issues. That is not the case for this photo. Looks like a non-starter to me. ―Mandruss ☎ 04:01, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
    That's my concern too. I was trying to figure out any more information, but I can find no evidence whatsoever that this was created by an employee of the government acting in their official duties. His Twitter does not suggest that he is working for the government - but for Trump directly. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 04:05, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
    Special Case for Presidential Transition Teams. The presidential transition team is federally funded and operates in coordination with government agencies. This would fall under PD. MediaGuy768 (talk) 04:19, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
    We'll see. Anyway, we need a new consensus to supersede consensus 1, as stated elsewhere. Everyone needs to leave the infobox image alone pending that new consensus. ―Mandruss ☎ 04:23, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
    And since Consensus 1 references potential copyright issues on the inauguration image from 2017, I've now reverted this change in image until a new consensus forms and any copyright issues are resolved. I've also asked at the Commons village pump for more opinions regarding the copyright status. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 04:17, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
    Ah, thanks. It didn't occur to me that someone would be so WP:BOLD, so I wasn't even watching the article. ―Mandruss ☎ 04:20, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
    Consensus 1 references temporarily suspended by #19 following copyright issues on the inauguration portrait - any idea where these issues were brought up, especially any related deletion requests on Commons that may be able to be referenced? -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 04:24, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
    The author... Daniel Torok...said the following in my inquiry to him: "Should be public domain on the 20th but with the exception that it can’t be used for commercial purposes without WH approval" From the source himself. Looks like the author intends PD for the photo. No issue to publish. MediaGuy768 (talk) 04:34, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
    That is not public domain then. Images uploaded to Commons must be free to use for any use, with only attribution allowed to be required. See this page. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 04:37, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
    All presidential portraits have the same terms as the 2025 author mentioned. MediaGuy768 (talk) 04:39, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
    No they do not. Official portraits created on behalf of the US Government by an employee of the US Government are explicitly public domain. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 04:40, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
    In this case, the official portrait will be this image. They will not retake it. The author is going to PD the image for the National Archives. MediaGuy768 (talk) 04:43, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
    Of course they'll retake it. The White House would never let that be the "official" portrait. ―Mandruss ☎ 04:48, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
    Misplaced Pages does not operate on "the author is going to PD " at some undetermined point in the future. Until it is public domain, it is not public domain. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 04:46, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
    Nope! The author took it on behalf of the federally funded transition team. The author said he is not enforcing the copyright and that it will be full PD on Jan 20. Additionally, the "can’t be used for commercial purposes without White House approval" portion is not enforceable because the WH cant take action on behalf of the author nor should any NC restriction apply to such from the WH. MediaGuy768 (talk) 04:50, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
    The image cannot be used until it is explicitly released under a free license by the author or when it is entered into the public domain on the 20th, as has already been explained. The author simply stating that he does not intend to enforce the copyright is not sufficient. See Commons:Licensing Pave Paws (talk) 05:46, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
    Misplaced Pages copyright policy is an arcane science not meant for mere mortals. After all, a local consensus to include would not mean squat to the copyright police. Wait for Commons feedback. If they sign off on it, we can discuss other factors. I would still oppose, but it would be premature to say why. ―Mandruss ☎ 05:49, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
    Made an account just to change this. Yes! Evaburden (talk) 04:25, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
    @Evaburden, it would just get deleted. Wait until the official portrait is released by the White House itself. Hurricane Clyde 🌀 19:12, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
    207.96.32.81 (talk) 04:31, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
    Wait/Oppose based on above arguments (particularly in regards to copyright). Hurricane Clyde 🌀 19:11, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

    Comment. It's a photo the Trump transition team published on their X account, i.e., it's not in the public domain. Here is the deletion request on Wikimedia Commons. We'll replace the 2017 official portrait if and when the new administration releases an updated official portrait. What was TeamTrump, whoever they are, thinking when they published the pictures, Trump with a droopy eyelid and Vance looking like a tired, bearded hamster. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 15:08, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

    I challenge you to take an actually good photo of Trump. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 15:55, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
    Our current one is a good photo, if one is able to perceive it objectively. Good composition, lighting, and color balance, there's a somewhat-genuine-looking smile, and there's no smoke coming out of the ear that took a bullet. ―Mandruss ☎ 01:32, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
    Trump with a droopy eyelid, the "fuck with me and I'll bury you" scowl, and almost comical dramatic film-noir lighting. ―Mandruss ☎ 01:45, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
    Nicholas Cage's character Spider-Man Noir from the film Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse comes to mind when you describe the portrait like so. BarntToust 01:51, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
    Maybe the scowl is just me. At minimum, he's trying to look like Edward R. Murrow or something. He's trying to project an image or persona, which is not encyclopedic. It belongs on his personal website, not Misplaced Pages. (Again, this is cart-before-horse pending resolution of the copyright question. Sorry.) ―Mandruss ☎ 02:24, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
    TeamDrumpf believes the portraits "go hard", so that's what they're thinking. Incoming prez's resembles image at Mug shot of Donald Trump. I'm assuming you meant Vance looking like a tired, bearded hamster as a complement to his work ethic, and as hamsters are cute. Def no BLPVIO there. BarntToust 22:05, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

    Duplicate edit requests/discussions

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

    Alternatively, if people prefer letting them get archived still, would anyone disagree with archiving them 12 hours after answered so the talk page does not get cluttered up? I am open to shorter timescales as well in either case, but would recommend a couple hours at least. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 02:26, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

    @Berchanhimez make an request to WP:RFPP to semi-protect the talk page. It's mostly IP editors doing this. BarntToust 02:28, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
    Talk pages are generally not protected if it can be avoided... but if an administrator agrees that is viable here (for at least the next week or so), then I would support waiting on this to see if they die down (and letting auto archiver take over the ones that are already here for now) with that. Going to make that request now, thanks. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 02:31, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
    And requested: WP:Requests for page protection/Increase § Talk:Donald Trump. Comments there are welcome, and if another solution is thought up here, please feel free to go contest that request. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 02:39, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
    They're gone after 24 hours per consensus 13. It's not like we have to live with them for the standard seven days. And it's a temporary problem that doesn't come up very often. I don't think they "clog up" the archive, as nobody browses archive pages top to bottom, and they don't create a lot of false positives in archive searches (in my experience). ―Mandruss ☎ 02:57, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
    Ah, I missed consensus 13's allowance for manually archiving after 24 hours. I agree that the "clogging" of the archives is the least significant issue. The clogging of this page however.. hopefully if an admin agrees temporary semi protection is warranted that will suffice, but if not (or if it's still a problem) I still think 24 hours may be too long if they continue increasing. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 03:02, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
    I wouldn't oppose semi, but some competent IPs might. In my view, avoidance of that is just one of the benefits of registration. ―Mandruss ☎ 03:07, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

    Add the new inagural portrait as you did with JD.

    See conversation above. — Czello 17:41, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

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

    Add new inagural portrait that was just released 102.45.12.11 (talk) 17:40, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

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

    Can someone change the Official Potrait with the New One?

    See above. — Czello 18:51, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

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

    new one is has now been released so can somebody change it? RAZAMUSI (talk) 18:00, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

    See above. Slatersteven (talk) 18:01, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 16 January 2025

    See above. ser! 19:40, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

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

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

    Change his image to the new 2025 one 98.110.25.50 (talk) 19:34, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

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

    Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 16 January 2025 (2)

    See above. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 22:29, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

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

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

    The official portrait needs to be updated to reflect the new term 2605:AD80:31:E9D4:6165:B789:93ED:7637 (talk) 22:28, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

     Not done see above. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 22:29, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    "America's Hitler" listed at Redirects for discussion

    The redirect America's Hitler has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Misplaced Pages:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 January 16 § America's Hitler until a consensus is reached. BarntToust 22:34, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

    Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 17 January 2025

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

    https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/hard-trump-vance-release-official-portraits/story?id=117760860 Edit photo to reflect new, official portrait. Proof of new portraits in link above. I can't upload the portrait myself. Andbmccu (talk) 00:01, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

    no Declined - as per original request above. MadGuy7023 (talk) 00:05, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Update his portrait

    See above -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 00:06, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

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

    He got a new one 🙏🙏 2601:189:4400:9EB0:CC51:4B5D:1DE1:5881 (talk) 00:04, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

     Not done Please review the talk page and contribute to ongoing discussions before making new threads. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 00:06, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 17 January 2025 (2)

    See above. -- zzuuzz 01:06, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

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

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

    Update the 2017 portrait for the new 2024 portrait (can be found online, around various social media posts and official donald trump posts) 108.52.86.90 (talk) 00:51, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

    It's a seriously horrible image. But probably should be used if it is indeed the official photo. O3000, Ret. (talk) 01:01, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
     Not done We can't use non-free images. -- zzuuzz 01:03, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Challenge consensus item 44

    I would like to challenge consensus at Talk:Donald Trump#Current consensus, item 44.

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

    I do not believe that Trump and Kim Jong-Un having talks about denuclearisation is necessary to impart general knowledge of Trump to the reader. It is not notable to try to "convince the fox not to be sneaky, and the fox then gets sly with you about it". Trump has done things far more directly notable than try to convince Kim to get rid of nukes, and those subjects will need to be expressed in the lede more than this, per MOS:LEAD. Things have been historically crowded at the lede, and I figure this ought to be discussed. BarntToust 01:19, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

    This made worldwide news at the time and was part of Trump's agenda for months, including several meetings with Kim and other stakeholders. It was a distinct break with the policy of other sitting presidents. It should be featured in the intro.--Jack Upland (talk) 01:53, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
    Meeting with Kim Jong Un was a major bullet point in his presidency with regard to foreign policy. I do not believe the progress—or lack thereof—on denuclearisation is worth noting in the lead, however. Especially given North Korea have not conducted a nuclear test since. To me, the unclear results are considerably less notable than the summits themselves. MB2437 02:38, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

    Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 17 January 2025 (3)

    See above. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 02:24, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

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

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

    Change the portrait pictures to 2025 presidential picture 74.101.41.69 (talk) 02:20, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

     Not done We cannot use images that are copyrighted. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 02:24, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 17 January 2025 (4)

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

    Update portrait to be Donald Trumps official 2025 portrait pre inauguration day. INSPIRATIONALXCAMREN (talk) 02:48, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

     Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit extended-protected}} template. - And see existing discussion above. ―Mandruss ☎ 02:49, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

    New Trump portrait copyright resolved

    Duplicate. See existing discussion above. Eligible for manual archival after this time tomorrow. ―Mandruss ☎ 05:20, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

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

    75px This portrait has been uploaded into public domain on official X account of U.S. representative Andy Ogles. Rochambeau1783 (talk) 04:42, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

    It has not been resolved. Just like how Trump cannot steal the copyright from a private photographer, a congressperson cannot steal the copyright either. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 05:01, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Categories:
    Talk:Donald Trump: Difference between revisions Add topic